Now That SQ 744 Has Tanked, What To Do About Common Education

[Gaspar]

I think it is more about educating children that have zero choice on where they live.

More like zero choice on where they can send their children to school!

It will continue to be that way.  Sad.

[TheArtist]

More like zero choice on where they can send their children to school!

It will continue to be that way.  Sad.

  If your a good parent it won't matter what school you go to you will still learn because the parent will make sure you do. 

  If your not a good parent, A.  There is a strong likelihood they will not take the effort to get you into a better school (they often don't know where there children are or whats going on with their children academically anyway)   B. Even if they do get you into a "better" school, whether private or public, that child will need extra attention or specific types of attention to ameliorate the "bad" parenting. Aka, it will cost more to make that transition.

  I have said it before, the school I went to as a kid was once a great school. But the demographics changed, not the school.  It wasn't the schools fault that scores went down etc. It wouldnt have mattered if the school were private or public, if either had to experience the same demographic changes, the result would likely have been the same. I have watched Glenpools scores, which used to be abysmal, go up as the demographics have changed.  It's not that the teachers or school have gotten better, the demographics, the parents, have gotten better. Apples to apples, whether private or public, its the parents, not the school that matter the most.  IF you have programs and teaching methods tailored to kids from bad households, then you can make a difference.  If you put some of those children in better school environments, those schools whose children have good parents, some might do better, but its also just as likely that they will not for they will not be getting their specific, unique needs taken care of in a school whose programs are tailored to a different demographic. They can get left out and pushed aside while the over all school does well.  Sure there are exceptions, but generally school choice would imo, nibble around the edges while still leaving a large number of children in the same, or worse, position they are now. And its odd to even consider it, its like your saying, well, we know whats going to work with these kids from these circumstances, but rather than have this school do that, we will let these parents figure it out? or we will leave it up to chance for perhaps there is some other school that will work for them? etc.  Why not just do what needs to be done in the schools we have?   We can look at successful programs, for the same "challenging" demographics we have, that have worked in other parts of the country and implement them here.  It's not rocket science people. The only hold up I can see is the school system not making the changes.

But if you want funding, first tell me what your going to do, then tell me what that will cost, for only then I can decide if I think its worth funding.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

Artist,
Exactly!!

[Gaspar]

  If your a good parent it won't matter what school you go to you will still learn because the parent will make sure you do. 

  If your not a good parent, A.  There is a strong likelihood they will not take the effort to get you into a better school (they often don't know where there children are or whats going on with their children academically anyway)   B. Even if they do get you into a "better" school, whether private or public, that child will need extra attention or specific types of attention to ameliorate the "bad" parenting. Aka, it will cost more to make that transition.

  I have said it before, the school I went to as a kid was once a great school. But the demographics changed, not the school.  It wasn't the schools fault that scores went down etc. It wouldnt have mattered if the school were private or public, if either had to experience the same demographic changes, the result would likely have been the same. I have watched Glenpools scores, which used to be abysmal, go up as the demographics have changed.  It's not that the teachers or school have gotten better, the demographics, the parents, have gotten better. Apples to apples, whether private or public, its the parents, not the school that matter the most.  IF you have programs and teaching methods tailored to kids from bad households, then you can make a difference.  If you put some of those children in better school environments, those schools whose children have good parents, some might do better, but its also just as likely that they will not for they will not be getting their specific, unique needs taken care of in a school whose programs are tailored to a different demographic. They can get left out and pushed aside while the over all school does well.  Sure there are exceptions, but generally school choice would imo, nibble around the edges while still leaving a large number of children in the same, or worse, position they are now. And its odd to even consider it, its like your saying, well, we know whats going to work with these kids from these circumstances, but rather than have this school do that, we will let these parents figure it out? or we will leave it up to chance for perhaps there is some other school that will work for them? etc.  Why not just do what needs to be done in the schools we have?   We can look at successful programs, for the same "challenging" demographics we have, that have worked in other parts of the country and implement them here.  It's not rocket science people. The only hold up I can see is the school system not making the changes.

But if you want funding, first tell me what your going to do, then tell me what that will cost, for only then I can decide if I think its worth funding.   

Certainly can't disagree with that logic.  Unfortunately we have a society of parents that no longer make the sacrifice necessary to be parents.  At 7:30 am the kids go to daycare, then to school, then to daycare, and finally home just a few hours before bed. 

The primary adult aside from the teacher these days is a person paid just over minimum wage to keep a pack of kids alive until their parents pick them up.  The village is raising the child.

[guido911]

  If your a good parent it won't matter what school you go to you will still learn because the parent will make sure you do. 

  If your not a good parent, A.  There is a strong likelihood they will not take the effort to get you into a better school (they often don't know where there children are or whats going on with their children academically anyway)   B. Even if they do get you into a "better" school, whether private or public, that child will need extra attention or specific types of attention to ameliorate the "bad" parenting. Aka, it will cost more to make that transition.

  I have said it before, the school I went to as a kid was once a great school. But the demographics changed, not the school.  It wasn't the schools fault that scores went down etc. It wouldnt have mattered if the school were private or public, if either had to experience the same demographic changes, the result would likely have been the same. I have watched Glenpools scores, which used to be abysmal, go up as the demographics have changed.  It's not that the teachers or school have gotten better, the demographics, the parents, have gotten better. Apples to apples, whether private or public, its the parents, not the school that matter the most.  IF you have programs and teaching methods tailored to kids from bad households, then you can make a difference.  If you put some of those children in better school environments, those schools whose children have good parents, some might do better, but its also just as likely that they will not for they will not be getting their specific, unique needs taken care of in a school whose programs are tailored to a different demographic. They can get left out and pushed aside while the over all school does well.  Sure there are exceptions, but generally school choice would imo, nibble around the edges while still leaving a large number of children in the same, or worse, position they are now. And its odd to even consider it, its like your saying, well, we know whats going to work with these kids from these circumstances, but rather than have this school do that, we will let these parents figure it out? or we will leave it up to chance for perhaps there is some other school that will work for them? etc.  Why not just do what needs to be done in the schools we have?   We can look at successful programs, for the same "challenging" demographics we have, that have worked in other parts of the country and implement them here.  It's not rocket science people. The only hold up I can see is the school system not making the changes.

But if you want funding, first tell me what your going to do, then tell me what that will cost, for only then I can decide if I think its worth funding.   

Have you attended or sent kids to a private school?

[TheArtist]

Have you attended or sent kids to a private school?

No.  I went to a lot of different Tulsa schools as a kid. Went to high school in Owasso. Was a good school with some good teachers, but also some not so good teachers.  One of my science classes for instance was taught by a coach.  It was his first year teaching this class.  I would read the chapter and know more than he did.  At one point I raised my hand and asked him to allow me to explain something that another student had asked and that he was unsure of.  After that there were many days when he would let me get up and teach the class lol.   I could tell that he wasnt interested in the subject and would have rather have been off doing other things while me being a science nerd jumped at the chance to get up and yack about zoology for an hour lol.  My mom was a geology professor so perhaps thats where I got it from.  But anyway, ya get the book, all the kids got the book and could take it home.    Whether you even have a teacher or not, if you do your job and study the material, you will learn it and pass the test.  In the best scenario the teachers will help you, but regardless its up to the parents to make you.  For the most part those kids in my class were determined to pass the classes and do very well with their SAT's, ASVAB's etc. so they could go to a good college. Good teachers or not, they were going to do well because they were expected to from home.  They were going to volunteer, learn languages, win awards, get the best grades, get the best summer jobs they could, help little old ladies across the street... whatever it took to fluff up their resumes so they could go out and conquer the world.  You think they mostly got that from the school?  

I do remember one shy kid who sat next to me in my senior english class.  My guess was that he was one of the poor country kids originally from the area, not one of us new kids whose families had just moved to a fancy new home in the suburbs.  One time he was asked to read a few paragraphs.  He barely made it through as he really struggled to slooowly, agonizingly sound out each word.  He was never asked to read outloud again. I felt so bad for him.  And I think it struck me because he also happened to look a lot like me as well, someone had actually asked us if we were brothers once. There but by the grace of God...  I still wonder what happened to him. I hope he is well.  He somehow passed and graduated, but in all honesty he shouldn't have.  The school failed him? (we all failed him) What if most of the students had been like him in this "great and wonderful Owasso" public school?  How would their test scores and rankings have been then?    

The trick is for those kids without good parents or from unfortunate circumstances, the school has to step in and do things differently than you might find in a "traditional" school, even a traditional private school.  Things either have to be different or extra, or both. Things as in, teaching methods, discipline, school structure, the curriculum and how it is taught, counciling, etc.  You could take all of that from a wonderfully successful private or public, middle/upper middle class school,,, plop all of it down in the middle of an area full of "nontraditional" students,,, and it would likely do poorly, unless it changed to meet the different needs of those particular students.  Yes change can require more money, but money alone will not ensure change, nor the right kind of change.

[guido911]

What you are saying Artist makes a lot of sense as a practical matter. In my experience with private schools, particularly the really pricey ones, the family has made up its mind that their child's education is important. Now, there are those families send their kids to these places for other reasons perhaps.

[custosnox]

If a child goes to a school, yes a good parent can make sure that the child succeeds, but if the school doesn't have the resources to do their part it becomes that much harder. By your logic we might as well just close the schools and have all kids home school. If what the school has to offer doesn't matter, than why have them? And not all kids learn that way

[guido911]

If a child goes to a school, yes a good parent can make sure that the child succeeds, but if the school doesn't have the resources to do their part it becomes that much harder. By your logic we might as well just close the schools and have all kids home school. If what the school has to offer doesn't matter, than why have them? And not all kids learn that way

Are you speaking to me? Because all I want for all of our country's kids is to get them the best education possible so they can have the best shot at succeeding. I am on record in here as being pro school choice for that reason alone. It really saddens me to see our children left in a failing school because of parental apathy or their family's financial situation. Neither of those two factors (of perhaps many) are within a child's power to fix.

I travel abroad quite often. Three years ago while in Jamaica I got a real eye-opener on what third world poverty looks like, but the children there were in uniform at school trying to learn.

[custosnox]

Are you speaking to me? Because all I want for all of our country's kids is to get them the best education possible so they can have the best shot at succeeding. I am on record in here as being pro school choice for that reason alone. It really saddens me to see our children left in a failing school because of parental apathy or their family's financial situation. Neither of those two factors (of perhaps many) are within a child's power to fix.

I travel abroad quite often. Three years ago while in Jamaica I got a real eye-opener on what third world poverty looks like, but the children there were in uniform at school trying to learn.

Sorry, was on my phone responding so didn't make it clear (and kind of skipped the quoting part).  Was responding to Artist.

[ZYX]

Artist, what you are saying is mostly true, but that logic is not always correct. Parents play an important role in education, but students do not learn as well with a bad teacher as they would with an excellent teacher. I have had several bad teachers (won't name people but I desperately wish I could) and I did not learn nearly as much in their classes because there was no motivation too. Nobody tries too hard to please someone who is too stuck up in theirself to care. [end certain past teacher rant] A teacher that cares makes a much more comfortable and easy learning environment. Teachers are EXTREMELY important, and hiring great ones, is also extremely important.

[TheArtist]

  I don't want to imply that schools make no difference, its that the schools need to fit the demographics, be appropriate for the students especially when we are talking about troubled or "nontraditional" students (sorry I wish I had a better word).  

 Yes good teachers can indeed make a difference, but they too must have skills tailored to specific demographics.  

 One size does not fit all.  More money alone will not ensure an appropriate fit.  Choice alone will not ensure an appropriate fit. There will still be a large swath of students that will not get their needs met.

 Lets say we go with school choice.  I am not completely against it.  Its my opinion that ultimately it would cost more.  Partly because A. I don't think as many students as one might hope would end up at the right school.  B. I don't think that the new schools would be the right fit for a majority of those "difficult, nontraditional, etc." students.  And if they were set up to cater to those students, why couldn't you have gotten the original school to have catered to them (thus ending up with paying for 2 schools that arent the best fit)?  Again, one size will not fit all and I don't think the schools that would pop up would necessarily have the right programs to take care of the all the variety of demographics we see around the city.  Would one intentionally arise on its own that would cater to those kids?  Why don't we make the schools we have fit those kids? Schools will have to continually evolve as demographics change. What worked the best at one time, will not always work the best forever. The best teacher in one situation, will not be the best in another.

We can look around the city and see that different areas have different demographics with specific needs. Perhaps you need teachers that can speak and deal students and parents who speak a second language in one for instance.  A teacher who would be super good in one environment will not neccesarily be the best in another.  Why not tailor the school and its teachers to its areas demographic?


 "Certain" students really need a more specific environment.  

 "Others" can get by in even mediocre ones. (though yes thrive in a good school with good teachers that fit them)

 Those "certain" students would not thrive as well as they could in the "others" school if that school does not cater to the "certain" students needs.

 Hope you could follow all that, its early for me lol.  

[AquaMan]

Your attitude is good Artist. Especially for a guy with no children having gone through the system. And I don't fault anyone for sending their kids to a private school if they can afford it and if its for the right reasons. Guido points that out and its rare for me to agree with him. But if you are sending your kid to private school so he can grow up with the "right" associations and make good connections for later life then you should reconsider. That usually produces well connected, successful, narrow minded adults who know how to drink well and hire their friends for key positions. It insulates them from the rest of the population. Just my opinion.

Neither great parents or Private school per se is the key to a good education though. Too many variables to pick just those two. Anyone know any grads of the local, now defunct, Mrs. Simpson's School?  It was private, located in a prestigious hood with small class sizes etc. and had no better success rate than the public school nearby.

Artist, there are employees of TPS whose only purpose is to help those students who learn in different ways. They work to assist those students whose demographics don't match the core of the school they attend. However, because of poor funding there are few of them. I know one of them. Unfortunately, she is usually placed in the schools that are already doing well. Administratively, that assures the success of the position.

Public schools are seriously harmed by the notorious failures of systems like Atlanta and high profile failures like LA and New York. It is a mistake to think that all public schools are in the same mess. No system public or private has all good teachers, uniformly good programs with leadership to match. Parental involvement in both systems is sketchy. I would ask you to remember your college experience with poor quality grad students who were teaching some of the survey courses or elective courses. True in Stanford as well as North Texas State. The serious, the talented, the bright ones find a way to learn.

[nathanm]

Certainly can't disagree with that logic.  Unfortunately we have a society of parents that no longer make the sacrifice necessary to be parents.  At 7:30 am the kids go to daycare, then to school, then to daycare, and finally home just a few hours before bed. 

The primary adult aside from the teacher these days is a person paid just over minimum wage to keep a pack of kids alive until their parents pick them up.  The village is raising the child.

That would be one of the costs of having most families earning two incomes.

[Gaspar]

That would be one of the costs of having most families earning two incomes.

Yep!

We thought about it, but then decided to just live in a smaller house and drive older cars.