<p>BG, I'm not trashing the public schools. I'm slinking under the disgrace of how we, the American public, have failed to support them.</p>
<p>Sometimes it helps if the students actually give a crap. Many are just there because they have to be and to socialize.</p>
<p>barrons, you have a very jaundiced view of our six-year-olds. Have you looked in their eyes lately?</p>
<p>My favorite bumper sticker says:, " I child-proofed my house but the little SOB got in anyhow". So maybe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just how much respect and remuneration do you suppose the average first-grade teacher in this country gets? (Remember, first-grade is where most of us are introduced to reading, writing, and arithmetic, and I'd posit that's where our attitude towards schooling is set.)
[/quote]
Actually, reading writing and 'rithmetic is now standard Kindergarten fare. (No naps, only one recess - and it's a short one, and the principal suggested we get rid of the "housekeeping center", but LOTS of reading, writing and 'rithmetic in Kindergarten now.) ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, reading writing and 'rithmetic is now standard Kindergarten fare
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, I know, but I was trying not to think about that. My youngest two went to Waldorf school where kindergarten is about baking bread, fingerknitting, playing dress-up, listening to fairytales, and ... playing.</p>
<p>I thought about pleading for canonization of kindergarten teachers (we had a saint) but thought LJ readers might better recognize the influence of the first-grade teacher (which of course in Waldorf offers only a taste of academics).</p>
<p>My D went to a catholic school for K and 1st grade. The K teacher was all business. Parents must take an active part in the learning process or the kid is out. (Can't really do that with public schools.) The core of the class was reading and math. The kids had fun and most were reading by Christmas break. The sister told me that she'd never had a child not learn to read by the time school was out in June. She had been a K teacher for 20 years. </p>
<p>D began 2nd grade at a public. Came home at the end of the first week and said, "I don't know how they expect us to learn anything when we're always at recess!" She adjusted quickly to the idea of recess. My S started K the same time and I was more then a little disappointed with the program. I think a good start is most important.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think a good start is most important.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree completely. But for us, the "good start" was grinding flour and baking bread. Waldorf schools promote playfulness and oral tradition in the kindergarten and don't expect the children to be reading till second grade. It's an archaic view that grew out of Steiner and anthroposophy, but turns out modern developmental neurobiology supports it. My Waldorf kids thrived and both remain very capable students.</p>
<p>Agree with much that has been said. As a teacher, I can tell you that many of the problems we have stem from ideas that came about 20 years ago or so that we shouldn't damage the child's self-esteem. (Apparently, CA and now FL have really bought into this, at least according to the educaiton classes I recently took.) Apparently, failure ruined it, so education went to passing them all. Now, trying to turn back the clock, we are dealing with people who are used to passing without having to do much and many care more about gaming the system and getting the A's than whether or not their child is learning anything. The best teachers in our school, who demand excellence are put through the emotional and stressful ringer continually - by parents! Poor Johnny shouldn't have to study so hard! They pay lip service about supporting the schools, etc., but when it comes to their child... And yes, there is a large element where success in school is not socially acceptable. Interestingly, I kept my D in public schools, because the education was far superior than that in the private schools in our area. In many cases, kids who couldn't cut it in public school went to the private school and received all A's. I taught them - I know that shouldn't have happened! Some of the private schools need the tuition and are handing out the A's as well. One of my students who failed three classes was transferred to one of these and he not only graduated with honors, but he finished in 2 years! We later found out he was on drugs. Surely that improved his performance at the private school. (Since the private is accredited, we are forced to take their credits, but we cringe when we get a kid from the "you pay for your A school") So not all privates are on the same level, and not all publics are, either. If the public school has the true and real support of the community to raise standards and in so doing, increase the failure rate until the kids and parents adjust, then it can do something. But if the community does not support students having to work to the higher level nand risk the consequences if they don't, nothing will improve.</p>
<p>I see a lot of complaining in this thread about how poorly the public schools perform. Why is this a surprise? There are no real incentives to perform well; their "customers" (students) can't go anywhere else except at considerable extra expense, very few school districts incorporate financial incentives to distinguish good teachers from bad, few schools are willing to pay extra to find teachers for understaffed fields, etc. It is hard to imagine how a system that ignores the benefits of competition and refuses to give parents any choices could perform well. We all insist on choosing the right college for our kids, most of us insisted on looking around for the best preschool, but we still support a K-12 system that chooses our kids' schools based on our address. As always, it is the poor who suffer the most, but we are all paying the price when we have college classes full of kids who are wholly unprepared for "higher" education.</p>
<p>midmo:</p>
<p>I agree with you completely. The monopolistic, union-controlled public school system has by and large failed and needs to be overhauled. IMO, the first step is to introduce competition by giving parents a choice in which schools they can attend. This is best done through a voucher or some other "funding follows the student" mechanism. This system would have the greatest benefit for those most 'stuck' at the moment - those at the lower economic levels who can't afford to pay for private schools - their only other option at the moment. I'd also like to see the teacher's union abolished so that poor performing teachers can be easily fired and high performing teachers, even those without 20 or 30 years of teaching experience, can be rewarded at a higher level.</p>
<p>I'm a big believer in the law of supply and demand and hence competition. It works in business to produce a better product (generally at lower prices) and it'd work in the school system as well.</p>
<p>Several ideas/assumptions to consider:</p>
<p>Take a look at a country or two that widely uses school choice, and see how that system is working. We lived in Costa Rica for two and a half years; most people there sent their kids to private schools.</p>
<p>Would vouchers serve to expand the number of openings at private schools? Or would "voucher academies" spring up?</p>
<p>Is the teacher's union the main cause of not being able to easily fire poor performing teachers? My kids went to a highly selective and esteemed private school for ten years; the administration of that school didn't dare fire a teacher without a major reason (egregious theft, harassment of a sexual or racial nature) for fear of offending the teachers as a group. There was no teacher's union involved.</p>
<p>Just make sure you check and re-check your assumptions. Education doesn't behave like most private industry.</p>
<p>SuNa:</p>
<p>There have many many studies on the subject. Belgium uses school choice and it works quite well. I used school choice and had my kids in private school for K-6 and it worked quite well. I had a choice because I could afford it but many people don't. The teacher union is the strongest advocate for lack of any reform other than lining their pockets with more money, perhaps building nicer looking schools (the private I chose to pay extra for didn't have nearly the 'nice new buildings' of the public school). I do believe the unions are the biggest obstacle to firing underperforming teachers. If their school wasn't set up in a monopolistic system and the union couldn't exercise its power to block firings (or even paying strong-performing teachers what they're worth), the school system would be much better off. The irony is that if a voucher system was in place, there would probably end up being even more teachers employed than currently. But, of course, the union might lose some power and they wouldn't want that.</p>
<p>Education doesn't behave like private industry but perhaps it should.</p>
<p>In your case, you indicate that you're sending your kids to a private school. This means you have choice already. 'You' can fire the teachers by shifting your kids (and money) to another private schools. All I'm advocating is that others, including those at the low end of the economic spectrum, be permitted the same opportunity that I (and you) have already exercised.</p>
<p>Why would anyone think it wouldn't work? Why would anyone 'choose' to have no choice rather than a choice?</p>
<p>At the k-8 level, we have 12 public schools in our city and we have limited school choice (i.e., school assignments take choice into consideration, but also factor in SES, Zip code, and I believe, gender). The schools have very different curricula and pedagogies and attract different types of students.</p>
<p>In my area (which I believe is typical in the country), one is assigned to a particular public school based on residence location. Some people can petition to switch to other schools within the same school district but they may or may not be accepted based on capacity. It's almost always people trying to transfer for the schools in the less expensive neighborhoods to the schools in the more expensive neighborhoods since kids generally perform better there (not necessarily related to the money spent in the particular school though). There are only so many spots though so many kids end up with no choice. The other desired transfer is from the under-performing school district to the top-performing school district (which also tends to follow the wealth of the neighborhood). These kinds of transfers are even more rare due to capacity.</p>
<p>I saw a large difference in the educational level between the private school (where I spent less money per student than the state spends in the public school) and the public school. I investigated many schools, both private and public, before making my choice. If I found it wasn't performing to my expected level, I would have switched schools. Obviously, if enough parents did this, the school would have to either change their tun or go under. I'd like to see everyone have a choice of more than, for example, one school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some people can petition to switch to other schools within the same school district but they may or may not be accepted based on capacity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a crucial issue. And giving vouchers so that students can attend private schools will not solve this issue. First, the vouchers may not cover the cost of attendance; second, there may or may not be conveniently situated private schools for the vouchers to be used; and finally, the overchosen schools may not be able to absorb the extra students.</p>
<p>Our k-8 school was one of the overchosen schools, occupying the same building as an underchosen school. Ours had a long waitlist. The other was hemorrhaging students.</p>
<p>Glad to see I am not completely alone on this. The hypocrisy of politicians who oppose introducing choice is mind-boggling. They can afford to move their families into districts with good schools, or pay for private. And let us not forget all those public school teachers who put their own kids in private schools, but oppose vouchers because they will "bleed the public schools dry". (A quote from a teacher who didn't like my recent letter to the editor of the local paper on this subject.)</p>
<p>Demand plus vouchers will, after a lag, produce schools. Why shouldn't it happen? People keep talking about how education is not like other industries, but I really don't see that. Take a look at higher education, after all. Federal grants and loans ARE vouchers. The system works pretty well. We get choices, and the competition from private colleges keeps most public universities respectable, and in some cases, very good.</p>
<p>Midmo:
Our school was originally formed by parents whose children were on the waitlist of a successful school. The new school was modeled on the old one and has become one of the top schools. So it has been a success story. But not all new schools do as well. About ten years ago, some minority parents, feeling that their children were not properly served by the public schools, decided to create a charter school. Unfortunately, the school has been underperforming and is on the state's watch list. Another school has been trying to reinvent itself but has been so far unable to raise performance to more acceptable levels. In all these cases, the student populations and the level of parent involvement have been crucial factors.</p>
<p>marite:</p>
<p>That's strange and I think unusual about the two polar opposite schools occupying the same building. Were these public?</p>
<p>With vouchers (especially if they're 'full value' vouchers), I think think the over-chosen schools would likely expand to meet the need and other schools would be started to mirror the successes if the over-chosen schools. More importantly, I think it would force the under-performing schools to make changes that parents are looking for and are willing to spend their money (vouchers) on and eventually would improve. They'd be left with little choice but to improve or go out of business.</p>
<p>There's no reason the choice would always end up being a private school. The choice may well end up to be public schools albeit ones that meet the demands of the parents and that perform at an acceptable level.</p>
<p>I don't mean to over-simplify the issues. There are many other issues that affect the end result (parents themselves are a large factor) but I think introducing competition in schools and teachers would be a significant improvement.</p>