What are the odds that RUSD teachers will show Waiting for Superman in any of their classes that deal with current issues?
For those of you not yet aware, Waiting for Superman is a documentary produced by Davis Guggenheim of An Inconvenient Truth fame. The committed liberal takes an honest look at our public schools.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Yes, but what will the proposed solution be in this film? More funding?
I haven't seen the film though I plan to do so. I am not even sure that solutions are even proposed in the film. That said I have no doubt that some (teachers union especially) will see additional funding as the answer to our public school problems.
Well if there are problems exposed, there are likely to be solutions implied, at least.
In the trailer, you see, for instance, that Finland and Korea top the charts in "good schools". I wonder how much they pay per student, or if there are other factors that make their schools so "successful".
The single greatest predictor of student achievement is parental commitment to, and parental involvement in, the student's education.
It matters little which school the student attends or what teachers they have. Without their parent behind them, most students will not achieve their potential.
Where we have high concentrations of failing students, we see families, neighborhoods and entire communities that are failing. Yet we expect the shools and the teacher in the midst of this to work miracles. They can't fix the family, neighborhood or community. To expect that is just ridiculus.
In communities where these conditions don't prevail, we don;t have large concentrations of failing students.
Students do assignments and take tests, schools don't. Schools don't fail, students do.
From what I understand, teaching is a highly regarded avocation in Finland, unlike here where we routinely attack and belittle teachers (present company excluded of course!) Also, knowledge and learningare honored, unlike here where it's uncool and nerdy. Finland doesn't have huge pockets of deep poverty' like we do. I see Milwaukee is now the fourth poorest city in America. THAT is what's wrong with Milwaukee's public school students, not the teachers or the schools. Oh and Finland recruits teachers from the top 10% of college grads and they must have a masters degree.
These are reflections of overall cultural values over which teachers and schools have no control.
Honestly, if we're really going to blame teachers and start firing them enmass as both Bush and Obama have foolishly advocated I'll be amazed if we can get anyone to pursue it as a profession in the future.
Sean, why do you assume that poverty causes poor academic achievement and not the other way around?
I hear the Huffington Post gave the movie a good review....
That's a good point Denis, no doubt it's repeating cycle that feeds into itself.
But we know the root conditions that lead to concentrated poverty. And we know the conditions that are pervasive with the concentration of poverty, the lack of family sustaining jobs and the social ills go with it. Those factors make it very difficult for a lot people under those conditions to instill and enforce acedemic acheivement in their kids.
Absent poverty, I can't think of a factor that would cause low academic achievement to concentrate and then lead to the concentrated poverty.
I'd like to see it. I'll bet that the schools that are the focus of the film are in areas of highly concentrated poverty.
Sean,
Quick question... but first some background...
I would agree with:
"The single greatest predictor of student achievement is parental commitment to, and parental involvement in, the student's education."
Having grown up in a lower-income family, I know for a fact the reason I did well academically is because my parents cared enough to be involved and committed (same goes for my sister).
Second paragraph, however, leads to some questions...
IF
"It matters little which school the student attends or what teachers they have. Without their parent behind them, most students will not achieve their potential."
(emphasis mine)
THEN who cares that:
"Oh and Finland recruits teachers from the top 10% of college grads and they must have a masters degree."
If it matters so little, why bring it up? And why does Finland have such stringent requirements in their recruiting, again, if it matters so little? Is Finland's schools successful because of the Finnish parental behaviors, the lack of concentrated poverty in Finland, or the "Cream of the Crop" teachers that are recruited?
It would seem as though, since it matters so little, that Finland is putting it's focus in the wrong area in terms of educating teachers. Yet that argument is very difficult to make seeing as they are apparently very successful at educating their youth.
I would agree 100% that parental influence, commitment and involvement is the primary factor in the successful education of a student. What I would challenge, however, is that the school/teacher "matters little".
I would propose that there is a combined effort between student, parent, teacher and school (meaning the system) that would ensure that a student would achieve their greatest potential. I think ignoring any 1 of those aspects has a great affect (though none greater than the lack of parent involvement).
I know you and Denis generally disagree on the concept of schools "failing" or teachers "failing" to teach versus students "failing" to be taught - but I think there's some truth to all of it. Teachers can fail to teach effectively, and students can fail to learn (whether intentionally or unintentionally). People learn in different ways and via different means and on different "schedules" - and our systems here generally try to be "everything to everyone all the time" (with exceptions for special-ed, which tends to be a 'catch-all' instead of specialized). That's where you'll see some teachers with more skills in specializing their teaching be more successful in helping their students learn. To some extent the teachers without those skills "fail" - and maybe those skills come with being in the top 10% of your Master's Degree course...?
I have a fairly high interest in education as well as some pretty good insight via my wife into the public education system in Milwaukee which - systematically - is failing (more so because it's become too $$ politicized $$ to be an effective educational organization, not because of the teachers).
I could ramble on forever on this topic... but I'll stop now to catch my breath...
Thanks!
IMHO
B
Of course you're right Brad, it is all of those. Parents, students, teachers, school system. I brought the subject of Finland hiring as teachers the top 10% of graduates in their various fields for two reasons. To show their expression of support for learning and teaching as an entire country that I'm certain is expressed by individual parents in support of their and their neighbor's children since they're all Finlanders and recognize that they're all in it together. Unlike here where we say we're all Americans, but for a lot of it's everyman for himself.
Since much of the gripping about education here in America is really more about taxes and bashing unionized teachers than a sincere concern for educating our youth, I figured it would make a good point. Because I'm sure that recruiting from the top 10% of chemistry graduates to teach chemistry and the top 10% of physicists to teach physics requires them to offer a competqative wage and to have the committment to education to pay that and offer the respect, honor and prestige that goes with it, rather than bashing, belittling and griping about wages and benefits for those legions of awful teachers we supposedly have in America.
But regardless of all of that, if you took Finland's best teachers and stuck them in the classroom in inner city Milwaukee, the concentration of the fourth people in the country and all that oes with that distinction, the results would be the same, because the factors causing the failure of the students are external to the teachers and the schools.
"But regardless of all of that, if you took Finland's best teachers and stuck them in the classroom in inner city Milwaukee, the concentration of the fourth people in the country and all that oes with that distinction, the results would be the same, because the factors causing the failure of the students are external to the teachers and the schools."
Well... THAT would be an interesting experiment which would go a long ways toward proving SOMEONE'S point!
Well that would be an interesting experiment. In the mean time, I've provided a reasoned hypopthesis to explain the high concentration of failing students in certain locations. That being that the high failure rate corresponds with a concentration of poverty. It is also notable that in locations where we don't see concentrated poverty, we also do not observe a high concentration of failing students.
If there is alternative hypothesis with a different variable than poverty to explain this observed concentration failing students, I've not seen it presented yet.
Until someone presents such an argument for consideration, I'll have to continue assume that the term "failing schools" is a misnomer and a false explanation. And in my opinion, it is an intentional and politically motivated deception that can only lead to false solutions.
If there is an alternative explanation, I'm all ears.
Sean, how would your hypothesis account for the handful of schools in impoverished areas that do succeed?
There are always exceptions. They call it beating the odds for a reason.
Some schools consistently beat the odds which suggests there is something at work besides luck.
Yup, more rare exceptions to the rule. Unless that is you can provide a cogent argument as to what else specifically is the cause. Your hypothesis?
My hypothesis is that schools that successfully educate kids in impoverished areas categorically reject the various excuses you and others offer for failure, be it poverty, crummy parents, lack of jobs etc.... As such, those schools have a no excuses mentality and an every kid can learn philosophy. There is not the, to quote a recent president, "soft bigotry of low expectations" that you and yours perpetuate. Poor black kids can learn. If a teacher doesn't think so, we need to keep that teacher as far away from our kids as possible.
There you go now we just need to become a Lake Woebegon Nation, where all the teachers are above average.
Denis, can you provide some concrete examples of these public schools perennially turning out impoverished students who are successful?
I mean just so we can be sure they're not conjured out of your imagination. And so we can examine what might be different about them that could account for this success.
I have a few anecdotes Sean and yes, I realize it is not sufficient. I have been reading a book about the education problems that boys are having. The author, a lefty I think, wrote at some length about KIPP schools and their success with inner city kids. Also, the most brilliant man on earth, Thomas Sowell, was educated in Harlem in the 50's. Poor black kids at that time were doing just as well as the white kids from the posh neighborhoods, according to research done by Dr. Sowell. Of course you realize that we are getting our asses kicked by students in India and China among other places with plenty of poor kids. So yes poor people, even poor black people can learn. And again, those folks who don't think so have no business "teaching" said children.
Anecdotes don't cut it. I've heard anecdotes of ghosts and flying saucers. A specific example would be verifiable and allow an examination as to the reason for the successfull students.
What is a KIPP school? Does their enrollment include children of all stripes from the surrounding neighborhood or is it a cherry picked student body?
Do poor kids in both China and India get educated? Or is it the urban upper classes/casts?
Yes poor children can learn, if their basic needs are met and they have a stable family environment that fosters learning.
I'd be willing to bet that 1950's Harlem was a in a far more stable and less impoverished state than inner city Milwaukee is today.
Milwaukee is the fourth poorest city in the country and a study that just came out today notes that black male unemployment in inner city Milwaukee is 53%! One need look no further to discover whystudents in Milwaukee are failing in such large numbers.
Sean, try to follow the consequences of your logic, such that it is. If people can't learn because of poverty or because they are black or whatever the litany of excuses you have to offer, then wouldn't it make sense to identify such human waste and use our resources elsewhere? Mind you, this is not a proposal on my part. It is simply the proper policy response given your flawed notion that poor black children can't learn.
Do you know when this movie comes out? I would be interested in seeing it.
Not sure John. I doubt it is a major release so I would think a trip to Milwaukee would be in order. Denis.
Ah Denis, the word twisting continues, I understand, it's your only defense. but why would you be so silly as to post this: "Sean, try to follow the consequences of your logic, such that it is. If people can't learn because of poverty or because they are black or whatever the litany of excuses you have to offer,"
When immediately above it I said this:
"Yes poor children can learn, if their basic needs are met and they have a stable family environment that fosters learning."
Really Denis, I expect better of you. And by the way, I have NEVER and would NEVER say that kids couldn't learn because they're black. Never. Bad form. But I guess desperate arguments require desparate measures.
Post a Comment