sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Education was arguably better prior to the age of federal control intervention.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Depends on where you look.

No child left behind did a ton of damage. I was in school when that was the play and it was awful.

Common core gets a bad rap because it's hard for parents to understand, but it's actually pretty good in terms of making concepts intuitive for kids.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

WBEZ did a really good documentary recently on the state of public education in some of the poorer areas of the US, with a specific focus on one elementary school on Chicago's west side. It touched on the effects of Federal regulations in public schools, how the teachers and administrators deal with them, some of the outright fraud which surrounds standardized-test-taking, the issue of charter schools, the struggle of trying to teach children who come from backgrounds bereft of discipline, family support, and basic literacy, and so on.

It's only about an hour, and it's a good listen: WBEZ: The View From Room 205

You can also read a not-quite-exact transcript here, though I encourage listening instead, as the interviews lend quite a bit to the piece. The View From Room 205

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Department of Education was created under Jimmy Carter in 1979.



Which people received a more rigorous and well-rounded education, your parents and grandparents or children today?

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

This particular chart you posted is for Federal Grants to States for Special Education
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables.
This graph shows that federal grants from special education rose from under $250 million in 1977 to $5 billion in 2000 nearly $12 billion in 2005.

So not quite a real picture. Prior to that date as far back into the 50's you might recall states had homes for the "special needs" kids. The feds provided some funding but under different agencies so more than difficult to provide a true, per pupil, spend.

Today, public schools can't turn any child away regardless of the illness or special need.

But I'll grant you, throwing money at it isn't the answer.

Interesting question.

What it takes to succeed or even keep pace in today's society is several orders of magnitude higher than it was when my paternal grandfather rose to the level of manufacturing plant manager after starting in the mail room and while raising 11 kids.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Funding sources for K–12 schools, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 4, 2014:

Federal government: 8.5%
State government: 48.7%
Local government: 42.8%

1970 - 2012 funding growth, adjusted for inflation = 185%
Funding by state governments, adjusted for inflation = 120% over same period

However, scores in mathematics, science and language arts over that same period remained almost unchanged. Multi-year periods in which a state's funding per student declined substantially also appear to have had little effect. (There's no basis point though to measure effect of funding +/- on test results, and to even measure if tests are a relative measure of success)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...0.9312_schools

Interesting map of funding per pupil vs. average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...chools_map.png

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

I guess I see the issue as the fact that we're trying to teach to tests instead of giving teachers a rubric of what to cover and letting them do the job they were trained to do.
If they're shitty teachers and don't teach, fire them or don't let them graduate school. The amount of legislation dictating what is taught and how it is taught is crippling education and destroying any joy that teachers could gain from something that they once loved doing. Are you surprised that they're burnt out?

If that funding was spent on providing teachers with better tools to teach and actually paying them a reasonable salary relative to the education they get, maybe we wouldn't have so many shitty burned out teachers that don't give a ****.

On the other hand, states like texas have a knack for rewriting history or atleast trying to, so maybe leaving it up to the states isn't the best idea either...

Parts of MA have institutionalized programs that provide breakfast and lunch to students to ensure that everyone that comes to school gets atleast 2 healthy meals everyday. Shockingly, scores have improved across the board. Maybe there's more to it than meets the eye.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

2002 Census of Governments:

98,817 public schools (2009-2010 school yr)
13,506 school districts
178 state-dependent school systems
50 State governments
1 Federal government

At each of those levels, you have a group of people who believe they have more knowledge of educating a child than the teacher in the classroom.

And at each of those levels you have less of the money passing through reaching the classroom.

My youngest daughter teaches school. I personally write her a check to buy supplies for her classroom because the parents who send kids to her for an education think she makes so much money she should be able to afford it...

A large part of the problem is actually at the parent level. In my opinion... They take no responsibility for the education of their own child.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

I think that's part of the problem and everyone seems to believe that their unfounded opinions are worth more than facts.

Another societal problem is that everything has to be mandated and regulated and standardized because apparently no one can be trusted to do the job they were trained to do. Folks spend more time trying to comply with stupid rubrics than just teaching.

You can have standards and enforce them without over burdening everyone involved at every level.

I also think that the average American doesn't have the financial literacy to realize what goes into making a salary. The number you see on someone else's paycheck doesn't exist in isolation. The time, effort, and money spent on that education also needs to be factored in.

Americans think that teaching is an easy lazy profession and salaries followed suit. No wonder it doesn't attract the brightest of the bunch. The incentive system is bizarre.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

There's a giant list of problems...

Funding, and the way public schools are funded is high on the list. Rural schools (poor districts) get the shaft because property values aren't there to support schools. State legislatures, for the most part, see funding as a "per pupil" and are loathe to adopt the 'robin hood' mentality for fear of pissing off the rich folks (who're gonna send kids to private anyway).

The new trend of Charter schools, especially the for profit types, are going to further screw it up because they don't live by the same rules.

Won't be long before the public schools (in the larger districts) are left with the special needs kids primarily while the rest of the kids get shipped off to "Charter" aka private or religious based schools. That is unless congress outlaws section 504 of the ADA which, if that happens, parents with a disabled child better have a deep checkbook.

The rural districts will be left out and over time, as the enrollments dry up, will just consolidate with longer bus rides for those left.

Some of you may remember Betsy DeVos could give no answer on the subject when questioned about this in her testimony before the senate.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

those who can, do. those you can't, teach.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

And the rest work in government...

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Possibly true in the case of Charter schools, but completely impossible for Magnet schools, which are part of the same publicly-managed school district as all the rest of the "Public schools."

Two two seem similar externally, but are very different under the hood. Magnet schools, for instance, are motivated principally by student academic performance / college placement rates, and can thus afford to be highly selective in their admissions policies. An academically high-performing student is actually likely to find a much richer educational experience in a Magnet school, which costs their parents nothing, than in a private school whose admissions policies and curricula are more likely to accommodate lower-performing students.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Aka the attitude that's part of the reason why we're in the predicament we're in haha. It's like our society has some sort of bizarre fear of admitting that good teachers and mentors helped people get folks where they are.

Like... why would students respect teachers if parents repeat drivel like this.

Magnet schools make more sense to me than charter schools though if education is the goal. If you allow students to be placed where they all learn at the same level, it allows for teaching at the right level for the students, both at the upper level and lower level. You end up with smart kids who don't act out because they're bored and average kids that don't act up because they have no idea what's going on.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Yes, you're right.

So how do you take that concept of magnet schools and put it into the rural environment or do you go back to the 30's when kids traveled to school for a week at a time (as they reached the higher grades). That was pretty common in the rural states back then (way before my time ). Could you imagine that happening today?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Accelerate the kids to higher classes and send them to a local community college when they're out of classes. Or just give them a diploma early by letting them take a GED test.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Actually OH has an program where a HS student can attend college classes in the senior yr. Haven't done any homework to see results and don't know of xx students that go through it complete college in x yrs vs the norm. It's been in place for quite a while and I'd assume they aren't the only state.

PSEO is the specific program

College Prep and Early College Programs for High School Students | Ohio Department of Education

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

They have this in Florida. It's called dual enrollment. You can start in your junior year and be done with you AA when you graduate from high school.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'm not sure that you can, and for much the same reason that rural environments tend also not to attract large tech companies, mega-malls, Tesla dealerships, good Thai food, major libraries, stock and commodities exchanges, museums, concert halls, Grand Central Terminal, etc.

Economies of scale.

I grew up in a smallish town on the Gulf coast of Florida. There were two public high schools (one on each side of the river) and one small K-12 Catholic school. As I recall, my HS had a total enrollment of just under 2,000 students across all four grade levels.

By comparison Lane Tech College Prep (the magnet HS right across the street from where I work), admits an annual freshmen class of around 1,000, which they select from over 10,000 applicants, into a student body of around 4,000. That's just one of 117 high schools / high-school-equivalent facilities in Chicago. They can afford to be selective and to specialize, in much the same way that a physician in this city can afford to concentrate their practice in some particularly esoteric and demanding field of medicine, and to be the absolute best at the one specific thing that they do. This, as compared to the country doc in East Whalefart, Alaska who just doesn't have a large enough pool of potential patients to be a specialist.


When you elect to live in a rural / suburban area, you willingly sacrifice certain amenities in exchange for others. People who elect to live in large cities likewise make similar sacrifices (noise, traffic, cramped and costly housing, high income taxes, etc) in order to have access to the amenities afforded by an urban lifestyle.


Education and healthcare are interesting in that many people (a generalization, not an accusation) seem to feel that everyone should be afforded equal access to them, regardless of where they choose to live. I can think of few other products about which such a fuss is made.