<p>I think Oprah had a pretty tough upbringing. But I agree with you 100% on the point of your post. Unless you can take the kids out of the unstable environment that has little respect for education you will fail.</p>
<p>It’s not always as simple as an “unstable environment that has little respect for education,” either. I’m thinking of some of my son’s elementary school friends, who came from good, stable, two-parent homes, with healthy discipline and plenty of respect for education. What was lacking in these homes was a strong educational legacy, strong literacy, and the kind of high-quality, practical academic reinforcement that comes from those things. I’ve watched these kids grow up because they’re still in touch with my son; they’ve done pretty well, all graduating from HS and in at least one case going on to community college. They are success stories, given their circumstances; but if you compare them to other kids from more advantageous circumstances, they will look like mild disappointments. And if you measure teacher performance without allowing for this reality, you’ll get misleading results.</p>
<p>Geoffrey Canada was on Letterman last night [Late</a> Show - This Week’s Guests - CBS.com](<a href=“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (Official Site) Watch on CBS”>http://www.cbs.com/late_night/late_show/show_info/this_weeks_guests.php)</p>
<p>I’m not that worried about the kids from middle-class households failing in school or not. As you indicated, most will come around to lead successful lives. Not so with many in the environment I was talking about. The majority will end up in jail at some time.</p>
<p>barrons, I said “stable,” not “middle-class.” The families I was referring to are not middle-class by the definition of the word I would use, and certainly not by the more upscale definition I suspect most CCers would use. I’m talking about what most people would call “working class” or even “working poor” families.</p>
<p>OK, whatever income level you want to use. Still a world of difference unless you are talking meth-head type “families”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not particularly worried about them failing (especially with today’s grade inflation), but I am worried about their academic achievement relative those of other countries. In addition to showing problems with poor urban schools, the film points out that middle class suburban schools are also underachieving.</p>
<p>The top 5% of U.S. students rank far below the top 5% students of many other countries, according to TIMSS data. The problems with our educational system are not limited to those of poor urban schools.</p>
<p>Anyone notice there is a similar thread in the prep school froum?
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/prep-school-parents/1001510-waiting-superman.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/prep-school-parents/1001510-waiting-superman.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As discussed previously on this thread, some of that underachievement is related to deficits in content, priorities, delivery of education. As discussed on another PF thread, an additional strong component is the pull from the peer and wider culture to resist the work essential to achievement. a resistance which in some cases is being ignored (or denied) at home, in other cases is being impotently addressed at home.</p>
<p>Article on the Harlem Children’s Zone in today’s Times.<a href=“In Harlem Children’s Zone Schools Have Their Own Problems - The New York Times”>In Harlem Children’s Zone Schools Have Their Own Problems - The New York Times;
<p>Despite the misgivings some critics have about the social services aspect, this is what I have always liked best about Geoffrey Canada’s approach. When my H was a pediatrician in Newark, what he saw was the constant of kids not getting to school because of asthma. Much of what keeps learning down in inner city schools happens outside the classroom–there is little that can be done about that without hugely increasing spending on social services–but what school system can or will do that on a city-wide scale? HCZ is backed by huge amounts of private donations. </p>
<p>This quote, though, stood out to me in the article, reflecting my misgivings on the “charter” model (it refers to the HS which is part of the HCZ system):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The kids didn’t measure up?–find new ones. Yeah, that’s a tragedy, but one committed by his school. I find that very troubling.</p>
<p>I apologize if I repeat something that has already been said, I can’t read the whole 21 page discussion.</p>
<p>However, I find debates regarding our educational policy interesting. In my opinion, the best thing that can be done for our educational system is to eliminate the Department od Education all together.</p>
<p>Education, specifically how a child or group of children should educated (delivery vehicle), should be a local issue. What may show great success in Idaho may be a miserable failure in California, as the two states have opposite cultures, identities, economies, and at times, values (just pulling two states out of thin air).</p>
<p>However, federal control eliminates school districts from operating independently and developing what practices work best for them, as they are all “graded” on the same scale, as if each district was identical. </p>
<p>Personally, I think this is an obvious solution. Who wouldn’t agree that smaller organizations operate the most efficiently compared to massive cumbersome ones that are being crushed under their own weight?</p>
<p>This of course, would also put more control into the hands of the parents which would have more say in how their child is educated. If a change needs to be instituted, the decision maker could be reached in few steps, not navigating through a massive bureacracy.</p>
<p>For people who say that the Department of Education is necessary, please show me some proof. The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act flooded the educational system with funding and regulation. Initially, this act (Title 1) was only suppose to subsidize the nations most poverty stricken schools, but by the end of the decade (a mere 5 years later) the program was funding 60% of public schools, and today it is the largest federal subsidy program for public education.</p>
<p>Now, this funding is a good thing, right? Obviously, if these schools in need are getting more funds than the education must also be improving?</p>
<p>Well, no…it hasn’t improved and the the logic of more money = better education has been completely disproven. Since 1970 (since the funding began) Math and Reading scores has remained stagnate, with virtually no improvement whatsoever and Science scores have decreased. </p>
<p>While no improvement has been made in Math, Reading and Science the funding has EXPLODED by 190%. Can you believe that, 190% increase in funding and scores have actually went down!</p>
<p>You think that after 40 years people would have realized that throwing money at the problem didn’t work, but unfortunately they just thought that the solution was just to throw money, faster and less responsibly.</p>
<p>Here are the Department of Educations annual budget for the past three years (2011 established budget included).</p>
<p>2009 $32 Billion
2010 $56 Billion
2011 $71 Billion</p>
<p>Does anyone smell something fishy? In a period of just one year, the departments budget increased a wopping $24 Billion, a 75% increase. </p>
<p>Now, let’s think reasonably here. If you or I managed a division in a company, and for 40 years our division showed no profit (IE improvement in education), would you be rewarded with a nearly blank check and a doubled budget? No, I think not. </p>
<p>Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is, “doing the samething over and over again and expecting different results.”</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure Einstein would agree that our educational system is, by definition, insane.</p>
<p>
Ugh. Awful thread over there with some wordy posters engaged in what appears to be a catfight!</p>
<p>
That’s the epitome of the “run education like a business” mindset, and a perfect example of why it doesn’t work.</p>
<p>I just bought (and am devouring) Diane Ravitch’s “The Death and Life of the Great American School System.” She makes some of the same points I’ve been trying to make, but with a lifetime of research and experience to back them up. It’s not a perfect book–it should have been more tightly edited, for one thing–but it’s inspiring reading if you believe in public schools.</p>
<p>CTTC-
Loks like that other thread is back on track and on topic again.</p>
<p>Michelle Rhee resigned yesterday (this was no surprise after she met with the “presumptive mayor”) [url=<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/12/AR2010101205658.html]washingtonpost.com[/url”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/12/AR2010101205658.html]washingtonpost.com[/url</a>]
She did an interview on GMA this morning</p>
<p>To me this was no shocker. I think everyone in DC expected it for many reasons, but the top 2 were:</p>
<p>Feinty lost, and she was used as a reason for why he did not win.</p>
<p>She is engaged to be married. Her fiancee lives in CA. It is an easy decision now to move to CA instead of staying here and trying to fight for a job.</p>
<p>^ yes, both of those issues were discussed in the GMA interview</p>
<p>Bumping this thread for all the new readers of CC.</p>
<p>To be honest I saw the movie for the first time today and it was even better than the comments in this thread indicated … this is very unusual for me but I have to admit I cried while they showed the results of the lotteries for entry into the charter schools discussed in the movie.</p>