Here we go again... words from our thoughtless but thought provoking president (sans ums and uhs):
"I believe marriage has served society well and I believe it is important to affirm that marriage of a man and woman is ideal, and the job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal,"
So what other ideals can we drive policy toward... Women staying at home to raise the children, that's ideal right? No sex before marriage, that's ideal. No divorce, that's ideal. No children out of wedlock, that's ideal. Hey how about no child left behind, that's ideal!
Here we have a president who attempts at every turn to do what's popular - on the surface. Sentiment is against the middle east - go after Iraq and Afghanistan. Isreal and Saudi Arabia... they're okay. Marriage is being eroded - go after the "gays". Infidelity, emotional abuse, divorce... they're okay. Children falling behind in school - go after the schools. The funding and organization... they're okay.
The man is a walking contradiction and his policy reflects that at every step. Example:
No child left behind act:
Schools will be held accountable for individual child's performance.
Measure of performance provided via mandatory testing - this then gives an average of all the students scores for ranking the school's performance. Question how are schools accountable for an individual child's performance if the school's performance is measured via averages?
"Failing" schools will receive no federal funds.
Federal funds make between 8-30% of a school's budget. Cutting any amount of money from an already fiscally struggling school get's them back on track how? Fear, intimidation? Additionally the funds aren't provided directly to the schools but to the states for the states to then distribute. This means that what most likely will happen is that as schools fail out funding will be reduced for all schools and not just the failing one.
The NCLBA will increase federal funds to schools by 24%
Meanwhile it will also close 40-50 existing programs, some of which are proven successes and provide the "ideal". Additionally the proposed budget plan (separate from the NCLBA) will reduce overall federal education spending. (He giveth and with the other hand taketh away).
You could go on and on with more examples: Treatment of our armed services (i.e. working them over what they signed on for and reducing benefits), the purposeful hobbling of the space program, his special form of environmentalism (getting scientists that agree with his policy), etc.
I just hope that enough people get off their lazy butts for the election and vote someone else in. Not just anyone else but someone who's actually paying enough attention to himself to not be a walking contradiction. I'd prefer someone who's not looking at sideline issues - who's number three policy is not "making education first" but who's NUMBER ONE POLICY is making education first. You want to talk about fighting terrorism - educating our children is the first step in "the war on [noun]". You want less crime, less violence, less abortion, less divorce, less suicide, lower jobless rates, let's get REALLY serious about education and stop making the schools constantly have fund raisers and donation drives and stop them from having to think up new ways of bringing money in like corporate sponsors and incentives. My son should go to school to get an education, not to get a free Pizza Hut personal pan pizza for reading a book or showing up for the MAP test.
Let's keep our eye on the ball here. Fund the schools to the level that they really need to be funded - work backwards up the budget. For example what's the ratio of children per teacher that's truly effective 12-1, 16-1? What level of education should that teacher have? How much does it cost them to obtain that education? How much should they be compensated for acquiring that education? What's the average for a private school teacher's total compensation (market forces)? What supplies are needed on a per child basis during a school year? Can bulk purchases of supplies reduce costs? Then just move on up the chain to the Principal and other administrative staff. For example is a Principal a "manager" of the teachers, an administrator of the school as a whole, a high ranking teacher? What's the superindendent do, what's their job description and how's that compensated for "in the real world"? What's the ratio of administrators to "staff"?
In order to keep the schools, teachers, administrators focused on the objective - teaching the student - you then have to make sure that appropriate reward as well as punishment is available. I've heard countless teachers talk about the only reward is tenure and the only punishment is tenure. There are a variety of infractions that can get a teacher terminated but typically teachers are in such short supply that "poor performance" is not going to be a big enough deal to warrant punishment. Likewise how do we measure the performance of the administrative and support staff - peer review? That sounds fine but can also lead to a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" and I think we have plenty of congressmen already.
There just doesn't seem to be any serious thought process going into how to reform our educational system. I think it's time we had some - no more "ums" and "uhs", scripts and poorly rehearsed dismally timed speeches. MOVEON!
Posted by nhavar at February 28, 2004 12:54 AMWow! You're really passionate about this, aren't you? I am, too.
A line that struck me as particularly interesting in this specific post was this: "For example what's the ratio of children per teacher that's truly effective 12-1, 16-1?"
Cool. I think you're getting somewhere. I know there are statistics which support that the smaller the ratio, the better. Actually, studies show that a 1-1 ratio is the "perfect" setting for each student. You can probably concur. For example, let's say that you are taking an advanced math course in college, and that the professor is speaking English, you know he is, but he just isn't making one iota of sense to you. Unfortunately, your professor can't detain the class until you catch up. He has others in the class to keep motivated, challenged, and taught. He also has a deadline. So, you get a tutor. Suddenly, with the ability to ask the right questions and have the full attention to your particular needs met, you understand your subject. I think this works for all people, child- AND adult-students. One-to-one. The perfect ratio. Right?
But that's just not practical, to provide enough teachers for each student to have their own personal tutor. So, we try to get as small of numbers as possible, as close to a 1-1 ratio as we can. But, if we COULD get it that individualized, think of the cost of education per student! Think how big the schools would have to be for each student/tutor pair to have their own classroom! Think of the lack of teachers available for this! Think of the taxes we would have to pay to afford that! It's just not possible!
Or is it?
Enter the homeschool movement (you knew it was coming, didn't you?). Even if the parent has 12 of his/her own kids to teach, each kid gets tutored on his/her own subject/skill individually, since there would most-likely be not more than two kids in the same grade doing the same subjects at the same level. Even if he/she was forced to teach them all the same subjects at the same time, the ratio is still smaller; it is still closer to the ideal 1-1. Thus, advancement at the student's own pace is promoted. This is when the student truly learns, when they are able to spend as much or as little time as they need on a subject. Think back on all those things you learned in school, but wished you had devoted either more or less time to.
Just as too-low-financial support for your choice of education for your children burns your butt, so does NO support for my choice burn my butt. I pay taxes that go to public school, regardless of whether or not said school gets x-dollars for my child's attendance, or lack thereof. My money goes to them. I don't, however, get ANY financial assistance to educate my children. While you may be upset at "Dubya" for being ineffective in his attempts to help the education system, I'm excited at the mere mention that he and his "cronies" are looking into financial assistance for educational choices that are something other than public-school; "vouchers" I believe was the term. Maybe us homeschoolers can benefit from a little trickle-down effect of a few tax dollars to help off-set OUR expenses, once the primary relief goes to private schools, which is what would probably happen. Would you support your tax dollars assisting me? If it came to a vote, would you vote yes to that? That would truly be "no child left behind," don't you think? Otherwise, it's simply "no PUBLIC SCHOOL child left behind," right?
I don't think that 12-1 or 16-1 or (what your children most-likely experience) 20-1 or worse is the best choice for your children. I really don't. It grieves me to know that so many parents out there just don't see the benefit of walking daily with their children, instructing them, nurturing them, keeping their children's hearts turned towards them (and vice-versa); that they would rather their children have strong friendships rather that strong sibling-and-family-relationships. They don't see it that way, because they think they support strong families more than strong peer-relationships. But they still send their children out, the key-word being "out." They think that they can accomplish all this in the evenings when they are consumed with homework, dinner, sports-activities (sometimes), getting housework done, and bedtime.
Sometimes this choice is made with good intentions. Like, maybe one or both parents didn't and don't have strong friendships, and they don't want that for their own kids. It's a social thing. Or that they think their kids are ready to deal with so many differing views from their own and are able to withstand peer pressure and that these tiny, precious sparks can be a "light in a dark world." It's a spiritual thing. Whatever, they usually have good intentions. My own father-in-law wants to move away from the suburbs, but he mentioned to me that he won't take his daughter out of the school she's in because - in his words - her friends are more of a family to her than her real family is. This is tragic! Not just that he acknowledges this, but that he promotes this, too! He is giving up his authority in her life purposely and handing that authority over to children her own age! I grew up in the public school environment myself. I loved and valued my family, but I valued my peers more than my family, too. And why wouldn't I? I spent no less than 30 hours a week with them (more as I got older), which is a lot of time if you're only 6 years old, or 11 years old, or 18 years old. Heck, I'm sure you know what I mean. You probably went to public school, too. Even now, you're an adult, you go to work, and you probably wish you didn't have to spend so many hours away from your family, because you value them. You probably spend anywhere from 40-55 hours away from home each week, wishing you were home. Yet, you expect your children to NOT want to be home for 30 hours a week, to embrace school and their peers, and to still embrace their siblings and to respect you as the ultimate earthly authority in their lives, without recognizing the conflict of interests that is. Do you see the irony? I am so afraid for all those parents out there who will one day say, "They grew up so quickly. If only I had spent more time instilling our values into them. If only..." But it will be too late. Hardly anyone says, "If only I hadn't spent so much time WITH my children..."
I understand that you stay involved in your children's school because you value all the children, and that you want to make it a better place for all of them. I've read your posts that say that you value other people's children. I believe you really do. So do I. Thank you for valuing my children. I value your children, too. Of course, I value my own, but I care enough about your children to post a comment to you that I hope will make you think and re-evaluate your choices, just as you make posts hoping to cause others (like myself) to reflect. I cannot join your PTA or become a class-parent, because I don't support that. In my opinion, that's not what's best for your children. Neither am I a "drop-out parent." That does not epitomize or identify my choice to homeschool. Here now, you just spent over a week with your kids, all to yourself and public school. Here's a question for you: were you more glad to see them leave, or more glad to see them come home? Think about that. Whatever your honest answer is, what does that say about your family dynamics and where your heart is? Whatever your answer is! For example, if you were more glad to see them leave, are you proud of that? Do you find that healthy, to be glad your children are gone? What motivates you to want them to leave? Do you find that a selfless or selfish quality in yourself? And are you then being the father you hope your own sons grow up to emulate and the sort of man you hope your daughters will one day marry? If you were more glad to see them come home this past week or so, what does that tell you? Doesn't that tell you that you never wanted them to leave in the first place? Or that you missed them while they were gone? That they are precious to you? That you value every moment you have with them? If you don't want them to leave or miss them when they're gone, why do they leave? So they can be with friends? So they can get a "good education?" To be a "light in a dark place"? I understand that you don't just believe that you are intelligent, but that you truly are intelligent. Do you really think that so many other people are more intelligent and more capable of teaching your children what they need to know than you and your wife are? And what about your personal, spiritual values? Is everyone else really that much more intelligent about how to teach your children? Who knows your children better? You, or someone who will most-likely have influence over your children for a mere 9 months, along with 15-25 other kids, and then leave their lives permanently? Is it really a better investment in their development to send them away from you?
Please, don't misunderstand me. This is not a hate-mail. I love children. I have a heart for each one of them. And I love your children enough to ask the probing (or not-so-probing) questions herein. Even to your readers, who may or may not have school-aged children, I ask these questions. If you don't want to respond, that's fine. Just, please, think about it. If you want to benefit both your children and the other children whom you value, consider removing your children from public school and homeschooling them. Not only will you be getting your own children's student-to-teacher ratio closer to the ideal 1-1, but you will also reduce the ratio in their public school by one child for each of the other children (whose classes they were in), thus enabling the teachers to give the other students more time and attention. It's a win-win for everyone. You may be removing money from them, but it's only your child's education money removed. The other children still get the same per-capita dollars. So, there is no or very little harm done to the school's finances, certainly nothing that purchasing a few fund-raiser items wouldn't help.
Before I sign-off and post this, I want to acknowledge that you have, indeed, tried the "grass on the other side" with your niece, as you said in a past post. Bravo! You mentioned, however, in your post that it was out of necessity that you homeschooled her, because you were having trouble getting her into the public school. I sense, then, that your heart wasn't into homeschooling, but that it was done begrudgingly. I would ask that you consider this homeschool "grass" from the perspective of wanting to, not needing to. You may find it a refreshing idea.
Respectfully yours,
A homeschool parent