The Education Thread

What did the Deans say when you brought this to their attention and showed them the journal entries?
Did they bring in the parents of the big kid and counsel them on their son's behaviour? Did they tell them it was unacceptable and that further punishment/expulsion was likely if it happened again?

Did they apologize to the little kid, and tell his parents his punishment was incorrect?

If none of that happened, then shame on them for keeping silent.

Bring in the big kid's mom? The same mom who yelled, cursed at and threatened teachers, deans and the AP because her son made up a story about my colleague stabbing him with a pen? Let's just say this mom would not have been receptive to counseling.

I did not bring the other kids' accounts of the incident to the deans' attention. I know that sounds bad, but I understood the situation and I knew that they wouldn't act upon it in any constructive way. This was a school where fights in classrooms were literally an hourly occurrence. Those deans didn't have the time or energy (or will) to sort through the situation and figure out of the littler boy had really provoked the big boy or not, especially given that the bully would have told his mom more lies and she would have backed him up 100%. It would have been futile for me to pursue it.

This is an unintended consequence of the push for more accountability.

Grades traditionally are a reflection of effort more so than ability, although usually both are necessary to get the highest marks. But because of (supposed) grade inflation, and because a student can work his ass off but still not learn that much, and because of lowered expectations across the board, kids often get high marks when in reality they aren't meeting the performance standards.

In order to prevent schools & teachers from glossing over student failures, there has been a strong push to make grades reflect what the students know and are able to do, rather than how hard they've worked. In other words, if the standards indicate they must be able to do X, then they should only receive a grade of A or B if they really can do X.

The problem here is that this punishes students who are diligent but not that bright, and rewards students (like I was) who slack off but still learn. Pretty much everybody would agree that if you don't show up, don't complete assignments, don't take tests and don't do homework, you should fail. But then your grade might not reflect your actual abilities.

Seems like we should just let kids "test out" if all we want is for hem to know things. Of course, I come from the Jurassic component of ur society who believe that school is also a place where children learn to socialize with other humans, learn the value of goal accomplishment and other skills that apparently have no use or value in the "real world."

I'm definitely in agreement with you. I've had many a conversation with colleagues about this. Whenever report card time would roll around, we were told that grades should reflect the students' abilities. They did not want us giving a passing grade to a student who was unlikely to pass the state tests, even if that student had worked his butt off. And the little shitheads who disrupted class and talked back to teachers and were truant, etc. etc. etc... if they could read at grade level, they were supposed to get a passing grade. If they could read above grade level, they should get a high mark.

My opinion was that we're not just teaching them how to read. We're teaching them about personal responsibility. We're teaching them about work ethic, and how to function in society. If a student graduates high school without ever learning how to respect authority, how to work cooperatively with others, how to manage a workload and a how to do a host of other things traditionally required to excel in school, then that student is going to be SOL in college and/or the workplace. You're doing the kids no favors by ignoring those non-academic lessons.

I suspect (although obviously can't know for sure), that DoyleG posted that story thinking that it reflects how we coddle kids these days. But in fact the opposite is the case. These policies are designed out of suspicion of teachers and a desire to take away their ability to set standards and make judgments on their own.

This made me think of youth soccer.

As my son moved up the ranks of club soccer, from local to state-level to national-level program, playing time increasingly became assigned based on ability rather than (practice) effort. I had thought it would be the opposite -- that the national-level programs with their goal of preparing kids for high-level adult play, would emphasize practice attendance, discipline, paying attention to coaches, etc. But it was the opposite.

Side note but this is a soccer board after all, and it is a related topic of teachers, students, and how to grade.

Social promotion has always been a tricky issue. Ban it, you flunk too many students. Permit it, you run the risk of underqualified graduates getting hammered at the next level.

The best policy may well be a wink wink policy, where the bad student gets the diploma but he knows, the parents know, the teachers know, the colleges know, future employers know, that this diploma ain't worth too much. So there aren't unpleasant future surprises.

State tests measure their ability. The goal is for the grades given by teachers to correspond with the students' scores on standardized tests.

Is the ability to follow directions included in your state's performance standards? It may be in there, but it's certainly not one of the major threads which overrides other standards like being able to do certain types of math problems. If you teach math, the thinking holds, your grades should reflect whether your students can do the math -- not whether they actually did the math you assigned them. And with the heavy current emphasis on assessment, it's the teacher's fault if he doesn't know what his students know and are able to do. At the schools where I worked, it would not have been remotely acceptable for me to say, "I don't know how well this student reads. I assigned these various projects and she never did them." I was expected to perform assessments during class time, and to always have an accurate record of my students' reading levels at all times.

How much does NYC spend on each student? Why fault parents in a couple of NYC's 1,700 schools for spending 6% more?
Are they really even spending more? From the article: "some parents say that poorer schools receive Title I financing — federal dollars allocated to schools serving large percentages of low-income children — giving them a lift that wealthier schools do not get”
http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/default.htm
"1.1 million students ~1,700 schools 75,000 teachers $24 billion annual budget"
That's almost $22,000 per student. $1,300 is 6%.
http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/funding/overview/default.htm
http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/funding/schoolbudgets/default.htm
http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/funding/schoolbudgets/fy13SchoolBudgetOverview.htm?schoolcode=M334

That's for the teacher to figure out.

Just so my profile photo can give the look

Interesting article from Slate.com on the role of technology in math education. Basically, it is expensive and it doesn't seem to help

Some basic education deficiencies:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cit...-trash-fountains-field-trip-article-1.1101358

Maybe Jake was referring to the article's comments section as well.

Little sensitive there, nutter?
http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/tv/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=25487024&page=7
"Of all the school-based jokes in the history of "The Simpsons" (and there are a lot), our favourite is the banner reading: "Parent-Teacher Night: Let's Share the Blame.""
Maybe this other quote will make you feel better:
Superintendant Chamers: "Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."