Print 
Single Page
Enlarge This Image
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Concerned: We hope Alaska students win the competition over schoolsAlaska News & FeaturesTo: Alaska's Future
Subject: Dodgeball
Dear Kids, Man are we concerned about you lately. Alaska's education landscape seems to be entering a period of change, that much is certain. The rest of it is uncertain, which is no surprise. You probably know this by now, but adults often disagree, especially when they care about something and it involves money. In the last several years, various levels of government and parts of the education sector have been conducting a reform campaign. The reform is centered around increasing things like, “accountability,” “competition,” and “choice,” as if an education is a pair of pants. But it's all based on the idea that the effects of education can be measured and applied the same to every individual, and that every individual will get the same results. The results from these ideas nationwide are mixed, but that's how people are, isn't it? A mixed bag. We're just relieved the federal reformers haven't brought up the idea of taking Alaska's boarding schools back over. The governor's new proposed budget has school boards and administrators at several districts freaked. They're being given nigh impossible goals to prove the value of what they do through new standards and tests, all with flat funding and rising costs. There is widespread pressure to improve the public schools, yet their funding and resources available to attract the best teachers always seems in jeopardy. If you're confused, you're not alone. Judging from the lack of student protests, at least you're not that concerned. Most of the big districts are saying that the cuts they could be forced to make this time through the gauntlet will damage the goal of getting more of you to graduate on time and at a level that may be beyond your potential or needs. In Anchorage, they've even started talking about getting rid of summer school. We know some of you might be completely stoked about that, but if you can't make up your credits, you might graduate late or opt for a GED, both fine options. But if you do either, you'll become another number that reflects poorly on the system, no matter what your personal situation was and no matter what happens to you after school. The worst part about those options is apparently that neither of them scores points for the schools or politicians. The feds aren't counting towards the win column young people who may have fought through a lot of crap that life dished out and ended up achieving for themselves beyond what anyone expected of them. And make no mistake, the system is broken for many of you. You've proven that generation after generation. Lately, solutions involve facilitating additional alternatives to public school, including charter schools, private and religious schools, and other, less collective options, even some that are operated for profit. One lawmaker has even proposed allowing public money to help students attend private and religious schools, in the name of "choice" because some families who want to reportedly can't afford to pay tuition at such schools. Currently, the Alaska Constitution doesn't allow public education money to go for a private purpose, so who knows where that proposal will wind up. We're not so concerned about whether or not the state should get involved financially with religious schools, or whether or not those schools might want to subject themselves to strings attached to state money. We're mostly concerned that such private schools are at the outset proving they're unable to keep costs low enough to satisfy the demand for their services. Which is odd, because these days, competition among schools and teachers is being touted as a hot new way to improve the lives of young people.
Setting aside the obvious snark, "The Concerned" are of course aware that "free" public education is not free, it is subsidized by every tax-paying parent's -and- non-parent's tax money. It is false logic to use that as evidence that private schools, who don't get such subsidies and thus probably better reflect the true cost of an education (which cost can then even be used to compare performance achieved per dollar spent) are not "cost competitive". As you know the idea of vouchers is to at least allow those parents who would prefer to choose their child's education to not be charged twice for their child's education costs. Once in the form of taxes being given to schools their children no longer attend nor gain any benefit from, the second in paying over and above that amount in after-tax income for private school tuition. How dare they have the effrontery to think they should only pay for benefits actually received, particularly since tax dollars are hardly voluntary. I know plenty of kids who perform quite well as graduates of the Public Schools. Those kids were expected to do their homework and they had parents that were 'involved' in their education. Failure in education today is not the result of poor teachers, double entendre intended, it is the result of mismanagement of school curriculum and parents who are not holding up their end of the educational responsibilities of their children. Talk to a teacher today and a common theme is that when the teacher requests a 'parent conference' about concerns in the child's performance, the parent acts more like the child's attorney and oft times becomes confrontational with the instructor in defense of their children. When this parent returns home, they work to undermine the authority of the teacher in their child's eyes. I realize it is quite popular today to demean teachers but the fact still remains that they are trained professionals and they are not there for the money...the job pays diddly squat. There is a common approach taken in the Villages today that if we throw enough money at the problem then it will fix itself. Have you seen Village schools? They are better stocked with computers and every other electronic advantage than many schools in wealthy suburbs Outside; yet, the poor performance continues. I went to school in a time where textbooks were several years old and in general disrepair, the desks were twice that age (you could tell by reading the names carved in them), the instructional materials were sparse but we received a great education by great educators. The educators' abilities and motivation have not changed... the parents attitudes have. Another change is the use of personal electronic devices in the classroom. Why does a child need a phone in the classroom? Parents say it is for emergencies. Well, why can't the parent just call the Principal's office like they have for 80 years if they need to talk to their child? The average schoolkid texts over 1,000 times a month. Think about it...that is a distraction. Lastly, many of my republican cohorts are the quickest to blame the teachers (recall Wisconsin one year previous) but they refuse to admit that the "No Child Left Behind" policy instituted by gwb has been a complete failure and waste of money. This is especially true in the Villages, many of which are granted a waiver from the program. As for your quip, "How dare they have the effrontery to think they should only pay for benefits actually received, particularly since tax dollars are hardly voluntary." My only response is when have we had the right to pick and choose where our tax dollars are spent? There are many childless couples and they still pay taxes that are earmarked for public schools. -TomClark tomclark: Kids who learn to teach themselves do not need 8 hours a day of "instruction" from a "teacher". Learning to teach oneself is not hard. Its just so different from most people's experience they can't imagine it. It does work. I have four kids who were educated that way. They were all getting A's in college classes at 14. Two were very late readers. They never studied anywhere near 8 hours a day. It just does not take that long to learn the material. I know dozens of kids who prove it is possible. Technology now exists that was unimaginable when my kids were little. Learning to teach oneself has never been easier or cheaper. Look at Khanacademy or Itunes U. The reality of getting an individualized education tailored to one's interest has never been easier. It is ideal and far easier than most people think. frabbit, I am not sure how to respond to your message. My compliments and respect for your children's academic talents; however, its important to remember you are a concerned parent. How do we get those students without concerned (i.e. involved) parents to teach themselves when we can't even get them to pass courses through compulsory attendance? I am not sure I agree with the idea of children being able to choose the subject matter where they have the most interest. A secondary education should be a fairly standard educational curriculum. I don't think it does a child any favors to allow them to choose all their own courses. They are children, if you look at the career hopes for most schoolkids you will find they changed drastically as the child matured into adulthood. That is the reason for a solid foundation in the three 'R's in secondary school. Also, perhaps I am just old, but I still think anyone can learn at a faster rate if they have instruction and oversight by a skilled instructor. That holds true in the workplace just as much as it does in the classroom. -TomClark I wasn't advocating letting kids decide not to learn the three R's. Flexibility can help kids accomplish that mastery with much less student misery than sitting in a classroom that is too far ahead or behind the student's ability. Student's mastery of a subject is not linear any more than their physical growth rate. Also, I was not suggesting that everyone has the ability to guide their kids education. As you pointed out, many don't care about education even with someone else doing the work. I'm afraid I don't have any answer for that except letting people reap what they sow. A friend on mine was working with a class of credit recapture students. One student, an 18 year old with 9 hs credits asked her why he had to learn all this stuff. She replied so you can do something useful with your life, find a job you enjoy. He asked her why he couldn't just smoke pot and play video games all day. She said "Who do you know who does that?" He said "All my brothers." He was from an upper middle class family. BTW- NCLB was hardly a case of Bush steamrolling the country. The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. House had 84 sponsors and passed 384 to 45. Only 34 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted no. Senate was 91-8 with one not voting and only 2 Democrats voted against the bill. In the Senate, Clinton, Kennedy, Biden, Boxer, Edwards, and John Kerry all voted for the bill. The bill is another expensive, complex, idiotic attempt to "do something" where the devil is in the punishment details and the cost of compliance. The difference in instruction today vs in the past is that the instructor no longer has to deliver the lessons in person. I'm not saying excellent teachers do not make a difference. I'm saying one excellent teacher can now teach thousands instead of 30 at a pace customized to a kid's ability. Its not much different than many college classes where one professor teaches 500+ students. Khanacademy has delivered 116 million lessons for free. Anytime. Anywhere. frabbit, I have often been supportive of a "reap what you sow" philosophy...when we are talking about adults making bad decisions; however, I am adamantly opposed to such a philosophy when it comes to a child. For small life lessons? Sure. For something as important as their education? No. We live in a society and a successful society involves reaching out and helping those in need and it means not turning our backs on children simply because they have bad parents. I am flexible on many things, but that would not be one of them. The politics of NCLB are not really something I am interested in except that as a Republican voter, I seemed to recall that it was spearheaded by gwb. I often look back on policy decisions to see if they were advantageous or problematic and I have spoken to numerous teachers who say that this major piece of legislation was catastophic. Its nice to know that the Democrats share some of the burden. I feel that performance based salaries for teachers is continuing down the same path as NCLB and I think the failure is in the metrics of such policies. Regarding the final paragraph and the difference in instruction today being that said instructor no longer has to deliver the lessons in person, I would ask, and why is that a good thing? Well, economically, I suppose it is beneficial; however, it is not equal. No matter how you add it up, a teacher cannot teach 1000's instead of 30 with equal attention provided to each student. Perhaps it is no different from a College Professor but I would hold that to be a failure with our current post-secondary education system and its resultant grade inflation, classes being taught by grad students rather than professors with doctorates, and an overall change in the goals of the University over the past 30 years. The University today has gone from an Institution of Higher Learning to a business with only a concern for profits. Although I consider myself fairly flexible for my advancing age, I do not think a computer screen is going to ever be nearly as effective as a flesh&blood instructor standing in front of the class and responding to questions during a class. Nor does a computer-oriented distance program begin to address the issues adversely affecting our current system, i.e. kids with parents who don't care. "...if every individual student constituted a school and parents got paid to direct an individualized, tailored course of study, that would be ideal." Really? You honestly think that ALL parents are going to commit the 8 additional hours per day to replace the time spent by teachers in an educational setting? Most parents don't even help with 30 minutes of homework, which is what is really wrong with students' academic performance today. The problem is not "Outside teachers...not interested in sticking around long." The only time parents seem interested in coming to the school are for sports events. Why has Mount Edgecomb School been such an excellent environment for learning for so many decades? In part, because they have removed the negative influence of the family from the equation. A bitter truth. Dialogue and rebuttal welcome. -TomClark Tom, I expect you are correct about Mt Edgecombe except that I might choose to say "In Large Part" instead of the "In part" that you use. But our rural schools are not the only ones where the "Public School System" has failed. In the Juneau School District where my child attends, the district has a budget of $16,000 a year per student and yet more than %40 of the students in the district fail to graduate on time. According to the University of Alaska Southeast about %80 of those students who do graduate on time need to take remedial Math and English classes before they can start college level classes at UAS. Is there a problem? Damn Right there is. Is it money? Well lets see, If i hire a teacher, give her twenty students,tell her I expect nothing less than one years education and give her $320,000 explaining that It should cover her salary and benefits plus her costs for renting a classroom and obtaining needed supplies to get the job done it ought to be reasonable. Right? In fact I'll bet that I'd have lots of top flight teachers to choose from. |
Comments