Failure is not an option: A sneak peek at school reform?

[1uscitizen]

I can't stand all of this no failures, no losers, attitudes we've taken on with children in this country. I've learned MUCH more from my failures than I ever have from my accomplishments. I'm sorry people-but nobody's perfect, and everyone fails at some things-including your kids. Personal responsibility is disappearing in our culture.

Please send this to your town's school committee, school principals, state dept of ed, etc.

 

[1uscitizen]

Yes, you are correct.

But what if parents do NOT take on this responsibility?

This is the fact about which this school, and many other are dealing. If every parent taught that failure wasn't an option, then schools wouldn't have a significant problem with failing grades, now would they?

One major problem here is that for some reason schools have been directed to throw all kids into the same classroom with no regard for ability, interest, or any other factors. The motivated kids with highly involved parents are in the same class as the kids who don't have that luxury. These unmotivated (no fault of their own) kids feel even more of a failure in that environment. Through some miracle, though, all these kids are supposed to immerge equally educated. Its a federal directive - do it our way or forfeit the funding.

A couple of items:
1. How much federal funding do you suppose a school gets from the feds?

2. When you say "schools have been directed to throw all kids into the same classroom with no regard for ability," you must mean elementary schools. Post-elementary, this is not the case.

3. Parents of elementary school kids have a choice: Secure knowledge, skills and employment that pays enough to allow them to afford private schooling for their offspring. Otherwise expect PUBLIC school to contain the PUBLIC: a complete cross section of their local population.

1. Whatever the amount of funding is - most schools go for it. And the dumbing down/no failures problem is happening coast to coast, so I'm guessing that there is a fed initiative to reduce failure rate (no guidlines on how that must be done).

2. No, high school as well. Teachers are expected to be effective across a wide range af abilities in each classroom. What happens is the the less ambitious kids struggle, the more ambitious kids aren't challenged. A time-sensitive syllabus has to be adhered to, in a way that addresses numerous ability/interest levels, without anyone failing. Piece o' cake.

3. Employment is not secure - that's a myth. Teachers and administrators know it's not true. It's the general puplic that perpetuates the lie. The PUBLIC school should be addressing students abilities & interests. They used to do that. Eons ago there were tracks - business, college, vocational, general. I have yet to hear why that was a bad idea. That system acknowledged that everyone was different and accomodated the differences. The real world has all levels of workers, but we're trying to squeeze everyone into a "sameness". Today PUBLIC schools are generic mills meant to provide a mediocre/one-size-fits-all education to the masses & it's not working.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is one of the best, most comprehensive replies to any post in this entire sub-forum.

Several things that need comment:

1. While most, if not all, Federal funding goes to Federally Mandated programs associated with Tiltle I, and IDEA (Special Education), these funds are a fraction of the costs of the mandates. The balance of the funding comes from State and local taxes.

2. Starting college with 27 semester credits is a commendable acheivement. However, I caution anyone wishing to do this that CREDIT might NOT be applied to GPA (depends on the college or university).

The danger being that intelligent Freshman that take 27 hour of basic math, science, english, history, and make "A's" in these relatively easy courses will have a 4.0 GPA. If they take 27 more hours, and they make "B's" in these increasingly difficult courses courses, then their GPA = 3.5

HOWEVER, the student that tested out of the initial 27 hours and made "B's" in all the subsequent 27 course hours would have a GPA = 3.0

When both of our hypothetically intelligent students graduate, the one with the higher GPA will be hired before the one with lower GPA.

I agree with both of these.

1. Often federal dollars come with strings attached that cause state and local governments to spend a lot of money and may place requirements on non-related areas.

2. Transfer credits are not normally computed into a GPA for a school, as such advanced students from high school may be waived for a number of - what I call "softball" or "Easy A" - classes that help pad the GPA against a poor grade an a more challenging major related class. (BTW - I'm luck our daughter got her mothers brains. )



>>>>

 

[Samson]

One major problem here is that for some reason schools have been directed to throw all kids into the same classroom with no regard for ability, interest, or any other factors. The motivated kids with highly involved parents are in the same class as the kids who don't have that luxury. These unmotivated (no fault of their own) kids feel even more of a failure in that environment. Through some miracle, though, all these kids are supposed to immerge equally educated. Its a federal directive - do it our way or forfeit the funding.

A couple of items:
1. How much federal funding do you suppose a school gets from the feds?

2. When you say "schools have been directed to throw all kids into the same classroom with no regard for ability," you must mean elementary schools. Post-elementary, this is not the case.

3. Parents of elementary school kids have a choice: Secure knowledge, skills and employment that pays enough to allow them to afford private schooling for their offspring. Otherwise expect PUBLIC school to contain the PUBLIC: a complete cross section of their local population.

1. Whatever the amount of funding is - most schools go for it. And the dumbing down/no failures problem is happening coast to coast, so I'm guessing that there is a fed initiative to reduce failure rate (no guidlines on how that must be done).

2. No, high school as well. Teachers are expected to be effective across a wide range af abilities in each classroom. What happens is the the less ambitious kids struggle, the more ambitious kids aren't challenged. A time-sensitive syllabus has to be adhered to, in a way that addresses numerous ability/interest levels, without anyone failing. Piece o' cake.

3. Employment is not secure - that's a myth. Teachers and administrators know it's not true. It's the general puplic that perpetuates the lie. The PUBLIC school should be addressing students abilities & interests. They used to do that. Eons ago there were tracks - business, college, vocational, general. I have yet to hear why that was a bad idea. That system acknowledged that everyone was different and accomodated the differences. The real world has all levels of workers, but we're trying to squeeze everyone into a "sameness". Today PUBLIC schools are generic mills meant to provide a mediocre/one-size-fits-all education to the masses & it's not working.

Schools that RECEIVE federal funding will "go for it." Those that do not, will not. The interest in attending to procribed NCLB mandates is directly related to the Federal $ involved.

Not sure what highschools you are dealing with, but unless you have some proof that there are no AP courses offered, then you're full of shit. Please post the addy of the US school system that does not offer one AP course.

Finally, WTF does your comment about "Employment is not secure- that's a myth," have to do with anything?

 

[1uscitizen]

A couple of items:
1. How much federal funding do you suppose a school gets from the feds?

2. When you say "schools have been directed to throw all kids into the same classroom with no regard for ability," you must mean elementary schools. Post-elementary, this is not the case.

3. Parents of elementary school kids have a choice: Secure knowledge, skills and employment that pays enough to allow them to afford private schooling for their offspring. Otherwise expect PUBLIC school to contain the PUBLIC: a complete cross section of their local population.

1. Whatever the amount of funding is - most schools go for it. And the dumbing down/no failures problem is happening coast to coast, so I'm guessing that there is a fed initiative to reduce failure rate (no guidlines on how that must be done).

2. No, high school as well. Teachers are expected to be effective across a wide range af abilities in each classroom. What happens is the the less ambitious kids struggle, the more ambitious kids aren't challenged. A time-sensitive syllabus has to be adhered to, in a way that addresses numerous ability/interest levels, without anyone failing. Piece o' cake.

3. Employment is not secure - that's a myth. Teachers and administrators know it's not true. It's the general puplic that perpetuates the lie. The PUBLIC school should be addressing students abilities & interests. They used to do that. Eons ago there were tracks - business, college, vocational, general. I have yet to hear why that was a bad idea. That system acknowledged that everyone was different and accomodated the differences. The real world has all levels of workers, but we're trying to squeeze everyone into a "sameness". Today PUBLIC schools are generic mills meant to provide a mediocre/one-size-fits-all education to the masses & it's not working.

Schools that RECEIVE federal funding will "go for it." Those that do not, will not. The interest in attending to procribed NCLB mandates is directly related to the Federal $ involved.

Not sure what highschools you are dealing with, but unless you have some proof that there are no AP courses offered, then you're full of shit. Please post the addy of the US school system that does not offer one AP course.

Finally, WTF does your comment about "Employment is not secure- that's a myth," have to do with anything?

Most states turned their systems upside down to qualify for RTTT funds. Some did say to the fed no, we're fine w/o your money/control.

Wasn't talking about AP, but on that note many schools have limited offerings. Where they ARE available in every core area there is still a limit of 2 options -AP and everyone else. That 'everyone else' covers an incredible span these days.

Secure was your word - thought it also applied to employment. Apparently not.
What's with the rage?

 

[Samson]

1. Whatever the amount of funding is - most schools go for it. And the dumbing down/no failures problem is happening coast to coast, so I'm guessing that there is a fed initiative to reduce failure rate (no guidlines on how that must be done).

2. No, high school as well. Teachers are expected to be effective across a wide range af abilities in each classroom. What happens is the the less ambitious kids struggle, the more ambitious kids aren't challenged. A time-sensitive syllabus has to be adhered to, in a way that addresses numerous ability/interest levels, without anyone failing. Piece o' cake.

3. Employment is not secure - that's a myth. Teachers and administrators know it's not true. It's the general puplic that perpetuates the lie. The PUBLIC school should be addressing students abilities & interests. They used to do that. Eons ago there were tracks - business, college, vocational, general. I have yet to hear why that was a bad idea. That system acknowledged that everyone was different and accomodated the differences. The real world has all levels of workers, but we're trying to squeeze everyone into a "sameness". Today PUBLIC schools are generic mills meant to provide a mediocre/one-size-fits-all education to the masses & it's not working.

Schools that RECEIVE federal funding will "go for it." Those that do not, will not. The interest in attending to procribed NCLB mandates is directly related to the Federal $ involved.

Not sure what highschools you are dealing with, but unless you have some proof that there are no AP courses offered, then you're full of shit. Please post the addy of the US school system that does not offer one AP course.

Finally, WTF does your comment about "Employment is not secure- that's a myth," have to do with anything?

Most states turned their systems upside down to qualify for RTTT funds. Some did say to the fed no, we're fine w/o your money/control.

Wasn't talking about AP, but on that note many schools have limited offerings. Where they ARE available in every core area there is still a limit of 2 options -AP and everyone else. That 'everyone else' covers an incredible span these days.

Secure was your word - thought it also applied to employment. Apparently not.
What's with the rage?

You have proof that there's a public school system without a vocational program?

You know, eventually you'll need to back-track on all of your ridiculous claims: You "were'nt talking about AP classes?"

Do you have any idea what it is that you're talking about?

 

[saveliberty]

If there was more failure in schools, people would make succeeding a priority. Grade inflaiton, social promotion and getting away from the basics is killing us.

 

[Samson]

If there was more failure in schools, people would make succeeding a priority. Grade inflaiton, social promotion and getting away from the basics is killing us.

How?

Does grade inflation, social promotion, and "getting away from basics" make humans of average intelligence less motivated to succeed?

 

[saveliberty]

If there was more failure in schools, people would make succeeding a priority. Grade inflaiton, social promotion and getting away from the basics is killing us.

How?

Does grade inflation, social promotion, and "getting away from basics" make humans of average intelligence less motivated to succeed?

It may be a motivational factor, it seems to be a delay in consequences or a reality check.

 

[Samson]

If there was more failure in schools, people would make succeeding a priority. Grade inflaiton, social promotion and getting away from the basics is killing us.

How?

Does grade inflation, social promotion, and "getting away from basics" make humans of average intelligence less motivated to succeed?

It may be a motivational factor, it seems to be a delay in consequences or a reality check.

Why would humans with average intelligence not be motivated to increase their knowledge regardless of grade inflation, social promotion, or "getting away from basics?"

 

[chanel]

Because teenagers are not fully evolved humans.

If the "knowledge" is not relevant to them (which much of it is not), adults must coerce them into learning it anyway. If they know they can still pass without doing any work, why should they?

Students of average intelligence may want to "succeed", but many have never been taught how to do that. The path of least resistance is not the yellow brick road.

Look at how many kids are failing out of college. College professors don't give a rat's ass if you show up, and they are not going to provide you with a copy of the notes if you don't feel like writing today.

Actions and consequences. One of the most important concepts people can learn.

 

[1uscitizen]

Because teenagers are not fully evolved humans.

If the "knowledge" is not relevant to them (which much of it is not), adults must coerce them into learning it anyway. If they know they can still pass without doing any work, why should they?

Students of average intelligence may want to "succeed", but many have never been taught how to do that. The path of least resistance is not the yellow brick road.

Look at how many kids are failing out of college. College professors don't give a rat's ass if you show up, and they are not going to provide you with a copy of the notes if you don't feel like writing today.

Actions and consequences. One of the most important concepts people can learn.

Learning that actions have consequences has been completely removed from many schools. Bad consequences would hurt their self esteem!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jackson]

Social promotions are Dumbing Down of America. Plain as that.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Why would humans with average intelligence not be motivated to increase their knowledge regardless of grade inflation, social promotion, or "getting away from basics?"

Knowledge of WHAT?

We had to compare Romeo and Juliet to West Side Story in my English Lit class. I think it was junior year. I always got B's in Eng Lit but it wasn't because I gave a damn it was just so easy.

I got straight D's in religion freshman year. But now decades later I see how worthless it was. Reading science fiction that got me interested in science was worth more than all of the Eng Lit courses and history.

A good reading list would have been worth lots more than most courses. The way the schools operate it is like their objective is to kill curiosity. But that is done in grade school. The SF helped me ignore the teachers.

The Year When Stardust Fell by Raymond F. Jones
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Year When Stardust Fell, by Raymond F. Jones.

The science fiction stories create an attitude about science that you rarely get from the science teachers and the humanities teachers are subtly anti-science though they aren't obvious about it.

It is like C.P. Snow's Two Cultures business.

Richard King: Flesh and Stardust: C. P. Snow's Two Cultures Fifty Years On

psik

 

[Samson]

Because teenagers are not fully evolved humans.

If the "knowledge" is not relevant to them (which much of it is not), adults must coerce them into learning it anyway. If they know they can still pass without doing any work, why should they?

Students of average intelligence may want to "succeed", but many have never been taught how to do that. The path of least resistance is not the yellow brick road.

Look at how many kids are failing out of college. College professors don't give a rat's ass if you show up, and they are not going to provide you with a copy of the notes if you don't feel like writing today.

Actions and consequences. One of the most important concepts people can learn.

While I agree that teens are hardly human, they still have basic needs.

You made the statement "If they know they can still pass without doing any work, why should they?"

Humans evolved intelligence not because they would receive a passing grade, and we do not continue to learn anything because we receive a "C" rather than an "F." These are actually quite abstract concepts that academics invented to categorise students during the industrial revolution much like manufacturers would grade cloth, or widgets.

So what really motivates kids, or any average human, or for that matter, most animals, if not grades?

Here is my solution: Food. Stelter. Clothing

If you fail to learn, then you don't eat, you sleep on a concrete floor, and you get a sheet to wear.

If you pass, you get gruel, sleep on hay, and you get pants

If you excel, you can eat pizza, sleep in a bed, and wear whatever you want.


American students eat whatever they want, often have a TV in their room, and wear whatever, regardless of whatever knowledge or skills they develop.

 

[chanel]

Novel idea.

This is true. But a grade (although subjective) is supposed to measure learning. Generally, if you ask an F student what he learned in class, you will get a very puzzled expression on his face.

I always take some class time to show the students a graph of lifetime earning potential from high school drop-outs to college. It's over a million dollars. Most of them are shocked. The others are usually stoned and don't "do graphs and shit".

We are seeing a relatively new phenomenon of fifth and sixth year seniors. No shame in it anymore. Some students choose to stay in school until they are 20.

 

[editec]

A couple of items:
1. How much federal funding do you suppose a school gets from the feds?

2. When you say "schools have been directed to throw all kids into the same classroom with no regard for ability," you must mean elementary schools. Post-elementary, this is not the case.

3. Parents of elementary school kids have a choice: Secure knowledge, skills and employment that pays enough to allow them to afford private schooling for their offspring. Otherwise expect PUBLIC school to contain the PUBLIC: a complete cross section of their local population.

1. Whatever the amount of funding is - most schools go for it. And the dumbing down/no failures problem is happening coast to coast, so I'm guessing that there is a fed initiative to reduce failure rate (no guidlines on how that must be done).

2. No, high school as well. Teachers are expected to be effective across a wide range af abilities in each classroom. What happens is the the less ambitious kids struggle, the more ambitious kids aren't challenged. A time-sensitive syllabus has to be adhered to, in a way that addresses numerous ability/interest levels, without anyone failing. Piece o' cake.

3. Employment is not secure - that's a myth. Teachers and administrators know it's not true. It's the general puplic that perpetuates the lie. The PUBLIC school should be addressing students abilities & interests. They used to do that. Eons ago there were tracks - business, college, vocational, general. I have yet to hear why that was a bad idea. That system acknowledged that everyone was different and accomodated the differences. The real world has all levels of workers, but we're trying to squeeze everyone into a "sameness". Today PUBLIC schools are generic mills meant to provide a mediocre/one-size-fits-all education to the masses & it's not working.

Schools that RECEIVE federal funding will "go for it." Those that do not, will not. The interest in attending to procribed NCLB mandates is directly related to the Federal $ involved.

Not sure what highschools you are dealing with, but unless you have some proof that there are no AP courses offered, then you're full of shit. Please post the addy of the US school system that does not offer one AP course.

Finally, WTF does your comment about "Employment is not secure- that's a myth," have to do with anything?

Our local HS couldn't afford to offer AP courses.

So, it's not a myth.

Schools are cutting back on AP courses, music, the arts and sports.

Schools have been cutting back on things for the last 35 years.

AS schools are locally run and financed, generalizing about them is usually a bad idea, but in the aggregate schools have been asked to do more, much more, with less.

Given the mess that most American families are in, it's hardly surprising that their kids aren't doing well in school.

 

[Samson]

1. Whatever the amount of funding is - most schools go for it. And the dumbing down/no failures problem is happening coast to coast, so I'm guessing that there is a fed initiative to reduce failure rate (no guidlines on how that must be done).

2. No, high school as well. Teachers are expected to be effective across a wide range af abilities in each classroom. What happens is the the less ambitious kids struggle, the more ambitious kids aren't challenged. A time-sensitive syllabus has to be adhered to, in a way that addresses numerous ability/interest levels, without anyone failing. Piece o' cake.

3. Employment is not secure - that's a myth. Teachers and administrators know it's not true. It's the general puplic that perpetuates the lie. The PUBLIC school should be addressing students abilities & interests. They used to do that. Eons ago there were tracks - business, college, vocational, general. I have yet to hear why that was a bad idea. That system acknowledged that everyone was different and accomodated the differences. The real world has all levels of workers, but we're trying to squeeze everyone into a "sameness". Today PUBLIC schools are generic mills meant to provide a mediocre/one-size-fits-all education to the masses & it's not working.

Schools that RECEIVE federal funding will "go for it." Those that do not, will not. The interest in attending to procribed NCLB mandates is directly related to the Federal $ involved.

Not sure what highschools you are dealing with, but unless you have some proof that there are no AP courses offered, then you're full of shit. Please post the addy of the US school system that does not offer one AP course.

Finally, WTF does your comment about "Employment is not secure- that's a myth," have to do with anything?

Our local HS couldn't afford to offer AP courses.

So, it's not a myth.

Schools are cutting back on AP courses, music, the arts and sports.

Schools have been cutting back on things for the last 35 years.

AS schools are locally run and financed, generalizing about them is usually a bad idea, but in the aggregate schools have been asked to do more, much more, with less.

Given the mess that most American families are in, it's hardly surprising that their kids aren't doing well in school.

Often if one high school within a district cannot afford (more likely there are not enough students to justify an AP class) then they will transport the district's students to another HS that offers the course.

As far as any widespread "cutting back on sports," I frankly remain unconvinced. I agree that extrapolating the condition of schools from one locale to the nation, or even the state, or even within the same school district can be problematic, but given the graph of school spending offered in the thread (post #17), it would appear that they certainly have not been "given less." Their budget has doubled between 1990-2004, to almost $500 B.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As far as any widespread "cutting back on sports," I frankly remain unconvinced. I agree that extrapolating the condition of schools from one locale to the nation, or even the state, or even within the same school district can be problematic, but given the graph of school spending offered in the thread, it would appear that they certainly have not been "given less."

The lastest year in the chart was, IIRC 2004-2005 and was provided to show a comparison of State, Local, Federal, Other as overall percentages of education funding. While the overall dollar figures have grown the percentage of contribution remained relatively stable.

The real economic crunch as been the last 2-3 years which are beyond the scope of the chart.

In the district I worked for we've had serious cutbacks including pay freezes, pay reductions, RIF's, and program cuts. For example last year alone we had to cut $21,000,000 (about 20%) of the budget and this year coming up we are forcasting another 8-9 million in reductions.


>>>>

 

[Samson]

Novel idea.

This is true. But a grade (although subjective) is supposed to measure learning. Generally, if you ask an F student what he learned in class, you will get a very puzzled expression on his face.

I always take some class time to show the students a graph of lifetime earning potential from high school drop-outs to college. It's over a million dollars. Most of them are shocked. The others are usually stoned and don't "do graphs and shit".

We are seeing a relatively new phenomenon of fifth and sixth year seniors. No shame in it anymore. Some students choose to stay in school until they are 20.

My point, my dear madame, is that not only do "some students 'choose' to stay in school until they are 20," but some parents choose to let them.

Like I said, "grades" are an abstraction for most students, only really understood by those that GIVE them: Academics who are among the very few that really give a damn about them.