4 ms·

I think the major thing here is to see that there are two types of problems. The first type of problems are easy to fix. You can throw more money at broken pri

by noahc 16y ago

I think the major thing here is to see that there are two types of problems. The first type of problems are easy to fix. You can throw more money at broken printers and leaky roofs. However, that's the easy part. Generate enough political will and it will occur. The other type of problem is systemic cultural issue. I grew up in a poor rural area and teachers could leave us alone and we wouldn't get into their desk drawers which always contained money and candy, let alone steal bathroom passes and laptops. It seems clear to me that this is where the real work needs to be done. I see what you might call a culture of urban poverty slipping into Americas suburbs and rural areas. Has anyone seen anyone doing anything meaningful to address the harder issues found in the second type of problems?

aik 16y ago
This second issue is for sure one of the core issues facing us. I'm not either aware of large scale efforts taking place. Obama's/Duncan's teacher accountability efforts I don't think will do all too much to help. The only solution I see is 2 pronged: 1. The system keeps the community out. It's hard for parents to be involved. Instead we need to somehow incentivize parents/the community to become involved in the educational system. Help them care. 2. Time. Truly teach students great values, inspire them, give them a reason for hope, allow them to have vision, let them focus on what they care about (to an extent of course), and actually make school relevant. As a result future generations of parents may have better understanding of their role. Maybe, for now anyway, that should be a greater goal than (mostly hopelessly) teaching them how to balance chemical equations or learning the inner contents of a cell.
neutronicus 16y ago
Boarding school? http://www.seedfoundation.com/index.php/seed-schools/maryland http://www.seedfoundation.com/index.php/seed-schools/marylan... It's one possibility, anyways. (There are a myriad of reasons to be uncomfortable about essentially putting the responsibility for raising poor children on the state, but the SEED schools seems to be working).
InclinedPlane 16y ago
"The first type of problems are easy to fix. You can throw more money at broken printers and leaky roofs." Can you? Schools receive a lot of money, and have been receiving increasing amounts of funding per student over the last few decades. Some of the worst performing schools spend some of the most per student. I doubt the problem is truly a lack of funds, it's more likely to be a mismanagement of funds. In that case throwing more money at the problem may eventually "trickle down" results to individual class rooms and teachers as a side effect but ultimately is not a solution to the problem. The second type of problem seems as much of a ready scape goat as anything else. If the school system is horribly mismanaged what would motivate them to enforce discipline in the classroom? Then they couldn't blame the students for the inevitable failure of education.
- mgkimsal 16y ago
  "Some of the worst performing schools spend some of the most per student. I doubt the problem is truly a lack of funds, it's more likely to be a mismanagement of funds." "No Child Left Behind" should have been "No Classroom Left Behind". Test scores encourage "teaching to the test", and often in crappy classrooms without adequate lighting, heating, etc. Encouraging directed spending at ensuring each classroom meets minimum standards would have been a better use of spending, imo. In theory, these should be pretty easy to verify. Go in to a classroom - does it meet standards X, Y, Z? It passes, district is reimbursed for spending (or however you want to work it). "More money" from government bodies would likely just get tied up in top-level budgets, and little or none of it would see its way to real classroom improvements.
- wisty 16y ago
  I heard this story about a Tsar in Russia, who was told that the province with the most doctors also had the most illness. He promptly ordered all doctors executed. I'd say that bad schools get more money because they need it. In a school that's practically a war-zone, you need lots of money just to replace the essentials that students wreck. Bad schools often have good inputs (students per teacher, facilities, etc), but they also have things like ex-students lurking outside the school gate (dealing drugs? signing up gang recruits? heckling the students? who cares); and many of the parents don't exactly help the kids get their homework done. There are programs (cash transfers to poor parents, if they meet certain conditions) that have been proven to work (through randomised trials - something that Mexican politicians are better at then US ones), but it's more expedient to look for "root causes" (play the blame game) than look for empirical solutions that work (even if you don't understand why).
ezy 16y ago
Give the kids ownership in the school. It's ok to give them an education, but make them earn it and own it to some degree. I'm not talking about money necessarily, but I am talking about having some kind of investment in the institution. College dropouts or coasters typically aren't paying for their own education, and high school students who steal and f*ck up school property don't have any feeling of obligation to the school. I'm not sure exactly how one would do this -- at the extreme, they could participate in the building of the school itself -- or perhaps there would be a requirement to participate or get booted. That sounds a bit draconian, but I can't think of another way to cure apathy other than being emotionally involved.
- simonsarris 16y ago
  Since the Meiji era, Japanese schoolchildren have been given the duty of cleaning the school (think treating it like a dojo). I always liked the idea of having kids help run the school. I think this particular practice is starting to fall out of favor, though.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  The problem is that they have no motivation to earn the right to study at the school in the first place. And parents would (rightly) object to schools that either threw their children out or forced them to do labor to stay in school.
  - ezy 16y ago
    Is that really true? If you're right, it would be an obstacle. However, as fluffy as this may sound, I think there is value in the lure of the something you have to work to get. That may supply enough motivation. It's complex, I didn't mean to imply ownership was the only solution... To continue on your second point. I disagree about "(rightly)", I think it depends. It doesn't have to be hard labor, it just has to be significant. Laying bricks was an extreme example -- you could think of things that are worthwhile to the school that aren't necessarily at quite that level. :-) Honestly, I think the "rightly" reflects a degree of entitlement (not on your part, just generally) that kids tend to feel about schools (because they're kids), but adults should have grown out of. Enforcing some kind of ownership may help kids grow out of it and help adults to participate in the school rather than demand things like it was fast-food joint.

by noahc 16y ago

aik 16y ago

This second issue is for sure one of the core issues facing us. I'm not either aware of large scale efforts taking place. Obama's/Duncan's teacher accountability efforts I don't think will do all too much to help. The only solution I see is 2 pronged: 1. The system keeps the community out. It's hard for parents to be involved. Instead we need to somehow incentivize parents/the community to become involved in the educational system. Help them care. 2. Time. Truly teach students great values, inspire them, give them a reason for hope, allow them to have vision, let them focus on what they care about (to an extent of course), and actually make school relevant. As a result future generations of parents may have better understanding of their role. Maybe, for now anyway, that should be a greater goal than (mostly hopelessly) teaching them how to balance chemical equations or learning the inner contents of a cell.

neutronicus 16y ago

Boarding school? http://www.seedfoundation.com/index.php/seed-schools/maryland http://www.seedfoundation.com/index.php/seed-schools/marylan... It's one possibility, anyways. (There are a myriad of reasons to be uncomfortable about essentially putting the responsibility for raising poor children on the state, but the SEED schools seems to be working).

InclinedPlane 16y ago

"The first type of problems are easy to fix. You can throw more money at broken printers and leaky roofs." Can you? Schools receive a lot of money, and have been receiving increasing amounts of funding per student over the last few decades. Some of the worst performing schools spend some of the most per student. I doubt the problem is truly a lack of funds, it's more likely to be a mismanagement of funds. In that case throwing more money at the problem may eventually "trickle down" results to individual class rooms and teachers as a side effect but ultimately is not a solution to the problem. The second type of problem seems as much of a ready scape goat as anything else. If the school system is horribly mismanaged what would motivate them to enforce discipline in the classroom? Then they couldn't blame the students for the inevitable failure of education.

mgkimsal 16y ago
"Some of the worst performing schools spend some of the most per student. I doubt the problem is truly a lack of funds, it's more likely to be a mismanagement of funds." "No Child Left Behind" should have been "No Classroom Left Behind". Test scores encourage "teaching to the test", and often in crappy classrooms without adequate lighting, heating, etc. Encouraging directed spending at ensuring each classroom meets minimum standards would have been a better use of spending, imo. In theory, these should be pretty easy to verify. Go in to a classroom - does it meet standards X, Y, Z? It passes, district is reimbursed for spending (or however you want to work it). "More money" from government bodies would likely just get tied up in top-level budgets, and little or none of it would see its way to real classroom improvements.
wisty 16y ago
I heard this story about a Tsar in Russia, who was told that the province with the most doctors also had the most illness. He promptly ordered all doctors executed. I'd say that bad schools get more money because they need it. In a school that's practically a war-zone, you need lots of money just to replace the essentials that students wreck. Bad schools often have good inputs (students per teacher, facilities, etc), but they also have things like ex-students lurking outside the school gate (dealing drugs? signing up gang recruits? heckling the students? who cares); and many of the parents don't exactly help the kids get their homework done. There are programs (cash transfers to poor parents, if they meet certain conditions) that have been proven to work (through randomised trials - something that Mexican politicians are better at then US ones), but it's more expedient to look for "root causes" (play the blame game) than look for empirical solutions that work (even if you don't understand why).

ezy 16y ago

Give the kids ownership in the school. It's ok to give them an education, but make them earn it and own it to some degree. I'm not talking about money necessarily, but I am talking about having some kind of investment in the institution. College dropouts or coasters typically aren't paying for their own education, and high school students who steal and f*ck up school property don't have any feeling of obligation to the school. I'm not sure exactly how one would do this -- at the extreme, they could participate in the building of the school itself -- or perhaps there would be a requirement to participate or get booted. That sounds a bit draconian, but I can't think of another way to cure apathy other than being emotionally involved.

simonsarris 16y ago
Since the Meiji era, Japanese schoolchildren have been given the duty of cleaning the school (think treating it like a dojo). I always liked the idea of having kids help run the school. I think this particular practice is starting to fall out of favor, though.
tomjen3 16y ago
The problem is that they have no motivation to earn the right to study at the school in the first place. And parents would (rightly) object to schools that either threw their children out or forced them to do labor to stay in school.
- ezy 16y ago
  Is that really true? If you're right, it would be an obstacle. However, as fluffy as this may sound, I think there is value in the lure of the something you have to work to get. That may supply enough motivation. It's complex, I didn't mean to imply ownership was the only solution... To continue on your second point. I disagree about "(rightly)", I think it depends. It doesn't have to be hard labor, it just has to be significant. Laying bricks was an extreme example -- you could think of things that are worthwhile to the school that aren't necessarily at quite that level. :-) Honestly, I think the "rightly" reflects a degree of entitlement (not on your part, just generally) that kids tend to feel about schools (because they're kids), but adults should have grown out of. Enforcing some kind of ownership may help kids grow out of it and help adults to participate in the school rather than demand things like it was fast-food joint.