Steve Jobs Blames Education Problems on Teacher Unions

Parents Forum
481

<p>The "union mentality." How easily you throw that phrase out. What would you think if I threw out a phrase such as, say, the "Republican mentality." And then I said that the "republican mentality" supported women using hangers for abortions, putting our social security dollars into the hands of Wall Street sharks, allowing corporations to do whatever they want to make money, including polluting our air and rivers, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest 10% of Americans who make over 1 million dollars a year while 46 million of their fellow americans go without health insurance, and giving those tax cuts proudly, happily and with no guilt at all over the $$ taken out of the tax revenues which provided health care for poor kids and health care for old people. Goody! The republicans care about their fellow americans. NOT!!!</p>

<p>Is that fair to brush everyone with that brush?? No. Some Republicans still act like they are human beings, not profit centers.</p>

482

<p>Yeah. (Post 480) I would also like to see how far I get with substituting scantrons for actual reading & math lessons, and doing so for 80K a year.</p>

<p>(I'm still back on the audacity of teachers to have planning periods and lunch periods. They should neither plan nor eat.)</p>

<p>Okay. I think I get the picture. </p>

<p>(We had those at one time in our history, up until the mid 1860's. They were called slaves, were severely punished for periods of "idleness," and made to wait to eat until their masters were served, which often meant that they ate at the end of the day -- their one square meal. )</p>

<p>Sure, I see no problem with this picture. One square meal for teachers, too. Completely logical. That's the way to get those lazy teachers working. Starve them & whip them into shape!</p>

483

<p>*which does sound better for propaganda purposes than two months and one week. *
Perhaps winter break- mid winter break and spring break were included-</p>

484

<p>Teachers at our high school don't even have a daily planning period anymore. Most of them work right through lunch. </p>

<p>I also see terrible teachers who should be fired (including the ones burning rubber at 3 p.m.)...there are, without question, two very distinct and valid sides to the pro-anti union argument.</p>

<p>What can't be disputed is the idea that thanks to federal mandates, extremely difficult children are requiring more and more time and money. The school systems cannot deny their "special needs", and if those special needs require a $100K a year residential placement, or a $45K yearly day school, the school system is required, by federal law to pay? You think this doesn't happen? You aren't living in my reality. </p>

<p>And the kids who don't leave the system (those costing taxpayers millions of dollars a year), are left disrupting regular classrooms, which may cost somewhat less (a one-to-one aide, might still run $30K per student) than an out placement, but still drains taxpayers' dollars.</p>

<p>This is all excused under federal law. And yet, there is no federal relief for these programs. So, while some students are educated for $8-10K, whatever the town budget is per pupil, some students are educated (the term is loose too, since perhaps the only expectation at the end is that the child can wash his own face and tie his shoes...I know someone with a child in this position) at the tune of $50-100K a year, at my taxpayer expense.</p>

<p>It's outrageous.</p>

485

<p>
[quote]
.I know someone with a child in this position) at the tune of $50-100K a year, at my taxpayer expense.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Something like a third of our education budget goes to special ed. And yes some of those sp. ed. kids will be lucky to tie their own shoes. Others of course will do much better than anyone dreamed possible twenty years ago. No easy answers.</p>

486

<p>No doubt. I don't advocating returning to the days of institutionalizing or warehousing children, turning them into untouchables.</p>

<p>As it is, the PC pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. The current funding situation is untenable, and is harmful to children in the mainstream. A little sanity would bring that pendulum back towards the middle. I just don't see that happening without a tremendous hue and cry, which would be seen as an assault by the special ed parents. Thus, no one says a thing, and we keep funding these absurdly costly services and placements, regardless of the needs of the majority, whose needs are compromised as a result.</p>

487

<p>in our district special education students have three pots of money
There are the federal dollars that are attached to IDEA (Individuals</a> with disabilities act )
The state money for education of special education students,
and the money that the district recieves for * each* student, whether they be SPED,bilingual or just the kid next door.</p>

<p>The money the school receives for the student must be spent on their IEP, if that money isn't enough to cover the services needed, the state has safety net funding the district can apply for.</p>

<p>This is reality.</p>

<p>I have been on budget committees for schools, and the principal who has to sign off on the budget, is putting* all* that IDEA money into the general fund, reasoning that it will trickle down to the SPED student.
This happened throughout the district, and resulted in principals complaining that they didn' t have enough money, when in reality, if they really didn't have enough money, they could have applied for safety net funding, but since they couldn't account for where the IDEA money was spent, and prove that they needed more, they couldn't apply.</p>

<p>I do acknowledge that a few special cases make headlines.
But I would wager that more often than not, when a SPED student is identified it is more along the lines of my daughters experience.</p>

<p>She is identified as having a "specific learning disability"
THis is indicated because her performance, lags quite a bit, behind her intelligence.
The IEP is written up before the meeting with parents even happens.
When the meeting occurs, there is little to no discussion about what would be helpful for her, even though mom has tried to read the law, and manages to get a couple things inserted, like ability to tape record lectures, and having the assignment written down.
She signs the IEP, being reminded that her signature is not approval, only that she was there.
When she later gets a copy, she sees that her additions have been whited out before a copy was made.
She finds later, that the district attorney has commented that it is easier to not provide services, and wait until the few parents who have resources and motivation enough for legal action, to sue.
Her IEP stipulated as I mentioned above one hour of resource time a day.
She did not have this until middle school when it was a regular class.
As I also mentioned, while all those years the school was receiving THREE pots of money for her, in middle school her class consisted of her sitting off to the side doing her homework, while the teacher worked on sentence structure with about 8 other kids.
Also legally required in her IEP, was an evaluation of her IEP, to be given out at the same time as report cards. All through middle school this was not done. Despite my protesting to the school/district/state, that what they "were doing" wasn't helping her, she didn't get an evaluation, until the end of the year- when surprise- the test found that she hadn't made "any" progress.</p>

<p>I eventually gave up expecting the school to educate her around her LD, and paid for Kumon, with money taken from our mortgage- good thing I had a mortgage, many families do not.
The school of course, continued to receive this extra money- but what did they do with it? They couldn't tell you.</p>

<p>Although she didn't make progress in math in several years at that school, despite having an IEP specifically for that, and despite having at least two hours a day - supposedly available for that- things did change, when she changed schools.
When she changed schools for high school, she tested about 2 grade levels behind- however, without an IEP, but with teachers who actually were able to provide focused instruction- now as a junior she is at grade level, not only taking honors chemistry and grade level math, but getting an A in chemistry and in math and a B in APUSH.</p>

<p>I agree that funding for all children should be increased- when funding for all children is increased- the percent for SPED students will also go up.
BUt money for SPED students comes from three sources & we need to have accountability, that it is going to them.
Not to foot the general fund with IDEA dollars.</p>

<p>Districts in our state, recently sued the state to receive more SPED dollars, but the judge has ruled, that they have not proved they need more money ( probably cause they can't prove they spent it on the students)
ttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003598364_webspeced02.html</p>

<p>While I realize a small percentage of the population has very high needs and needs residential care, more often students don't qualify but could benefit from special education if appropriate.
My oldest daughter, for example has an IQ of 160+, but she was below grade llevel in math. Howver in our district, you had to be TWO grades below, in everything to even be considered for services.
Which is why she attended private schools since the district would not consider her eligible for either gifted education or extra support.</p>

<p>They have since corrected the wording, but still students who are twice "special" gifted and learning disabled, dont recieve appropriate instruction in most schools.</p>

<p>( At Ds high school- all teachers ahve a planning period, its in their contract- math teachers have TWO- they also get to eat lunch :) )</p>

488

<p>I was going to paste -Allmusic-'s post 484 into my reply, but I would have had to paste 100% of it in. (It was all accurate.)</p>

<p>I think, btw, that much of the widely differing perspectives on union protection & on the degrees of competence vs. incompetence, diligence vs. laziness (wide diff's of opinion by parents as one group, wide diff's of opinion by teachers as another -- including for <em>each</em> of the groups the full range of the spectrum) -- is caused by one's location (not just state, but school, district, city). If one teaches in a high-academic-need, socially & economically impacted area, nonperforming teachers will be the exception. Even setting aside "union protection" (which again, often doesn't exist in charter situations), these teachers are often the cream of the dedicated. Clearly they are not in it for some glam working conditions, easy results, scantron-based "teaching", or racing out to the parking lot at 3. (I don't know which State this last refers to, btw: credentialed teachers in my State have always been required by law to put in after-school hours or equivalent before-school hours. A principal who allows a bare 8:15- 3 presence daily is an incompetent or dishonest <em>principal</em>. He or she is charged with noticing such things & correcting or removing such unprofessionalism. But that wouldn't occur to teacher-bashers to notice or understand. And it can be just as hard to fire a public-school principal as a public-school teacher. </p>

<p>Teachers in "academic war-zones" --for want of a better phrase -- are there out of commitment. Some are there because they are fairly new to teaching, and find the less glam jobs open. They often bring a freshness and zeal to the classroom, reinforced by their youth. (A recent Yale grad I know comes to mind, a new hire at one of these schools. Another that comes to mind is a more-experienced talented private middle school math teacher we know who turned down glam jobs teaching in the "rich" white hills, to teach in the poor non-white flatlands where he was desperately needed.) I actually have met middle class parents who are in-the-know about the quality & dedication of such teachers in such schools, and have made decisions to move their kids to these schools despite the economic environments -- recognizing the better overall quality of teacher there.</p>

<p>In schools very different from these, one will find a range of teaching -- from the lazy to virtual workaholics, from gifted to average to embarrassing. However, if you think that unions are the cause of such ranges in quality, think again. With 12 years as a private K-8 parent, & with similar experiences of friends as a reference point, the range of quality in my daughters' NON-UNION private school was as great, over that 12-yr period, as the collective reported experiences of all parents on CC about their various PUBLIC, UNION-PROTECTED schools. And it was only barely (almost imperceptibly) "easier" to fire the bad ones at the private. It required years of lobbying on the part of parents (after frequent, multiple, meetings & pleas with 3 different principals over several yrs' time). Two reasons for the length of time:<br>
(1) Overwhelmed principal, performing both academic & administrative oversight, in a school with large classroom sizes. The position called for 1.5 or 2 positions, which was budgetarily impossible within a system (diocesan) controlled by finite funds. So ultimately, one reason that bad teachers were not fired sooner rather than later, was money. A second administrator would probably have noticed.
(2) Any teacher who is employed within a system (public school teachers + any teacher within a privately operating system, such as a Catholic diocese) has "protections" by virtue of that system, with or without a union. (No unions in Catholic schools, yet there is protection.) </p>

<p>Therefore, a greater likelihood of finding a more uniformly capable teaching staff is to look to private, secular systems not "controlled" or operating within a system. (No union, no private system such as "chain" schools, no quasi-governmental apparatus such as a religious diocese, etc.) Do you realize what a small percentage of these there are among all K-12 schools, nationally? And the reason for that small percentage? Money! Now, they're filled to capacity & overflowing, in my State. But to build new ones to meet the real demand, also requires money. Entrepreneurs usually choose more lucrative & "easier" money than building & operating a school, which is a non-profit category & labor-intensive. Even a generously compensated Head of School cannot make, hour for hour, what an entrepreneur can make in a for-profit business.</p>

<p>Moreover, even such private schools are limited by their own internal politics & administrative decisions. My daughter's private secular <em>highschool</em> has hired, & has retained, teachers incapable of teaching the subject matter. This is an incredibly wealthy school, with a parent body among the wealthiest in the nation. Further (more importantly!), this rich school is afflicted with the same disease as my daughters' more budget-conscious Catholic school, heretofore not mentioned: extremely bad, or merely insufficient, curriculum in one or more subject areas. In the rich school, it's 1 core + 2 non-core areas; in the other school it was 3 core areas + 2 non-core areas. Great teachers at rich school have been limited in their results by extremely bad curricula; great + terrible teachers at the other school have similarly been limited. Those curriculum limitations have directly influenced TEST SCORES (and I can prove that), as well as private high school admissions dependent on such test scores, and college admissions dependent on test scores.</p>

<p>Bottom line:
The only teaching model where a direct pay-for-performance standard is feasible is a completely autonomous model: teachers acting as independent agents, each choosing his or her own curriculum, hired by and accountable to only the parent who hires him or her. No "system." No dependency on the decisions of others for materials, priorities, methodology. No structure within which to have to operate. Free agents. There's a name for these: private tutors (but also not associated with a "company" or system!). The rich, landed class of early American days hired such people, for their children. They expected results, and they got them.</p>

<p>This is why a voucher system will not work in the way that some parents expect dramatic improvements. Unless all teachers become free agents, independent of the governmental regulations which AllMusic and I and others have described, independent of school "systems," whether private or public, independent of material decisions made by others, results will continue to be dependent on a variety of factors removed from the bare competency of any teacher. You would have to get the gov't to agree to pay a stipend to each such free-agent teacher, redeemed by any family.</p>

<p>A better way to ensure, or at least, promote, excellence in results is for parents (light bulb!) to play their roles as independent free agents. (What a concept!) You act as such a free agent in the way that you supplement, enrich, and monitor your children's work, in all subjects. This is the only control you have, or at least the best control you have. Stop worrying about whether you can control the unions, the districts, the boards, the principal, the diocese. (You can't.) In or out of that system, you, the parent, can make a difference. This is clearer to those parents who've made a decision even to temporarily homeschool a child through a public charter homeschool: the success of the student is directly dependent on the available resources & chosen dedication of the parent. The more enterprising the parent, the better the results. If the parent returns the child to a site school later, the child continues to gain because of the learned experience of the parent in taking educational initiative. </p>

<p>Find the least burdened, most competent "system" (and it will be a system, even microcosmically) that you can afford, and do not expect one-for-one results. You will "pay" extra in the labor you personally provide or the paid outside labor you provide, to supplement, correct, & enrich. I know I'm mostly Preaching to the Choir here, but there are still educated parents that expect way too much in direct results from specific teachers (even the best ones): unrealistic results. In rich homes, poor homes, middle class homes -- more education & opportunity for education, occurs in the home, through the home, than outside. Do the math; add up the hours.</p>

<p>I went to fabulous, fabulous public schools. 90% of my teachers were fantastic. I did extremely well there, and my college admissions results also showed that. But did all or even most of my classmates do equally well? Of course not. It depended on their <em>parents</em> -- the intellectual genes, and the priorities. We knew what the priorities were in our household, and it wasn't expensive vacations, electronic gadgets, or cars. It was education, first; everything else was sacrificed to that. And this was a very different era: an era of homogeneity in the public schools, an era of well-funded schools with all the extras, an era of respected, non-unionized teachers. <em>Still</em>, the parents made the difference.</p>

489

<p>Nice posts.</p>

490

<p>My turn to congratulate Epiphany. Excellent post. Education is ALL about the parents, and it's time we stop pretending that high performing kids and school systems aren't that way because of the drive, intellect and effort of these parents. It is the absolute bottom line.</p>

<p>EK, in my state, NO WAY are the fees for most of these outrageous special ed costs reimbursable by our state government. It is a crisis situation, but our state returns only a percentage on the dollar of money spent for these placements. There is NO, and I repeat NO, "safety net". We don't have enough money to educate the 100+ students out of district at the tune of multi-million dollars. It's too bad. We have to come up with the money, and the place the money is found is in the regular eduction budget. These millions don't even cover the mainstreamed special ed students like your daughter, or others who really need to be able to access the curriculum differently.</p>

<p>So the regular education students won't have new textbooks or supplies, will have librarians or specialists cut, will have overcrowded classrooms, decaying infrastructure, increased user fees, and some kids will use millions of dollars of money, that could have been divided out among ALL the regular ed students. We do not have tax relief, except a small portion, from our state government, and certainly none from the federal government. We are funding these budgets by indiviudal property taxes, and it is hard to imagine that this is the way to do things.</p>

491

<p>*My daughter's private secular <em>highschool</em> has hired, & has retained, teachers incapable of teaching the subject matter. *</p>

<p>Why stand for that?
( I think others have also made the point that private schools are hardly the only places where incompetent teachers could be found- the difference are usually that public school teachers are protected by tenure- I don't know why a private school community would put up with crappy teachers- those jobs are usually considered plum and sought after)</p>

<p>My daughters private high school had fabulous teachers-
in general paid less than public school teachers- although the parents do raise money to supplement teaching as well as for scholarships.</p>

<p>Several of the teachers have won national and state recognition for their teaching and programs- even teachers who don't have education degrees.</p>

<p>While I would agree that in general, math instruction whether it be in the private or public sector has been the weakest area- the instruction in private school in math has been superior to what her sister had in public.</p>

<p>The private school has been blessed with a very strong director- the original director in fact and a strong guiding board. She attended there from 6th through 12th and while the middle school was slightly less strong than the high school- we were very happy with the high school. I would expect several of her classmates to say the same. In fact two students from her class of 18 are now teaching at the school :) ( and several from other years are teaching there as well)</p>

<p>Not to be redundant, but this school does an excellent job at teaching students who are very bright, but especially students who are very bright with learning differences. Something the school district doesn't acknowledge.</p>

<p>Im not arguing for vouchers- my daughter received scholarships from private schools without them, something that is admittedly merit as well as need based I assume, but while it is true private schools can pick their student body, we also see differentation in student body, in the district, by neighborhood and program.</p>

<p>I would be interested in trying charter schools though
Giving school communities a chance to develop an identity other than * one size fits all*
For example
Ds public high school has a well known music program.
Very well known actually with very strong instructors.
Students from the program continue to schools like the New England conservatory and Oberlin. ( and continue into professional careers)
However- the district has decided that while music isn't critical to a high school diploma " career education" is.
But music doesn't count as "career education"
They want her school- as all Seattle high schools to offer 20% of their classes as "career" classes.</p>

<p>( At a time when they don't have enough core classes- they would rather have students take "family systems" or "Nutrition and wellness"- how can that be considered a career themed course? Wouldn't they need basic biology if they are going to pursue a career as a nutritionist?)</p>

<p>A charter school, could operate outside that dictum, and be a music magnet school- or a tech magnet school.</p>

<p>I realize that some areas have problems with charter schools - but I see them trying to make all the schools the same & that fits high school students about as well as the same dress fits someone who is 5'2 and 120 lbs and someone who is 5'7" and 170.</p>

492

<p>"Why stand for that?" (EK) We private school parents have gone to the Head of School, but he has chosen to refer such hiring/firing decisions inappropriately to another dept. Previously I had never known of such a school doing this, but it is true here, and no parent realizes that until it's "too late." (Child already enrollled; very, very difficult to transfer to a diff. private after freshman yr.) This is also <em>the</em> best school in the region, for a variety of reasons. To vote with our feet & pocketbooks would be to our disadvantage.</p>

<p>Nor am I suggesting that parents do not continue to lobby, rally, scream, pass State propositions, engage in civil disobedience in all the various ways they know how, even LOL, armed rebellion -- whether the school is public or private. Go for it. All I'm saying is that even in the educational utopia that I consider my own K-12 education, parents were instrumental in all cases, and critically so. For example, my mother gave me a phenomenal, free literary, artistic, & musical education even on top of the glam education I was getting in my publics. (And we students regularly got field trips to Children's Opera, to the symphony, on & on, funded by the schools.) My father supplemented that with history, geography, science, & math. (And although we received great geography in my schools.) Both of my parents regularly increased my vocabulary and provided supplemental spelling "lessons" (informally). In an era preceding sperm banks & other reproductive opportunities, I chose my parents well.;)</p>

<p>EK, charters (for which I work) have their own drawbacks. They are two:
(1) governmental system, with some associated restrictions. (Cf. earlier posts by Allmusic & self)
(2) extremely bare-bones budgets. In the site charters in my area, you will get NO music, art, drama, P.E., school sports. Five core subjects, no resource teachers, no after-school e.c.'s for highschoolers (which, as we've seen, are critical to college acceptances!). And I do mean nothing. The resources of these schools are almost Third-Worldish in appearance. State approves very little if you're site, even less if you're homeschool charter. Your State may be better budgeted, better equipped to fund charters, whatever. Because the public disgust in my State is so massive, the charter movement is enormous, and thus subject to budget management to an extreme. And as to Special Ed of any kind in charters, both site & non-site charters are subject to sharing when it comes to credentialed teachers in that specialty. One will by no means get the level of access to funded Spec. Ed through a charter, that one does in a non-charter public.</p>

493

<p>To clarify what I said the other day, so much of the corruption happens at the local and state level, to place all the blame on the federal government is too simplistic and allows schools to brush off their responsibility for solving problems. I'd like to see less money spent on administration and more in the classrooms with smaller class sizes, teachers who know how to teach, and stronger reading and math programs at the early ages when children are most likely to start experiencing trouble. Inept teachers can't be weeded out by the federal government, only a principal and parents know for sure what happens in a classroom. I've seen horribly inept teachers who can't teach math or reading at the elementary level, who are given tenure and remain in classrooms. It's extremely difficult to get a teacher removed for cause, unless the teacher breaks the law. Not everyone who wants to teach is capable of teaching children.</p>

494

<p>
[quote]
My turn to congratulate Epiphany. Excellent post. Education is ALL about the parents, and it's time we stop pretending that high performing kids and school systems aren't that way because of the drive, intellect and effort of these parents. It is the absolute bottom line.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, in a cousin thread, the same argument was made, but with the caveat that the parents were also responsible for the failures of the school. </p>

<p>What does happen when we push the same logic a bit further; schools with parental support (or wealth) function better than schools that do not have that support. And what happens to be sole common ingredient in both schools, especially in public schools? the obvious and extremely sad answer of a system that is profoundly failing the precise audience it is so adamant about protecting, namely the millions of children who did not have the luck of being born in wealth or in the right zip code. </p>

<p>As long as parents are able or willing to offer "turoring" help or support, our average education remains at the top of the worldwide statistics. As soon as this exclusively private help vanishes, the numbers plummet to the statistics we know. </p>

<p>No matter who the culprits really are, the quicker we realize that the current system is one that spends (read wastes) way too much for what it delivers, the better we will be. </p>

<p>I cannot help noticing the way charter schools are described as Third-Worldish because of their lack of amenities. Well, time might have come to study how some Third World countries are able to leave us in the dust in the things that MATTER. They may not have music, art, drama, P.E., school sports, but they find ways to provide better basic skills in math, reading, and writing than our country-clubs masquerading as schools are able to do. From some of the discussions on this site, it has become clear that teaching salaries of $35-40 per hour are considered a mere pittance. And yet, just 45 minutes south of our border, teachers make less than $500 a month. And please do not mention cost-of-living differences, they pay more for gasoline and basic supplies than they would across the border. The difference is that they do not live in 3000 feet houses and don't own one car per family member. Fwiw, the results of those children being taught by those impoverished teachers on our ACT and SAT are an unbelievable embarassment to their peers in the US. Seeing 8th graders routinely score 600 on the math portion is quite an eye-opener. </p>

<p>The reality is, without really knowing it, the United States has become a nation where misplaced entitlement reigns supreme. The fact that hardly anyone can afford the so-called minimum standards does not stop up from living on borrowed money and time. </p>

<p>Indeed, barebone schools taught by teachers who make about half of their public school peers might not be very attractive, but they are still better equipped than most schools are in the rest of the world. The fact that barebone school might not have what is needed for college is easily questioned. Except for a few sports such as football or basketball, school athletics are a lot less relevant than the out-of-schools sports. Volunteerism and other EC are hardly school dependent. And the list goes on!</p>

<p>Were we living in a system where everyone would be presented a DIRECT education bill as it is in the tertiary education, the situation might be different. Right now, our system of funding our "free" public education system maks the real cost from most users of the system. This explains the typical surprise and dejection when college costs are presented to parents who used public education. If everyone had tp pay for his or her "use" we might witness quite a lowering of the expectations. A barebone school at 5000 might look a lot better than the $12,000 state cadillac version.</p>

495

<p>Xiggi, parents are teaching their children and doing the work teachers should be. If the parents don't, they hire tutors to do the job. Some students are so bright and able they don't need any teaching, they learn on their own. The educators' answer to poor teaching seems to be throwing more and more money into a system that is not working. It solves nothing.</p>

496

<p>Re Post 493:</p>

<p>I didn't see either AllMusic or myself "exclusively blaming" the federal gov't. It is just that the performance of teachers is largely affected, if not controlled, by many factors, including various levels of gov't, from the immediate level you mention, up to the federal gov't. In my region, the greatest level of control belongs neither to the local arena nor to the national, but to the State.</p>

<p>Re Post 494:</p>

<p>I don't think that my point in describing charter schools as Third Worldish was to criticize their bare-bones aspect, but to situate parents very firmly in the reality of what they do and do not provide. The caveat pertained to their real lack of special services of any kind, most noticeably for anyone with a documented need for Special Ed. Secondly, since e.c.'s are indeed crucial for applications at most "selective" colleges (a self-described term used quite broadly by colleges), and since many families cannot afford pricey off-campus e.c.'s, the absence of e.c.'s in charter site schools is or may be significant for anyone posting or lurking on CC. (Consumer beware.)</p>

<p>Further -- and although I didn't make the point earlier -- I'll make it now. Nowhere are class divisions more pronounced than in my State -- the State with somewhere near a 6th or 7th-place position, internationally, in Gross Domestic Product. Not Arkansas, not Mississippi. I'm underwhelmed that South of the Border teachers may get less than $500/month, and that (therefore?) charter schools and/or their teachers, parents should be grateful by comparison. Comparisons such as this are ones that I believe should not apply to a State with enormous financial potential. The huge disparities here, among publics, and between publics and ritzy privates, are examples of Inequality of Opportunity. It's just that the unions bear, overall, less responsiblity than some of the public seems to believe. (Steve Jobs et al.)</p>

497

<p>
[quote]
Because the public disgust in my State is so massive, the charter movement is enormous, and thus subject to budget management to an extreme.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Epiphany, forgive me asking, but isn't your state California? </p>

<p>I know that from the 3,600 charter schools across the U.S. California has more charter schools than any other state and that 20 percent of the students attending a charter school nationwide are in California. However, in California, only 1 out of every 20 public schools is a charter, and only 1 out of 50 students goes to a charter school. </p>

<p>Has it been growing so rapidly that it feels massive because of the speed of change? </p>

<p>PS I am not questioning the information; I am really curious. Also, I really enjoy learning from your posts, especially the discussions on the needs of Special Education.</p>

498

<p>
[quote]
As long as parents are able or willing to offer "turoring" help or support, our average education remains at the top of the worldwide statistics. As soon as this exclusively private help vanishes, the numbers plummet to the statistics we know.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Parental support does not necessarily have to involve "tutoring" or other help in order to make a difference in a school's peformance. Simply having parents for whom education is a priority goes a long way toward oustanding school performance. </p>

<p>I can tell you that without fail (yes, xiggi I am well aware this is anecdotal and cannot be substantiated with documentation) when I have had students who have parents at home who insist that they perform academically those students have been successful. Not all these students have been future Rhodes scholars, and what constitutes success is different for students with a wide range of abilities. </p>

<p>I realize as well as anyone that not all parents have the same resources in the home or because of other commitments they are not all able to come to PTSO/PTA meetings or donate their time in other ways. But I have seen many of these same parents who refuse to accept performance that is anything less than the best their child is capable of. That's not to say they demand straight A's from their children, but they do expect their child to diligently at school. Not doing homework, or failing to study for an exam is unacceptable in their family. If their children's teachers offer extra sessions after school as I and many of my colleagues do these parents make sure their child is able to attend. If I mention an enrichment opportunity such as a lecture these parents make sure their child goes is there. These things have nothing to do with income, or tax bracket or donations of time and/or money to the school. My school draws students from the entire county from every socio-economic background. Some of my best students live in single-parent homes in subsidized housing, but their parents have stressed the importance of education to their children. Because they believe as Mark Mathabane's (author of Kaffir Boy) mother said to him, "Education will open doors where none seem to exist.</p>

<p>I have also had students who have parents who say that Johnny can't possibly come for help after school because it would interfere with football practice. One of our school system's initiatives is that every child will be reading at or above grade level by the end of 5th grade. Our system offers summer reading and math programs FREE with free transportation, free breakfast and free lunch, regardless of income bracket. The only requirement for attending is that the student must be below grade level. In my wife's capacity one of her responsibilities is to call parents to offer the program to children. She has had parents say to her, "I don't know, I'll have to see if Johnny/Mary wants to come." For God's sake the child is reading below grade level and they have to see if the child wants to come? </p>

<p>The point is that parental involvement can be positive or it can be negative. I would never dream of begrudging a parent fighting for the very best education for their children whether that means insisting on Special Ed services, or ESOL services or gifted/enrichment services. It is a school's responsibility to provide these things. But it is a parent's responsibility to make education a priority. Those who do are a godsend to us teachers.</p>

499

<p>"parents are teaching their children and doing the work teachers should be."</p>

<p>How can you make such encompassing generalizations? So no teachers are "doing the work they should be doing?" Teachers I know do not expect parents to be their surrogates. They merely are observant enough & realistic enough to understand how much more time parents spend with students than teachers do. It's a matter of time allocation. You want teachers to do more than teach 7:30 - 3:30? (In many cases) Then ask teachers if they will board your student in their homes for a fee. Further, it's been demonstrated through research (sorry, don't have the citations handy), that a divergence of educational approaches and styles advantages the student. A student learning from mainly one person (or very few people) will be at a disadvantage versus those with multiple learning streams. That's just the way cognition works. It would be like using one encyclopedia for all your reference, or learning from a colonial tutor. There's a base of learning there, but it's narrow & certainly not sufficient for the variety of interdisciplinary skills expected of the 21st century global citizen.</p>

<p>As I've said, and illustrated often on even this thread alone, parents supplement (or fail to supplement -- depending on parental ability, willingness, personal strengths, available time). It's the supplemented (or enriched) students who have ALWAYS done well in U.S. public schools, any State, any time, any era since public schools began. The model has <em>never</em> been that teachers are or should be close to 100% responsible for a student's education, never. Any taxpayer who expected this at any time during the 20th or 21st centuries, in any U.S. location, is not in touch with educational reality.</p>

500

<p>Wharfrat, thank you for your latest post. It makes perfect sense, especially the last paragraph:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The point is that parental involvement can be positive or it can be negative. I would never dream of begrudging a parent fighting for the very best education for their children whether that means insisting on Special Ed services, or ESOL services or gifted/enrichment services. It is a school's responsibility to provide these things. But it is a parent's responsibility to make education a priority. Those who do are a godsend to us teachers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Will we have ever a system in which the responsibilities will be shared among true partners? I sure hope so!</p>