No child left behind

[fintstone]

Originally posted by dd74
Isn't that what's (still) happening now?

"No child left behind" penalizes or rewards teachers and schools based on achievement. The required testing documents/substantiates the achievement.

[fintstone]

Tis the beauty of private enterprise as opposed to govt schools. If private schools do not perform...they go out of business. Just the fact that they are operating is a vote of confidence that a public school will never achieve.

[gavinlit]

Ok - now we're starting to see some real bs on this thread:
(a) Improved test results over a period of time indicated that people are performing better on that particular test - and that's all. Dosn't indicate better/more effective learning or tuition.
(b) This is a natural result (the improvement that is) as teachers/students come to understand what's expected better and become more effective in their drill
(c) One would expect greater returns from people underachieving on a standardised examintation than from those operating at a higher level (related to the idea of diminishing returns).
(c) Learning is not memorizing a process but understanding the process - hence the facilitating thing. It's not very effective to do something as a teacher/instructor and then assume that just because others can copy you, they've somehow learnt the concept. Might as well teach them any arbitrary process and feel completely delighted when they can repeat the process
(d) A possible reason (based on stats) that american children have been underperforming on international examinations (in maths) is that there is a much much higher incidence of drill and much less critical thinking in america than most other western & developed nations. This is a generalisation of course but true in statistical sense.
(e) It is true that engaged students are less likely to cause a discipline problem. Go visit any classroom with disproportionate discipline issues compared to other classes in the same school and check the quality of the teaching and the engagement of the student. Poor quality classes and poor discipline tend to go hand in hand.
(f) It's also true that to learn effectively there needs to be a suitable learning environment - ie adequate discipline. A good lesson will not guarantee good behaviour but a bad lesson will almost certainly guarantee poor behaviour.
(g) Most teachers would find their job a lot easier if all they had to do was teach to a test and practice rote learning. Makes you wonder why they persist with making their job much harder for themselves dosn't it. Possibly because they recognise what 'learning' actually means (am I stretching here??).
(h) One of the beauties of private schooling is that you're automatically selecting students from higher socie economic groupings which (in australia at least) has been shown to be the ONLY significant variable in a student's performance on end of school standardised testing. Ie - if you pick the cream of the crop, one would expect you to get the best results (which dosn't always happen).

If you want a 'feel good' education - just get people to teach to a test and then you can convince yourself that students are doing well. Just don't expect them to have much true learning or thinking skills (or communication etc etc) when they leave school.

Many professions say 'trust me, your getting your moneys worth' - doctors, lawyers, sports instructors, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, it industry, accountants, engineers......
Any profession that has specialised knowledge engages in the 'trust me' cycle. The difference with teaching is that everyone is an expert because everyone went through schooling. Add that to the 'it was better back when...." and you've got the inevitable result.

[dd74]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
Just curious, how do you know that a private school won't be the same, or worse?

Excellent! And just for comparison, one should see the type of sub par and strange students/teachers/administrators in some of the so-called elite L.A. private schools. You (collectively) would be amazed!

[fintstone]

Originally posted by dd74
Excellent! And just for comparison, one should see the type of sub par and strange students/teachers/administrators in some of the so-called elite L.A. private schools. You (collectively) would be amazed!

But is that a good test?...Aren't most things in LA a bit odd?

[dd74]

Originally posted by fintstone
But is that a good test?...Aren't most things in LA a bit odd?

Yes, some things are odd. But no more overt than other U.S. cities. Call it "character."

Private schools, however, aren't monitored - at least not by an oversight committee like L.A. Unified. In some cases, a public school is a better choice, but one outside of L.A. County. I know quite a few parents who have moved to Ventura County, Callabassas, Santa Clarita, etc, simply because they wanted to be in a better public school district for their kids.

As for private schools, I know of one that is very laxed about discipline (calls itself "forward thinking" with education), and allows students to call the teachers by their first names. It also disallows the terms "winner" or "loser" in contests where there are such. This same school also stated through its principal that it will always teach and value the virtues of Martin Luther King and Ghandi over Washington, Lincoln and others.

Also, there's cost involved. Private elite schools - not religious affiliated schools per se - are as much as $25,000 a year - for K through 6th grade.

With the kids - rumors are the more money spent on tuition, the better the cars, houses, drugs and sex.

Private schools with religious denominations don't apply in many cases. To get out of the LA Unified School District, Jewish parents will send their kids to Catholic school and vice versa.

Moral: choose your private school very carefully.

[Jims5543]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
Just curious, how do you know that a private school won't be the same, or worse?

Private Schools do not depend on Government funding.They do not spend every minute of every day preparing for standardized tests. The funny part is the kids score well on them without the prep.

From what I am learning Private Schools are actually teaching kids not babysitting. They teach things like cognitive skills, something public schools abandoned years ago. Plus parents are paying for their kids to be there so they are more involved and have more of a stake in how well they are doing. The rules are tight and the kids have to wear uniforms. This takes a lot of distraction out of the school day.

A lot of the private schools around here, require each family to volenteer so many hours a school year to the school, so they are involved and see what is going on. This weeds out the day care parents that just want to be rid of their kids during the day.

I bet the private Schhols in or around Oakland are not considering Ebonics.