Why can't teachers be like they were in the 50's & early 60's

Desegegration has ruined our education system for both blacks and whites. Seperate but equal sounds pretty good to me.

...yea, those were the good old days, when man had a brain the size of a walnut.

old codger wrote:

...yea, those were the good old days, when man had a brain the size of a walnut.

My point is the previous generation always thinks they had it rougher than the current (which is really what this thread is about). I remember my grandpa (WWII veteran) complaining about how easy it was for those that served in Vietnam. Yep, according to my grandfather, those of you who grew up in the 50s and 60s had it easy.

Don't you ever get sick of perpetuating this type of thinking?

I agree. I don't necessarily think that things were better or worse in the good old days. I do think, however, if we are going to improve our schools, that we should take a sobering look at the facts, and move forward.

"Why can't teachers be like they were in the 50's & early 60's?"

Simple..Back then it was called "Character Building"

Today it's "Child Abuse"

Oh, you wrote:

Can we ever have where one generation doesn't complain about the newer generation? The past is always remembered a lot better than it actually was.

I don't think people are complaining about the newer generation as much as they are their own generation. It seems a majority of posters have agreed that it's the current generation of parents that are coddling the newer generation, to the newer generation's detriment. The "older" generation is the problem - not the kids.

Actually, American education has historically been pretty average. Test scores are about the same now as they have been for the last half century, and the only difference today is that other countries have become more competitive. If the 50's and 60's were such a golden age of learning, why did both Eisenhower and Johnson pass bills for education reform? Obvviously if they already realized the school system was flawed back then, teachers weren't as perfect as people would like to believe.

NOT TO MENTION... the population that allegedly did so much for America in innovation, culture, and etc. is the same generation leading the nation today. And where are we?

-$16 trillion in debt

-Endless Wars

-Broken entitlements/healthcare system

-Least productive Congress in 70 years

If you evaluate teachers by the success of their students then these people would rank pretty low.

Our students are also coddled by design. In the 1950's the public school's job was to sort students out. It was the individual's job to fit in. Now, if a child fails it is a public problem. Therein lies the flaw. If the student fails, beat up the teacher.

Sagarin ought to read this link written by a George Bush appointee. The fact the most public schools out perform charter schools is truly amazing since the deck is stacked against public schools. And I'm not just talking about the fact that public schools have more disabled and discipline kids. Research shows the number one correlate of student success is PARENT INVOLVEMENT! If you pursue and choose a charter school its because you are involved and active. That's close to 100% of the parents were involved enough to choose.Now some very involved parents do chose public schools, but for others its a default choice. A much higher percentage of noninvolved parents have kids in public schools (compared to zero % for charter schools)......yet most public schools still out perform charter schools.Quite amazing.

old codger wrote:

By the way, here's some info on charter schools:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109443305343962.html

change last chose to choose (before the pedantics jump all over the error)

He's sourcing ONE major national assessment available at the time in 2009 that had valid criticisms levied against it:

"The Stanford center’s finding that more charter schools underperform their peers than outperform them “flies in the face of what we know,” said Jeanne Allen, founder of the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter group, who called the study “flawed.”

There was also, according to Stanford University economist Caroline Hoxby, a subtle statistical problem with the approach, stemming from the use of researchers of more than one matching student from conventional schools. This would tend to bias the results against charters, Hoxby said, although it isn’t clear whether the effect would be significant. “This was a pretty embarrassing mistake because it was pretty elementary,” she said. She added of Raymond’s group, “I overestimated how much econometrics they knew.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/the-conflicting-charter-school-numbers-1014/

Here's a more recent study that collates much more data from various, multiple sources. There's a PDF at the bottom.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/11/16/study-charters-outperform-public-schools

It is also absolutely NOT true that ALL parents who enroll at a charter have invested in their kids, particularly at the lottery schools. I used to work with the kindergarten and first-grade kids on their at-school work packets. Some of those kids were woefully ill-prepared and detracted from the experience of the entire class. I was astounded. I'm sure it's the same at public school. Nonetheless, most of the teachers I've witnessed at the charter do a reasonably good job of whipping kids into shape. No bullshit, no tolerance. Just as it should be. And the best get results and should be paid significantly more.

However, I think we can all agree that the kids with piss-poor parents tend to anchor the class, impacting the average and weighing down a kid like my own, who's ready to take off. No kid let ahead. Story of America, a story of moral decline and depravity, the demand for equality of outcomes rather than opportunity, and a lack of willingness to adapt to a rapidly evolving global economy because it "hurts" to compete.

Even in a lottery, parents chose to enter for their children. What percentage of parents are not involved at all in charter schools compared to the percentage not involved at all in public schools.

Honestly answer that question with your best guess if you are open minded.

I checked over your links and the first actually seemed to support public schools are being better. The research criticism was very minor. The second link from your conservative link was comissioned by charter groups so its bias was clear.

Charter schools are not the panacea that was promised. Fifteen years ago or so we were told that if only we could get the unions out of the way, there would be an outpouring of excellence. Guess what? That simply is not true. There may be some gains here and there, but nothing near what was promised.

Here is my assessment. Charter schools get teachers to jump through a few more hoops. They also give parents a little more opportunity for involvement. Also, there is more opportunity for an exceptional administrator to have a far reaching impact, especially in an inner city setting. Unfortunately, there are not enough exceptional administrators to go around.

The downside of charter schools is that teachers, on the average, are inexperienced. Most charter school teachers will only stay until they find something more stable, with a more sane work schedule. Working 24-7, and always having your head on the chopping block sounds ok for a 22 year old, but not for someone with a mortgage and 3 kids. Experience among teachers is huge. Tenure was put in place years ago to protect the teaching profession.

Results among charter schools are mixed because there are so many variables that have been changed. Also, the unions were not as much of an obstacle as we once thought.

As for "no child let ahead", maybe so, or maybe not. The whole school dynamic has changed, but the reason is not so obvious. The system in place in the 1950's was elitist by design, and it served the greater public good. It is no longer so, because the public schools serve a different purpose. We must educate everyone to a higher standard because blue collar jobs have been eliminated in droves, thanks to automation. The assembly line worker has been replaced by the technician who fixes the robot.

Weeding out all but the top 5% will no longer work.

Keep in mind also that middle class schools that are well funded are doing a find job. In New York, parents are quite happy. If we were to grab 5 well funded, middle class schools, I would bet that they would rank quite high internationally. They might not beat Finland or Singapore, but they probably wouldn't be far behind.

Now, if you take a school system that is not well funded, and consequently has a hard time finding qualified teachers, has crappy administrators, etc., well, they would rank quite poorly.

Conservatives will tell you that increased funding does not lead to quality in education. Of course, that is a bit of an oversimplification. If you pay a dullard a lot of money, what would you expect? Now the dullard will buy a boat, and spend more time on the water, and less time teaching. But, if we use our money to recruit sharp, ambitious teachers, then, through time, we can build a great school system.

The point of the first link was to point out that it wasn't a clean, flawless study. It had problems with its methodology, though no study can be perfect. Charter schools are still a relatively recent phenomenon, even as they continue to grow in leaps and bounds. And it was an N of 1. Moreover, the second link was taken from a conservative website, yes, but you automatically assumed that meant the report was conservatively biased. And, of course, you failed to look at the PDF (which I told you to do), the link of which I should've just posted form the jump. Look at the donors. Pretty split group. Then look at the advisors. Same thing, only maybe leaning a bit left when you look at pedigree. Heck, look at the curriculum vitaes of the authors. Do a little research.

http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/pub_NCSRP_BettsTang_Oct11.pdf

Yes, parents have to take the time to enter children in a lottery, but that's it. They can breathe a sigh of relief, do nothing but donate some money and do some parking hours, and they're good. That doesn't make them more invested in their children than a public school parent. They simply are thankful that they got in to a better school. Think of all the lottery applicants that don't get in. There are plenty more of those. Think of parents who are on wait-lists for seven years when they finally have to take themselves off because their children have already made their connections.

Look, we can agree to disagree. Nationally, the jury is out. There is as much research corroborating how well charter schools are doing as there is debunking this "myth." I've found it to be a blessing. I know the teachers. I know the level of achievement of my kids' peers. I know that the consensus in our neighborhood is that the charter kids come in at a higher level with more discipline, self-sufficiency, and focus. Yes, it's anecdotal. But for me, it's obvious which is better. I've done my due diligence. That doesn't make it true for your district.

*consensus in our neighborhood is that the charter kids come in at a higher level with more discipline, self-sufficiency, and focus WHEN THEY ARRIVE AT HIGH SCHOOL.

Interesting thread. I think there were a lot of good ideas and different opinions being expressed.

I agree with the poster who commented on the need for more focused, vocational paths earlier in life. I think having a varied education is important and at least being briefly exposed to a variety of career options is important. Students would be motivated when participating in activities they enjoy and excel at while seeing the purpose of their education. They would be in a better position to support themselves economically when they finish high school.

To add to this discussion, I think adding required classes on basic life skills might not be a bad idea (ie budgeting, parenting, communications, simple home / car repairs / interviewing skills etc.)

Also, schools should require some practical psychology / communication classes that help people gain empathy / understanding of other people and learn effective ways to communicate with them and build positive relationships with others.

I think that significantly upping the physical education requirements would also be a great idea. Exercise may increase brain synapses that may boost learning potential and prevent Alzheimers later in life. There is one school near Chicago which has implemented a very strong physical educational program with great results.

Also, I think schools should provide 10-15 minute breaks between classes when students are allowed to walk around outside. Being out in the sunlight increases alertness and taking breaks significantly increases efficiency in office workers. Also, too much uninterrupted sitting can cause serious heath problems.

Here is a link regarding the physical education program in a Chicago suburb. And the dangers of too much sitting (providing standing opportunities for studens would be great.

http://www.drrobertbrooks.com/writings/articles/0809.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/take-a-break-it-could-save-your-life-1872147.html