Too Smart to Teach?

[mattp]

Let's not forget cancelling funding for separate courses for gifted kids either. You can pretty much pinpoint the beginning of the decline of American public schools to the day when parents lost control of their kids and started trying to be their friends, and when the schools let vague political nostrums trump common sense in the classroom. Both casualties of some of the voguish nonsense spewed forth in the 1960's. "I'm not your teacher I'm your learning enabler" "Johnny, let's talk about why you just smacked Mommy across the face with your Power Ranger. That's not how friends treat each other - mmmmmkay?" Hurl. Both experiments against reality with incredibly predictable results.

 

I don't know how much of this you actually believe, but I can tell you that I know kids in Seattle Public Schools who are in excellent programs, and one of them is in an advanced placement program that she had to test into. They certainly have not cancelled funding for separte courses for gifted kids in the Seattle Public Schools anyway. And when was the last time you voted "yes" on a school levy, anyway?

 

The current political fad of railing against the public schools for poor performance, while attacking them on all fronts -- most notably taking away their pocket book -- is a real travesty. Putting aside all the rhetoric about family values and vouchers and testing, the very real end result can only be that we are drastically reducing the promise of equal opportunities in America and weakening the competitive ability of our workforce. It is a shame.

[chucK]

Nice reply Matt. JayB, you're more convincing when you spew about something you actually know the facts about.

 

Speaking of which, here's some facts...

 

NEXT TUESDAY (FEB 3) SPECIAL SCHOOL LEVY ELECTION IN SEATTLE! GO VOTE FOR THEM.

 

BTW: "Both measures renew existing levies, are part of the District's 10-year levy plan and will result in tax rates at or below current levels."

 

i.e. if these levies lose, it will result in a cut in current school funding levels. These levies are not asking for a "raise".

 

And if you don't want to vote for it, I'd love for you to post your rationalizations of how cutting school funding is going to

1) better the public education system in Seattle

2) better the ways of life for all those who have to live in a society full of illiterate morons.

Edited January 28, 2004 by chucK

[Peter_Puget]

Isn’t there an effort to fund “underprivileged” kids with a higher cap rate than privileged kids? So a school would receive less money to school my child than it gets for an underprivileged child? How would this affect my behavior?

 

When choosing a school for your own children there are a myriad of factors to consider and in the final analysis all a parent should be expected to do is what he/she feels is best for their kids. The sad truth is that given the resources the vast majority would opt out of public schools.

 

Here is an example of how privilege matters even in public schools. let’s take Viewland Elementary a fairly poor performing Seattle Elementary School. Let’s also add Coe and new campus with much better programs on Queen Anne. Suppose two people live on the same block near Viewland. One has few financial resources and takes the bus to work. This parent may have very little choice but to send their offspring to Viewland. The other parent in this example has more financial resources and works downtown chooses Coe and drops their child off every morning via a slight detour from their usually commute. I am sure that there is a distinct advantage in going to Coe over Viewland.

[chucK]

Peter,

I am not sure what you are arguing for, but I think you imply in there that the public schools are not the greatest. You certainly are not arguing that we should cut funding to better them are you?

 

By the way, you're example about Coe is not relevant. SSD provides bus transportation for children to a wide variety of schools.

[arlen]

I got my first teaching job because the dean rejected the first choice (an ivy league ABD), assuming that he wouldn't stick around a cash-strapped regional college. He was right: an elite education doesn't prepare one very well to teach in the non-selective institutions. I'm more surprised that the principal couldn't think of a more diplomatic way to call the guy a pompous ass.

[Peter_Puget]

Actually Chuck in recent real life planning for my kids timing and transportation was a big factor. Maybe it would not be to you.

[Jim]

So what's the point PP? You're not being clear.

[willstrickland]

Couple of points:

 

1. The article says his "demeanor" was part of the problem. Sounds like the 'ol pompous asshole problem to me. I had former college professors teaching in my high school, so I don't buy the overqualified bit.

 

2. Being intelligent isn't the most pressing qualification for teaching at the high-school level. You need a thorough command of high-school level subject matter. More importantly, you need to be intuitive as to how a particular kid learns (visual, verbal, tactile, etc), caring, and personable. Furthermore, a highly intelligent person may even typically be an inferior teacher because they've always grasped subject matter easily and can't see why others don't "get it".

 

I have a few friends who don't have Rhodes Scholar credentials or 1600 SAT intelligence, but are fantastic teachers because they can relate to the kids and present material in varied and interesting ways. I taught high school level natural sciences to adjudicated kids in Utah, and for me the hardest part was developing different ways to get the same material across to kids who learned differently.

 

3. The article says "one of the metro atlanta counties". Let's be clear here, the vast majority of schools in the metro (read suburban) counties surrounding Atlanta have a very low black population. I'd like to know which county because if it's Gwinnett, Cobb, Forsyth, or north Fulton there are very, very few black residents. Could have very well been a discriminatory situation.

[Stonehead]

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just know that throwing money at a problem, in itself, is not necessarily a solution. Rather it's not so much, how much money you have, but how you use the money that you have. Only a large quantity of money allows one the luxury of absorbing mistakes.

 

There's this dead statistician, Karl Popper, who said something along the lines that things cannot be proven, they can only be rejected after they are disproved. With that in mind, it seems that you have to run a social experiment to see if it is effective. That's essentially what's happening but it costs money without guarantee of spinoffs.

 

Other programs such as NASA receive huge amounts of money and technological developments issued from this program are touted as evidence of its worth. In my mind, I'd think that if we spent millions (billions?) of dollars on a grand scale project then you damn well get some spinoffs for the general public.

 

Seems that we're dealing with a two-pronged problem, i.e., increase educational accomplishments but insure that enough jobs are created to allow the educated populace to gainfully find employment. What's the point of having a well-educated but unemployed and/or underemployed population?

Edited January 28, 2004 by Stonehead

[Peter_Puget]

Point one Differntial funding seems lik it will increase the flight by those able from public schools.

 

point two All the BS aside the fact that most parents would given the resources send there kids to private schools is sad proof of how poor;y education has been managed in the US.

 

point three My sense is that many action by seattle public schools are attempts to reduce the flight from public schools and to the extent they are successful they are not helping the underprivliged.

Edited January 28, 2004 by Peter_Puget

[chucK]

Stonehead,

I think there is a spinoff to the public at large. We need people to be functionally literate to have a thriving society. If we keep injuring our already poorly performing schools by cutting funding we are going to have more totally illiterate people in our society. I think we're a long ways from worrying about educating people too highly for the available job pool .

 

Peter,

I am not trying to defend Seattle Schools as being perfect. I am sorry that the busses provided are not adequate for your situation, but I do think they provide a pretty good service. I think you are right that Seattle's school choice system is meant to reduce flight to private schools and is also a response to the pressure put on by the vouchers demagogues. There definitely could be a lot a money saved by not providing all the transportation that they do, but I think a lot of parents also value the freedom to choose any school they want.

[Jim]

I think your wrong. From my volunteer work with kids in the Seattle school system I see very strong support from parents and other adults in the community.

 

However, I would agree that there is a level of mis-management in the education system - and you can start with the No Child Left Behind Act. Talk about unfunded mandates and federal interference. Rather than take a comprehensive look at what effects kids in school it's easier to put together some arbitrary program tied to federal funds, which are a relatively small part of the education pie.

 

Sure there are public schools that are having difficulties. They have to take all comers, not like the private schools that have significant financial barriers. Kinda like health care in this country. On the other hand my wife teaches at a public school in Seattle that is an all-city draw, and there has always been a waiting list.

 

Economics play a big part. Do you think the kids in wonder-bread land of Bellevue are any smarter than the kids in the Central district of Seattle? Likely not. They come from a society with more wealth, less daily life stress, and parents who are likely more able to support their kids education, financially and other ways.

 

I don't know the solution, but it isn't all going to be fixed inside a classroom - that is simplistic. A good start might be to invest more in schools here than Iraq.

[Stonehead]

I'm not arguing in favor of cutting spending. Rather I'm saying that the concept of a national program is flawed. The products of education are influenced by a myriad of factors beyond the money that is spent in a classroom. For instance, on the primary level, good nutrition is important.

 

Sometimes you have to factor out the statistical noise generated in a data set. For example, if you take a diverse population and compare it to a more homogenous population you will see differences that cannot be attributed alone to educational processes (compare school population in a typical 'city' in Iowa to one existing in urban Chicago, e.g.).

 

I think you are completely wrong in assuming that our institutions at the collegate level are producing a supply of graduates below the hiring level with the limited exceptions of domestically trained types of scientists and engineers.

[chucK]

I think you are completely wrong in assuming that our institutions at the collegate level are producing a supply of graduates below the hiring level with the limited exceptions of domestically trained types of scientists and engineers.

 

Yeah, that doesn't sound right. I was talking about public education K-12. Don't know where the college stuff sneaked in.

 

 

BTW, speaking of NASA , I was thinking the other day that Bush's proposals there sound very analogous to his "no child left behind deal". He proposes a whopping increase of $1 billion (from 86 billion to 87 billion, a 1.2% increase ) with the minor caveat that they've got to build a freaking colony on the Moon! ...and then send people to Mars while yer at it . Oooooo! just like Kennedy

[Stonehead]

Yeah, my first response was that here's another one of Bush's grand spectacles--dream big, go wide--an automatic lightening rod for controversy designed to draw in skeptics who will be dismissed as naysayers--we're the most powerful nation in the history of the world, don't dis it.

 

Perhaps, though, the biggest dreams are proposed at the time of greatest danger. All nations that rise eventually fall.

 

There's a long list of 'ifs' but if this administration lays adequate groundwork for a mission to Mars via a stopover on the moon, then the rewards could be tremendous. If you could see into the future, you'd know if the admin's efforts were premature (destined to failure) but I personally believe that it follows on our natural progression to spread beyond our limited confines.

Edited January 28, 2004 by Stonehead

[JayB]

MattChuck/ChuckMatt:

 

My post really had nothing to do with the micro-policy issues in the sub-microcosm that Seattle Public Schools represent in the broader universe of American public education.

 

I was just stating my personal belief that both the manner in which people raise their children and the ways that schools govern the behavior of students in the classroom were influenced by ideals which had their popular genesis in the sixties – and that both children’s behavior and the learning environment in the classroom have declined as a result.

[jlag]

But can he teach? I've worked with teenagers for almost 7 years now and I've met a wide variety of teachers/mentors. The problem is people think that Masters/Doctorates Degrees and high GPA's automatically mean a good teacher who can relate to kids. Some of the best teachers I work with have basic education but are really good at dealing with ALL types of students. Unless this guy has amazing charisma and years of experience working with all populations of students I wouldn't hire him either.

[catbirdseat]

No one know how to teach when they are fresh out of school. It takes years to get really good. Some don't have what it takes.

[Jim]

MattChuck/ChuckMatt:

 

My post really had nothing to do with the micro-policy issues in the sub-microcosm that Seattle Public Schools represent in the broader universe of American public education.

 

I was just stating my personal belief that both the manner in which people raise their children and the ways that schools govern the behavior of students in the classroom were influenced by ideals which had their popular genesis in the sixties – and that both children’s behavior and the learning environment in the classroom have declined as a result.

 

Oh brother, not another blame it on the '60s culture thing. There's a lot of other social trends going on outside the classroom, disparaties in school funding, movement of wealth out of some neighborhoods, increase in single parent households, decrease in wages (inflation adjusted), increase in shipment of jobs overseas, reduction in social spending. Pick one. Likely any of these are more of a factor than that 60s tripe.

[willstrickland]

No one know how to teach when they are fresh out of school.

That's simply not true. Some people have a natural affinity for teaching. As long as the teacher has a thorough grasp of the material being taught, experience is probably no more important than natural talent.I've seen 22 year old teachers without college degrees who were better than some with 25 years experience.

 

It takes years to get really good.

Sure, it takes years to develop each teacher's full potential, but some start as better than others can ever become.

Some don't have what it takes.

True dat

[JayB]

MattChuck/ChuckMatt:

 

My post really had nothing to do with the micro-policy issues in the sub-microcosm that Seattle Public Schools represent in the broader universe of American public education.

 

I was just stating my personal belief that both the manner in which people raise their children and the ways that schools govern the behavior of students in the classroom were influenced by ideals which had their popular genesis in the sixties – and that both children’s behavior and the learning environment in the classroom have declined as a result.

 

Oh brother, not another blame it on the '60s culture thing. There's a lot of other social trends going on outside the classroom, disparaties in school funding, movement of wealth out of some neighborhoods, increase in single parent households, decrease in wages (inflation adjusted), increase in shipment of jobs overseas, reduction in social spending. Pick one. Likely any of these are more of a factor than that 60s tripe.

 

All of that is true, but in my opinion there was a pretty profound cultural shift that has nothing to do with macro-economic trends like the decline of the manufacturing sector. Just to take a couple of anecdotal examples from my experience, we have the abandonment of track-and-field day in favor of a day of “sharing excercises” specifically designed to prevent the thwart any sort of competition, ranking by merit, etc, etc, etc. Ditto for the elimination of tracking by ability, “social promotion” onto the next grade regardless of competence, etc, etc, etc, etc – these are all changes rooted in a particular philosophy/belief about the nature and function of public education that don’t seem to have anything to do with more textiles being produced overseas, etc, etc, etc.

[Jim]

And I would say that the two are utimately tied together. The "cooperative games" thing is a bit wierd, however. But take the social promotion thing. I don't like it, but talk to public school teachers and you'll see the position the school is placed. Limited resources to deal with groups with ADD, ADHD, fetal-alchol syndrome, abused kids, kids who barely speak english, and a variety of special education kids. There's extremely limited personnel to deal with these kids. Things weren't so cheery in the '50s where a lot of these kids got dumped into the heap of special ed. You can't have a 16 yr old in 8th grade, it will not work. I agree that this is a problem but it's simplistic to say it's a discipline problem or that it all can be sloved within the walls of the school.

 

We constantly ask schools to solve a number of social ills that they can only touch on. There an easy target for no addressing problems in a more comprehensive manner.