The Edison Kindergarten enrollment issue really highlights the perceived difference between schools in Alameda depending on neighborhood. Of course this goes to the heart of the issue, is it the school that makes the kids or the kids that make the school? And should we only be satisified as a community if a few of our schools are viewed as high performing while others are seen as the undesirable “booby prize”? Which is why it is great that the School Board has decided to implement an “Equity Policy” in Alameda. I can already hear the cynics groaning now… From Mike McMahon’s website as part of the agenda for tonight’s school board meeting, the language of the proposed AUSD Equity Policy:
We believe that equity is a set of actions that results in educational excellence not determined by differences of race, sex or economic status.
Equity is not the same as equality. Whereas, equality provides the same resources throughout the system on a per capita basis, equity demands allocation of resources based on need and support for each student’s success.
Therefore, in order to achieve equity in serving our students, AUSD will factor in student needs when making decisions regarding resource allocations.
Of course, as usual for Mike M.’s website there is a host of information around the topic of Equity and certainly the issue of equity is threaded among the core beliefs of AUSD’s superintendent. Now for those that are of the “all or nothing” vein, I’m not advocating that equity be used in place of everything else, but rather it is another tool to help promote excellence in all our schools for kids that may not have the benefits that other kids have when growing up.
Additionally, at tonight’s School Board meeting a report of enrollment numbers will be presented, from the Alameda Journal:
…The issue comes before the Board of Education today, when members will hear a report on enrollment for the first day of school last week.
“I am still looking at the numbers, but at this point things seem to be similar to what they have been over the past few years,” said Student Affairs Officer Dave Dierking, who will give the briefing. “I don’t see any big changes.”
…
A demographic study that school district officials carried out earlier this year predicted overall enrollment will drop about 106 students by 2011. The decline mostly will take place on Bay Farm Island and at schools between Park and Webster streets.
On the other hand, enrollment likely will increase around the new Bayport housing development — where Ruby Bridges Elementary School recently opened — and from the new housing planned along the northern waterfront.
…
But the fact that some schools are undergoing a jump in enrollment while others are declining will force officials to make some changes, including possibly shifting attendance zones, Dailey said.
“We need to develop a policy for how we handle a situation where two or three kids cannot get into a school,” Dailey said. “And we need to look at demographic trends and what classroom space is available.”…
Of course, another way to help promote excellence at individual schools is to get innovative educators/administrators like this guy to help incentivize learning, excerpt from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Ron Machado stood in the center of the Miraloma Elementary School playground Thursday surrounded by 300 students chanting, “Mohawk! Mohawk! Mohawk!”A few minutes later, the 33-year-old principal sported a Mohawk – spray-painted pink – as tufts of his brown hair blew across black asphalt.The students had been waiting all summer for this day. They had earned it.Last year, his first as a principal, Machado had promised to sport the new hairdo if the students raised the school’s Academic Performance Index by 55 points – an uncommon one-year gain on the 1,000-point scale.
The students came through with a 67-point gain on the API, an annual compilation of test scores used to rank schools.
“I wasn’t going to do a Mohawk for 10 points,” he said right before the shaving started.
Given Machado’s status as a first-year principal, his school’s API achievement for a total score of 787 is even more notable.
San Francisco Unified School District officials want more just like him and are partnering with UC Berkeley, San Francisco Education Alliance and Partners in School Innovation to recruit and prepare future principals.
Creating that pipeline of principals is one of seven items the school board identified Monday as the district’s top priorities for the next two years. Creating small schools and training teachers in literacy instruction are among the others…
An island-wide principal mohawk shave, maybe they should get the stylists from Spank! to make it fabulous.
…groan, groan. “Equity is not the same as equality”. So AUSD will skew resource allocation towards the least prepared, least motivated, least likely to succeed students in order that they obtain some undefined measure of “success” while the bell curve’s leading edge students are resource starved back into the equally level pack where they belong. One more vote for changing this town’s name to Levelville.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 11, 2007 @ 8:48 am
Where’s Kurt Vonnegut when you need him?
Comment by Jack — September 11, 2007 @ 9:21 am
What’s so wrong with each youth in Alameda, regardless of race, economic status, or place of residence, having a fair and equal shot at local resources?
Is it possible that the so-called “least prepared, least motivated, least likely to succeed” (characterizations that I refuse to accept as descriptive of anyone in Alameda, yesterday or today) are so because they hadn’t received their fair share of resources?
In any event, I don’t accept that characterization because I know first hand based on my experience in attending Chipman Middle School and Encinal High School back in the days (late 70’s/early ’80s) that there’s plenty of students who are pushing themselves against all odds, especially with the help of teachers, counselors, and, yes, parents. In my senior year English class (Mr. Johnson), we had something like 8 or 10 kids go to Cal, do well, and go on to successful lives. These kids cut across all racial and economic status — Grand Street kids, to kids from Esperanza, or West End working class neighborhoods. One went on to be valedictorian of his poli sci class and is now a tenure prof at UPenn — and he came to Alameda living in the BV’s. A kid who graduated the previous year in ‘83 went on to be valedictorian of her class at Cal (math, I think). Other kids I know who went to EHS in the early 80’s wrote much acclaimed novels (N. Tramble and A. Weiner). Others work for our city in the Fire Department or are doing good stuff in other departments. A good number went back to teach in Alameda’s West End.
So, please, don’t give me this baloney about “least prepared, least motivated, least likely to succeed” — give kids a fair and equal shot at local resources, and there will be even more who can do well, and or strive to the best of their abilities and determination.
Comment by tony_daysog — September 11, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Re: # 3
“What’s so wrong with each youth in Alameda, regardless of race, economic status, or place of residence, having a fair and equal shot at local resources?”
Exactly my point, Mr. Daysog, “equal shot at local resources”. However, you apparently didn’t read this pronouncement, “Equity is not the same as equality”, and, “Therefore, in order to achieve equity in serving our students, AUSD will factor in student needs when making decisions regarding resource allocations.”
Why shouldn’t the best prepared, most motivated, and most likely to succeed have their fair and equal shot at local resources?
It’s a rhetorical question, you need not answer.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 11, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Hi Tony, Nice to hear from you.
Jack,
I’m confused. Could you be insisting that every student receive identical resources or perhaps even that the most motivated, prepared and “most likely to succeed” get more? (As if they are better investment?)
I’d hope theoretically at least, that we all agree that everybody in the world deserves their fair share of everything (the pie). But when it comes to agreeing on how precisely to measure that out, it’s obviously harder to come to consensus.
Who is to judge who is the most motivated and therefore worthy, Jack Richard? And by what method?
If you listened to the testimony of students during the budget debate last year you heard a very articulate Encinal senior who was the rep to the school board tell how she is the first in her family to be headed to college. She has two younger siblings and counseling was crucial to her being able to thread her way through the process of choosing schools, applying etc. Her expressed fears that her siblings might not have the advantages she had, since her parents who had not gone through the process themselves are not prepared to take up the slack from the school councilors.
I can attest that as a high school drop out I feel useless at times, as I watch my college educated wife help our son through this process. I have been motivated enough to survive, but precluded the college option myself for many reasons which include lack of good mentoring at home at school. My wife’s mom, who was one of the few women in engineering at Cornell at the time, was in turn the person who prepared my wife for the process.
Here’s my point. I don’t have any problem with students of lesser socio-economic background having a little more resources (i.e. funds perhaps) steered their way to help them be on par with the advantages my son has.
Jack, to clarify, are you opposed to the scenario I’m alluding to here where not every student receives exactly the same amount of resources, be that actual dollars, or attention from staff?
Comment by Mark — September 11, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
I don’t pretend to know what the phrase “Equity is not the same as equality.” Based on a cursory look at that phrase, I draw a blank.
But I know this much. . . Back in the days, every year, as school children, we’d all have to fill out this half-sheet form that, in turn, the District sent to the federal government so as to be re-imbursed for schooling Navy kids. Now, the vast bulk of Navy kids went where? Paden, Woodstock, Chipman and Encinal. But was that Navy money equally distributed across the District, to say nothing about distributing it on a pro-rata share based on where Navy kids went? Good question.
Well, this is what I remember: for whatever reason, there wasn’t enough money for AP classes (I can’t remember if it was called AP back then) in my time at EHS — but if you wanted that, you could go to Alameda High. So where’d the District get the extra money for AP classes there but not here was the question us kids would ask ourselves all the time. As President, I’d take my student council to Alameda High for a joint pow-wow and, I gotta say, all our eyes always bulged at the amenities there. Even for the Gold Coast kids on student council this discrepancy was a stunner.
But you know what? I think the vast majority of kids did okay. Some are dentists in town, some are doctors, some work for UPS or are stay-at-home moms, etc., etc. But they are all okay, i.e. successes in their own right. All I am saying is this: give kids an equal and fair shot across the district at local resources. To me, this is important because I **know** that wasn’t the case waaay back in the days.
Comment by tony_daysog — September 11, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Minor edit: I meant to write: “I don’t pretend to know what the phrase ‘Equity is not the same as equality’ means.”
Comment by tony_daysog — September 11, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
I’m trying to understand what this means: “Therefore, in order to achieve equity in serving our students, AUSD will factor in student needs when making decisions regarding resource allocations.”
Does this mean a school that is performing well (Edison?) loses resources to a school not doing as well, for example?
Comment by Jack — September 11, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Re # 6 and # 8
Well, this is the Agenda that is on Mike McMahon’s website. The Memorandum states the following version of the Equity Policy Statement.
Equity Policy Statement (September 11th version)
We believe that equity is a set of actions that results in educational excellence not determined by differences of race, sex or economic status.
Equity is not the same as equality. Whereas, equality provides the same resources throughout the system on a per capita basis, equity demands allocation of resources based on need and support for each student’s success.
Therefore, in order to achieve equity in serving our students, AUSD will factor in student needs when making decisions regarding resource allocations.
Staff make changes to the policy and is recommending adoption of the following:
Comment by Jack Richard — September 11, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Re: #1
Dear Jack R,
You seem like a bright fellow, though I seldom agree with you. When you have dinner with your family, does everyone get the same exact portions regardless of their personal tastes, how big they are, or how hungry they happen to be? Is it unfair if Tommy gets more mashed potatoes than Jane? We love all our children equally, but that does not mean that their dinner plates always look the same.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 11, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
My opinion, and I always have one would be that a child coming from the B.V.s or Ezparanza, starts out in the morning at an disadvantage from the child that starts out at Edison. That isn’t the fault of the child who goes to Edison nor the fault of the child who starts out here in the West End. But I think that it is our districts job to balance that situation out.
Tony mentioned an example of things not being quite fair in the district when he was in school. When I was in school it was far worse, if you went to Encinal High you literally knew that you were secound class, they just about stamped it on your forehead.
So today we have a district that is trying to make things level and fair for all our childern and Jack does not seem to like that. I guess we just disagree as to how our childern should be treated. John P.
Comment by John Piziali — September 11, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
Re # 5
No, Mr. Mark, I do not agree that theoretically everybody in the world deserves their fair share of the pie. I believe one must earn one’s share of the pie.
I didn’t say that the most motivated students deserve more school resources. Nor do I think the least motivated deserve more. My problem is the skewing of resources toward the one group at the expense of the other. These resources, they speak of, are monies gathered from individuals in the community in order to fund an education system which should assure each individual student equal access to educational tools.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 11, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Re # 10
No, Mr. AlamedaNayTiff, my family would not get the same meal proportions at home, but if we were at a restaurant paying for equal proportions they damn well better get what I pay for.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 11, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Re. # 11
Another vote to change the name of our city to Levelville.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 11, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
J
Comment by John Piziali — September 11, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Adding the B…
We are in Alameda public schools and so far, to tell you the truth, we’ve been having a very good experience (at Lum).
How/why? 1. The teachers we’ve had so far are focused on academic excellence, which aligns with our hopes and expectations.
Unfortunately, the pursuit of academic excellence runs counter to “closing the gap,” which seems to be the new buzz phrase in academic bureauspeak. It’d sure be great if the entire lumpenrollment could “excel” (or at least catch up to Korea in math and science?) but when you get down to reality you can lead a horse to water…..
2. Lum allows and encourages parental participation during school, which is key in my opinion. Judging from the families I know at Edison, the community of family involvement is the not-so-secret weapon of their success. I don’t know how the school district can close gaps in this regard… dedicated mentors on the payroll where parental involvement is lacking?
Comment by Jack B — September 11, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Re: 13
So, since we do not have children in the public schools, we should not pay taxes to support them since we derive no benefit from their education?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 11, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Re.#17
Well, Mr ANT, it’s not for me to say whether or not you are you getting value for what you pay taxes for? If you feel you are not getting value for what you pay for, than you must strive to change the system or stick your head in the anthill.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 11, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Re. # 8 and # 16
Mr. Jack and Mr. Jack B, if you read the Equity Policy Statement, Edison would suffer from equity disparity and Lum would reallocate resources to “close the gap”.
If I’m interpreting this incorrectly, please someone, translate “bureauspeak” for me.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 11, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
hmmmm…. wonder what they might have in store for us.
From what I can tell, the best things parents can do for their public school kids are a) speak primarily in English at home and b) get rid of the television and read to them. Multi-culturalism is alive and well at Lum, but I can’t imagine what a district can do to close the language gap.
Comment by Jack B — September 11, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
When the initial wording was presented at August 27th BOE meeting, I raised concerns about the lack of references to excellence. Staff revised the wording. Here are the two versions:
Equity Policy Statement (August 27th version)
We believe that equity is a set of actions that produce results that are not determined by differences of race, sex or economic status.
Equity is not the same as equality. Whereas, equality provides the same resources throughout the system on a per capita basis, equity demands allocation of resources based on need and support for each student’s success.
Therefore, in order to achieve equity, AUSD will factor in student needs when making decisions regarding resource allocations.
Equity Policy Statement (September 11th version)
We believe that equity is a set of actions that results in educational excellence not determined by differences of race, sex or economic status.
Equity is not the same as equality. Whereas, equality provides the same resources throughout the system on a per capita basis, equity demands allocation of resources based on need and support for each student’s success.
Therefore, in order to achieve equity in serving our students, AUSD will factor in student needs when making decisions regarding resource allocations.
It is my belief that we can not separate decisions regarding resource alllocation when looking at equity and excellence. This is in part based on this point of view:
Education has a dual function of enhancing individuals and strengthening communities. An important function of the community is to support and sustain people. We cannot advance the development and learning of knowledge by dealing with the individual only. We must also pay attention to collectivities such as school communities and to their organizational effects on individuals.
To help us understand interaction between students and schools, we must develop conceptual approaches that will help integrate our observations and experiences. Complementarity is the major concept that has helped me to understand this interaction. The student is a person and the school is a group. All individuals depend on groups and other collectivities for their survival. There is no evidence that individuals can grow and prosper without help from groups. And there is no evidence that groups can exist and function without the presence of individuals. Thus, the individual and the group are complementary. One without the other is incomplete.
In other words, instead of sorting out and segregating individuals by race, gender, socioeconomic status, and other cultural characteristics, we, in education, should be discovering creative ways of putting together different people with different talents, intelligences, and experiences so that one can do for another what the other cannot do for his- or herself.
Education, therefore, should focus neither on cultivating excellence at the expense of equity nor on cultivating equity at the expense of excellence. In a well-ordered society, the goal of education is to seek both excellence and equity because they are complementary. One without the other is incomplete.
Comment by Mike McMahon — September 12, 2007 @ 8:18 am
Jack R.,
My basic impression of your point of view is not that your are principled, but a) stingy and b0 can’t see the forest for the trees.
I’m not advocating a welfare state like Scandinavia, but as they say, we are all in the same boat here and it floats in one big pool of resources. Teachers can tell you that a bad apple (a student who is disruptive or does not want to learn in the classroom can pull the whole class down. We can throw that person away in the interest of the others and end up paying $40,000 a year to house them in San Quentin, or we can get real and try to make the collective situation better by putting resources where they do the most good, which may me uneven distribution.
Comment by Mark — September 12, 2007 @ 8:24 am
For those who want to examine my research on excellence and equity you can visit this section on my website:
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/equityexchome.htm Educational Excellence and Equity in Alameda
Comment by Mike McMahon — September 12, 2007 @ 8:24 am
Hey Mike M. — good to hear from you. Hope all is well. Carrie and I have been on a lot of trips this past year. See ya. (Back to hibernation!)
Comment by tony_daysog — September 12, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Thanks Mike. I took the liberty of modifying some of the Supe’s page.
THE SUPERINTENDENT’S ROLE
The Superintendent serves as the professional advisor to the Board. The Superintendent is responsible for implementing decisions made by the Board of Education and for demonstrating effective leadership in the following areas: District’s day-to-day operations, fiscal responsibility and management, the achievement of the District’s vision, all other District matters, including working with the City, County, State, and Community.
VISION STATEMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT
Alameda Unified School District shall create a system that enables each student to meet or exceed rigorous academic performance and success standards. Each student will discover and develop special talents, achieve high potential, and meet educational and career goals. The District is individually and collectively responsible for eliminating any adverse predictability of students based on group population. Each student will develop the, knowledge, skills, behaviors, character and habits needed to be effective, productive, confident and contributing members of our community.
Goals of the District
Raise the achievement level of our lowest performing students to that of our highest performing students
Align the spending plan with educational objectives that ensure the best use of limited resources and long-term solvency
Ensure each student is in an educational environment that is safe and conducive to learning
Recruit and retain highly qualified staff and provide support systems for and recognition of each employee
CORE BELIEFS OF THE SUPERINTENDENTs
Each person can learn and every person ha value
Family and community must participate in order for students to meet our goals
Each student has the right to equal access of quality teaching and learning environment
Students are individually accountable and responsible for their behavior
Respect for self and others is essential to our interactions and relationships
We must continually strive to create and maintain an environment focused on the continuous improvement of the teaching and learning process
SUPERINTENDENT’S EXPECTATIONS
THE THREE R’S…
RESPONSIBILITY, RESPECT, & RELATIONSHIPS
WORK ETHICS
The core purpose of our work is the academic achievement of each of our students in the classroom
Each employee will be involved in the continuous improvement of the teaching and learning process and environment
Each employee is a role model for our students
Each employee works in concert to improve the academic achievement of all students
Each employee ensures the safety of all students
Each employee is essential and respected for the contribution to our core responsibility and mission – teaching and learning
STUDENTS
Each student must have equitable opportunities to learn
Each student must have support to achieve the highest academic potential
Each student must be provided a safe, engaging and challenging learning environment
Discipline action will fit the offense and will be progressive – behavior is learned and we are in the business of teaching
Each students will be involved in setting goals and making decisions about his or her individual learning needs and future plans
All expenditures of funds/resources must be aligned to our vision to have all students achieve at high levels while closing the achievement gap
All resources must be expended to ensure/establish an equitable educational system
Fiscal resources are to be expended to benefit the most students
Funds need to be expended within a plan that has a long-term effect on students achievement and capital improvements to benefit students
All programs must be evaluated using data to determine if they are moving toward our vision to have all students achieve at high levels while closing the achievement gap
EVALUATION
Each employees will be evaluated on a regular basis
Evaluation for all employees will be respectfully based on improving performance
All site administrators must demonstrate instructional leadership in the areas of assessing effective instructional practices, building collaborative relationships and learning communities as well as coaching staff to support improved academic achievement for all students
All central office administrators will support site administrators in accomplishing the district vision to have all students achieve at high levels while closing the achievement gap
RECRUITMENT/RETAINMENT OF EMPLOYEES
Our recruitment goal is to continue to obtain the most qualified staff at all levels
Our commitment is to retain our high quality staff by providing respect, equitable support and opportunities for professional growth
Comment by Jack Richard — September 12, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Mike M, thanks for your posts and links. All very helpful.
Comment by Jack B — September 12, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Re. #22
Thanks Mark, for sharing your point of view about your impression of my point of view. It’s always good to hear what other people’s impressions are and darned if I didn’t learn that Scandinavia’s a state. And a welfare one, at that.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 12, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Mike M, thank you for your posts and links! – Jack B
Comment by Jack B — September 12, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Re: 18
So, do you believe that education benefits only the individual? I think that this issue is defined by whether one believes that education is a public or private benefit. If it is only a private benefit, then only those with children in the public schools should pay taxes to support the schools.
A similar argument could be made about our public roadway system. Is the street in front of my house only for my benefit or should it be for the benefit of the entire city?
Is there such a thing as the common good?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 12, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Jack,
Oops! So I should have used the plural, “Scandinavian stateS” to refer to all of them, which I believe have a fairly similar system of high taxes which support high levels of social services, as opposed to supporting Haliburton and the like. Making light of a small semantic glitch is a lame distraction to the main point which is still valid.
Comment by Mark — September 12, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
Re. #30
Mark, you’re sending mixed messages. In your # 22 post you say you’re not supporting a welfare state like Scandinavia. Then in your # 30 you make a distinction between social services and free enterprise. You appear to support high taxes for social services but don’t support free enterprise (Haliburton and the like). Or am I bringing up another lame distraction to the main point.
The student who is disruptive in class, who doesn’t want to learn and is pulling the whole class down should be unceremoniously removed from the class. I’m not going to waste resources in attempting to achieve equity for those (parents or students) who have no interest but self-interest. Resources are limited, use them for those who want to benefit from them.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 12, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
Re. # 29
Yes ANT, there is such a thing as the common good. And it arises and manifests itself through the individual liberty of the common man. The public roadway in front of my house benefits me and the entire city. I am willing to support the upkeep of the roadways monetarily because they benefit myself and others. If the roadway is no longer in my interest (perhaps by re-designating it as a busway) I may no longer support it or may support it not be so designated. That’s my right.
The primary benefit of education is individual. I do not think our present culture recognizes this simple fact. We have diluted the concept of schooling, studying and educating into a stew of societal broth to the point that many students miss the flavor of knowledge. Knowledge that can or could succor students for the rest of their lives. Everyone benefits from the flavor of knowledge, the unanswered question is whether or not the system of education we have is providing it.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 12, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Both individuals and countries benefit from education. For individuals, the potential benefits lie in general quality of life and in the economic returns of sustained, satisfying employment. For countries, the potential benefits lie in economic growth and the development of shared values that underpin social cohesion.
Comment by Mike McMahon — September 13, 2007 @ 7:06 am
Equity in schools would mean changing the boundaries. Articles are written and newscasts are done on people moving into Edison’s area to go to this school and then being upset because it’s too crowded and they can’t send their child to school with kids on their own block. What about Chipman? Encinal? Adjust the boundaries and make it fair, stop worrying about upseting the rich east end parents. Be fair to all students and treat them equally. On the west end a good amount of the kids do not live in Alameda. And they are allowed to attend school there because of the low enrollment, I don’t feel sorry for people who can’t send their kid to school with another kid on the same block. I would just like my child to go to school with kids who live in Alameda. And to have enough students for Chipman to get the same amount of electives as Lincoln. A big part of the problem is that we have APC on the east which provides housing for 280 homeless children, we have many parents who are working more than one job to get by, many parents who don’t speak English, and so they are not as able to speak up as the west end parents. So, our school board and city council needs to speak for them. Stop being afraid of rich residents sending their children to private school if the boundaries are changed and start doing your job. Care for each and every child individually. Change the boundaries and give all of our children an equal opportunity for success.
Comment by Stephenie Northington — September 14, 2007 @ 7:07 am
Although it is not a large percentage, I think it is important to point out that there are lower income families with children at Edison. There are several apartment buildings within the boundary that are Section 8. Most likely, boundary change would have these children going to Haight School as the next closest, leaving Edison with even less income diversity.
I am convinced that the test scores have almost nothing to do with the teaching at the various Alameda schools and almost everything to do with the advantages or disadvantages in the background of the children who attend the school.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — September 15, 2007 @ 12:28 am
Mandatory reading or viewing: “A Christmas Carol”. Pay special attention to a line in the first part “Are there no workhouses?” and the comments that follow by Mr. Scrooge. Then take note of the speech of the Ghost of Christmas Future regarding the two things we must most fear: “Poverty and Ignorance”. Dickens had it right; we as a society have an obligation to those most in want and by insuring they have equal opportunity and access to educational excellence we improve and make more secure our lot as well as theirs. McMahon has it right, too in his Sept 13th comment.
Comment by kate quick — September 15, 2007 @ 7:08 am
Kate, I don’t think anybody would disagree with you. But from a real-world standpoint, what is a school district to do about the disadvantages kids have at home?
My wife and I are fortunate to get to spend time in our child’s classroom. It’s very apparent that some of the kids are already (talking’ first grade here) terribly behind. Why? Because they are deficient w/ the English language. Why? Because their parents/guardians don’t speak it!
I think Kevis is exactly right. Your home advantage figures in more heavily than the school. And I think the “home advantage” doesn’t have so much to do w/ $$ as it has to do w/ parents taking the time to read w/ their kids, for example, or just be involved w/ the school.
I hope there is something that McMahon/school board can do about this… hey, we’re all in it together. One more observation I should mention (from my observations) is that how well a kid pays attention is directly proportional to the quality of breakfast that morning. The kids that tell me they had a cookie, well, they don’t appear to do so well.
Comment by Jack B — September 15, 2007 @ 7:47 am
Here are number of students by school for 2002-2007 who were classified as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged.
http://www.mikemmcmahon.info/apibasedata.htm#4
Comment by Mike McMahon — September 15, 2007 @ 8:46 am
info: I think Mike’s link has an extra ‘m’ after ‘mike’ so it should be:
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/apibasedata.htm#4
Comment by Jack Richard — September 15, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Jack B., #37
Don’t you think that $$$ has a direct correlation to parental involvement (or lack of it) with regard to the home advantage factor?
Comment by Mark — September 15, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Re. # 34 (provided the posts still have numbers again)
Stephenie Northington makes some interesting observations and comments. For instance: “Equity in schools would mean changing the boundaries”, hmm, what would happen in Alameda if we had schools without borders (boundaries)? And, “Adjust the boundaries and make it fair, stop worrying about upseting the rich east end parents. Be fair to all students and treat them equally.”, hmm, “equally” or “equitably”? Apparently, the word isn’t getting out to the parents that the new thrust is “equitable” not equal.
And that plaintive cry at the end: “…give all of our children an equal opportunity for success.”
Comment by Jack Richard — September 15, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Hi Mark, regarding #40… not necessarily. (of course there might be stats somewhere that will prove me wrong) Most parents have choices of how to spend their time. If both parents are working (making more $$$) they might have less time to be involved w/ their kids. Other families might sacrifice an income for the benefit of their kids. Many parents think it’s the total responsibility of the school (public or private) to educate their children, sort of like it’s the lifeguards’ responsibility to keep them safe in the water.
Scroll up to Tony Daysog’s comments… I’ll bet the successes the describes involved some parents who helped w/ those successes.
Comment by Jack B — September 15, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
From an educator’s perspective, I have these 2 comments to make in response to what I have read.
*The best way to raise test scores for LEP students is NOT to have the parents speak mostly english to their children at home. The children are the ones who usually speak more fluently and with less inhibitions than their parents. Also, one’s home language is closely tied to culture and should therefore be valued and reinforced.Our goal is not to turn these kids into english only speakers, but bilingual citizens of the world. Won’t it be amazing one day when these students are able to communicate in more than one language? Wouldn’t that be useful to society!
*”Fair” doesn’t mean the same for everyone. It means that everyone gets what they need. Not every student in my daughter’s first grade class has a paraprofessional aid to sit with them all day, just the austistic student. That’s fair, not equal.
Comment by Susie McKee — September 15, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Re. 42
Interesting two comments. Though you don’t say exactly what you have read that you are responding to.
#1 In response to #*: Why is it not important for the parents to try to learn English by speaking English with their kids? Who is this “our” when you say, “Our goal is not to turn these kids into english only speakers, but bilingual citizens of the world.” Who determined that it should be your goal to turn these kids into bilingual citizens of the world? Who decides which cultures should be valued and reinforced? Let’s have a breakdown on which cultures should or should not be valued and reinforced.
#2 In response to #*: Why is it fair for the autistic student to have a paraprofessional aid to sit with he or she all day but not the gifted student who :
· Asks many questions and is very curious
· Possesses a large amount of information
· Has a good memory· Learns new information quickly
· Retains information easily
· Masters reading skills earlier
· Demonstrates strong abilities in math
· Displays unusual academic achievement
· Finishes class work quickly
· Is interested in many things
· Becomes involved in a variety of activities
· Is motivated to try new things
· Enjoys a challenge
· Thinks independently
· Expresses unique and original opinions
· Is self-motivated
. Uses higher level thinking skills (analysis, synthesis, evaluation)
· Makes connections other students don’t see
· Considers unusual approaches to problem-solving
· Has a strong sense of justice
· Likes to debate current issues and real life problems
· Has a sophisticated sense of humor
· Understands subtle humor
· Enjoys plays on words and satire
· Demonstrates strong expressive skills
· Is sensitive to feelings of others
· Elaborates on ideas
· Shows skill in drama/art/music/language
instead of sitting in class all day…bored?
Comment by Jack Richard — September 15, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
The post numbering system has not regained its former self. My comments in # 44 were in response to the post of Susie McKee. She posted on Sept 15 at 2:50 PM. Her post number when I submitted my comment was # 42 now I see it’s changed to # 43.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 15, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
#44… I think Jack R was responding to post #43….
And regarding post #43, which I think was a comment to my earlier… what I am seeing is that the kids who aren’t familiar with English are falling behind in school right from the get-go. I don’t see how this is helping them, because the curriculum is in English.
With that said, I’d be thrilled if our school offered classes in Mandarin Chinese.
Comment by Jack B — September 15, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
I was tempted to say what I thought was true about the children of immigrants being quicker to learn English on their own, than their parents. I’m glad Susie made that point with the authority of her experience.
In Alameda we have many new immigrants who enter the public schools with various amounts of limited English. At the high school level some of the regular curriculum is taught to classrooms made up entirely of second language kids, from all different backgrounds and countries, but all having weak enough English that they would struggle if in the main stream.
Just as the best and brightest kids Jack R. is concerned about are offered AP classes, these kids get class content which is not dumbed down but is taught differently, in that it is within the limits of their language skills. The anecdotes I hear are interesting and vary. Many of these kids move up and out of these “sheltered” classes within one school year or maybe two. This is another case of what Susie refers to as “fair, not equal”.
I have heard of kids who take the plunge and take on the regular classroom with their limited English, where they may not get the best grades but experience the success of surviving in the mainstream. These children are pretty courageous in my opinion and I think it’s a lot to expect of the average immigrant with limited English.
Comment by Mark — September 16, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Either there is a super huge delay on posts now or I deleted my previous post when I meant to submit it earlier.
Anyhow, it was a description of “sheltered” classes for immigrant kids who don’t speak English well. I’m aware of the program existing in the high schools, but I am not sure it exists in junior high, and I think it probably doesn’t exist in elementary, though I expect there are other programs for those younger second language children. Perhaps Susie can comment.
Just as the precocious and special students Jack R. is concerned about are allowed the option of AP (advanced placement) versions of some standard classes, second language students can take “sheltered” classes with other second language speakers. The content is not necessarily dumbed down to make it easy, but is taught within the language limitations of the students.
I would refer to this as another example of what Susie termed “fair, not equal”. In fact I think it is both fair and equal, just not identical. In any event, if Jack R. objects to this special treatment then maybe we should chuck AP classes too, just to keep the field dead level (emphasis on “dead”).
I have heard of brave immigrant kids who take the plunge into the mainstream classes and survive well enough, though their grades may suffer some. More power to those brave souls, but in my opinion it is a lot to ask of the average immigrant student with limited English. My understanding is that most of these sheltered students acquire adequate enough English skills to move to mainstream classes within a school year or two, so it’s not as if they require this resource from K through 12.
Comment by Mark — September 16, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Later kindergarten will becme more important than university, because there is a chance for the kid to become genius.
Comment by Wilson Teh — September 16, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
#44
#2 In response to #*: Why is it fair for the autistic student to have a paraprofessional aid to sit with he or she all day but not the gifted student who…
Were you in Hitler Youth? Seriously, I mean that. I’m appalled that others haven’t called you what you are. What you are saying is that the retarded kids are sucking up all of the resources from our gifted children. My anger is not so much directed at you, as it is others who have let what you say slip by un-challenged.
Don’t like being called a Nazi? Maybe you should review what you have written.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — September 16, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
“As the war years began, Germany moved from sterilization to euthanasia, primarily for economic reasons. By 1941, said Proctor, euthanasia was a part of almost every hospital’s routine—defective babies, incurably ill old people, mental patients were put to death. Starvation of “useless eaters” became both policy and practice. Parents were made to feel embarrassed if they had a defective child. The practice was extended to include the abortion of babies who might be born with a congenital disability or illness, and such abortions might be carried out as late as the ninth month of pregnancy.
The medicalization of anti-Semitism followed. ‘Solving the Jewish problem’ was seen as a medical problem, Proctor explained, because Judaism was considered a disease. Physical deviance was seen as intolerable—pathological or even treason.”
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/WorldAroundYou/holocaust/holocaust-gt.html
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — September 16, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
tiff: wow, that’s quite a leap!
Comment by Jack B — September 16, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
AUSD does use the “GATE program”. (Gifted and Talented education)
SO Jack and others can rest assured gifted students are not being neglected. More about ‘Gate’ can be found at http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/gt/gt/ or with your favorite search engine. I don’t know how many grade levels use ‘Gate’ in AUSD. Frankly I just learned about it this year, because it is used at the 5th grade level at Earhart.
Thank goodness “equal” does not mean “the same”. I believe the law requires public ed to provide an education for all students. Nobody can be faulted because some students cost more to educate.
Comment by David Kirwin — September 17, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Re: #52
“tiff: wow, that’s quite a leap!”
#31
“The student who is disruptive in class, who doesn’t want to learn and is pulling the whole class down should be unceremoniously removed from the class. I’m not going to waste resources in attempting to achieve equity for those (parents or students) who have no interest but self-interest. Resources are limited, use them for those who want to benefit from them.” JR
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — September 17, 2007 @ 6:48 am
I am a west end parent and offended that our children are somehow considered less than or less deserving because of some line drawn on a map or the questionable relevance of test scores. I chose to send my children to the public school they were zoned for after careful research. Once I got passed the blight exterior I found caring, incomparable teachers and compassionate, eager children. Parents run the gamut from wealthy local home owners, renters to some just barely getting by. What everyone I’ve met has in common is wanting the best for our children. Some even come from other cities or countries to ensure a better education for their children. We have so many battles to fight because of assumptions and stereotypes flung upon us, we are often stretched too thin to be heard at board meetings, PTA council meetings or forums such as this. My children love their school and take great pride to tell everyone they go to Washington. I have no complaints about the teachers or the children they attend school with. What I do take issue with is the obvious inequity in school appearance between the east and west end. Although my children are only in third grade, they have already noticed the blatant aesthetic differences when we visit schools on the east end. We have no desire to leave their school, but my children do ask why other schools are “fancier”. As children get older these differences become more and more apparent to them as they see the different classes and opportunities being offered to those on the “right side of the tracks”. It is a dangerous message sent to all when you tell children some are more deserving than others based on geography. Every time I take my children to a museum and see their appreciation for other cultures, teach the art docent program at their school and see the strong desire in all children to please and absorb new info, or attend a school concert and see all those wonderful different colored faces standing shoulder to shoulder singing the same song at the top of their lungs, I have hopes for a better world. Of course all these children deserve equal opportunities. Bravo to the school board for finally proposing the need to step up.
Comment by Jeena W. — September 17, 2007 @ 8:46 am
# 50, 51
Mr Alameda NayTiff. In your # 50 post, since your anger is not so much directed at me, are you calling all others who let my comments slip by un-challenged Nazis or is it just me?
I’m perfectly willing to discus the rise and causes of Hitler’s Germany with you, but I doubt this is the place.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 17, 2007 @ 9:12 am
Re 56: “since your anger is not so much directed at me, are you calling all others who let my comments slip by un-challenged Nazis or is it just me?”
Since I only know you by the words you write, my judgment is based on those words. I find those words chilling. Those who contribute here and do not challenge you are not Nazis, but they should speak up.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — September 17, 2007 @ 9:36 am
# 57
Interesting. Last time I was called a Nazi was on landing at Travis AFB in 1965 after an eighteen hour flight in a military chartered 707. People calling me names back then didn’t know me either, except by the uniform I wore.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 17, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Hi Jeena, re: #55… I think you bring up some valid concerns. I haven’t been inside all of the schools. Ok, I’ve only been inside one. I don’t see anything fancy at Lum, but I do like the “pod” layout as opposed to a big old building. Our child was in a modular trailer last year and, at first, we were somewhat appalled but it turned out just fine. Looking at Edison, it looks to me like an assemblage of trailers. Is it that fancy on the inside? (i’m asking, i don’t really know). My theory is still that it’s the parent involvement that makes the real difference. At Lum, the “beautification” projects were done by parent volunteers and I believe w/ PTA $$. Can you please describe what it’s like over at Washington?
Tiff, re: #57…. I’ll speak up. I think you are off base here. Completely. I can see how Jack R might irk some folks who lean socialist but calling him a nazi?
I hope this discussion can be constructive in finding ways that can make schools more equitable. That’s the root of the question here, right? what’s a practical way (as opposed to an idealistic rant) about HOW the school district can improve the situation for everybody (abiding by policy). I think Jack R’s main point is: don’t sacrifice the top to bring up the bottom. As Kirwin points out and as I understand it, the top 5% and the bottom 5% get a decent amount of resources, but it’s all those kids in the middle who have to fend.
Comment by Jack B — September 17, 2007 @ 10:30 am
In response to Comment No. 59, I agree with you that parent support is a key. But, as a parent of a child at Chipman I can tell you we get very little support. And you must understand that although some of it is by choice of the parent, a lot of it is not. As I mentioned APC has 280 homeless children, those parents cannot possibly afford the same things as average income families can. Many of these families, not just the 280 I mention don’t have computers, are working two jobs, cannot attend meetings…. etc. As a society we should speak up for the less fortunate, and those not able to speak for themselves. A boundary change makes things much more equal for all students. The schools would get closer to the same amount of support with the same amount of students. I live right around the corner from Chipman, I cannot tell you the amount of times I have seen girls fighting after school in the street. This is not behavior you typically see in Alameda. One big reason I have never moved out of Alameda is because I want my kids to attend school in Alameda. But, at this point they are attending school with a lot of non-Alameda residents because of low enrollment, while the east end schools are too crowded. Anyone looking at that can see it does not make sense. All because the people on the west end either are not capable or don’t feel capable of being able to make a change. Let’s put every child’s needs first. You can’t expect a $10 PTA contribution (which is all that is charged at Chipman) when you have people wondering where their next meal is coming from.
Comment by Stephenie — September 17, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Re. 53
Can’t find anything about GATE in the AUSD after a cursory search. Does anyone here have any info about the program?
Comment by Jack Richard — September 17, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Here’s a tiny bit of info on GATE:
http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=1119&sc_id=1187633555
”
We currently serve gifted students in grades K-12 who show exceptional Intellectual Ability. We use Differentiated Instruction to meet the special needs of gifted students in the regular classroom. This provides a challenging curriculum integrated into the regular school day, as required by state law. Our goal is to challenge students academically and to support the progress of our gifted students.
Differentiated Instruction is a teaching method which deepens and broadens grade-level studies to allow students to do more complex work. A differentiated curriculum supports all students, while offering more complex assignments for those who can handle them. The differentiated classroom groups gifted learners flexibly as needed for each subject area.
In Alameda, gifted students are served through a combination of programs: enrichment, acceleration, Independent Study, and part-time or flexible grouping. At grades 4 and 5, gifted students are clustered with other gifted learners in their regular classroom.
GATE Hotline: (510) 337-7145
“
Comment by Jack B — September 17, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Re# 60
I certainly emphasize with the education situation Stephenie describes. But the west end schools in Alameda have always been described this way. I know it’s only anecdotal but all four of my kids attended west end Alameda schools (the last graduated from Encinal in 1986) when these schools and students attending them were described much as they are described in Stephenie’s post. We (my wife and I…she’s an Alameda NayTiff and an Alameda high grad) decided that the schools the kids attended were responsible for skill instruction (the mechanics of reading, writing, etc.) but that the education of the kids would be done at home. We both worked, had full time jobs.
Frankly, I’m glad my kids went to west end schools. The schools were scruffy, the teachers okay (some great, others just so so) but our kids did get the mechanics of learning. Three out of our four graduated from four year colleges: Chico, Cal Berkeley, UCLA and are doing great. The fourth kid went his way but ended up just fine.
That’s not to say all kids would do as well. But they could and can do it without east end fancy facilities or open borders. Don’t expect too much from the schools, expect (demand) it from the kids and they’ll be okay.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 17, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Re.62
Thanks for the GATE linkage Jack B. The info is pretty skimpy. My granddaughter, who lives in Lacey WA is in the third grade and has been in TAGS (Talented and Gifted Students) since kindergarten. They have a great program and I wanted to compare it to Alameda’s.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 17, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
The way the logic goes is that the pie is only so big and I’m going to make sure that those limited resources benefit my family and me. Those with money and connections can divert resources their way. Every so often those on the wrong side of the tracks get a bit uppity and demand better. The response from the wealthier side of the tracks is hold on to their advantage and paint those demanding better as somehow unfit, unworthy or unfair.
Poorer families face different challenges than do the wealthy. Children may go to school hungry or malnourished. Home life may be unstable. Crime and personal safety may be a constant concern. Few role models may exist in the neighborhood. Parents may lack adequate education to assist their own children. Children catch on pretty fast where their neighborhood is in the pecking order. The anger and resentment sometimes is directed at others and sometimes against oneself. Children living in difficult situations are not just like the wealthy only poorer; they face a whole different set of daily challenges and needs.
What is the difference between fairness and equality? Equality would mean sending the same number of evacuation buses to each neighborhood in New Orleans, regardless of the number of people in each neighborhood with private cars. Fairness would be sending as many buses as needed to each neighborhood so that everyone makes it out alive.
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — September 17, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
A few points of information;
The 5th grade “GATE ” program is within a normal classroom, and not all the students in the room are ‘GATE’ participants. I am not sure that I agree with a comment made above that the top & bottom 5% use more resources per student. Even if the ‘GATE’ instructors have more or, additional training, I’m unsure if that relates to pay increases. It may be a choice of commitment by the teachers. AUSD is fortunate to have so many outstanding teachers, so many who go above and beyond their ‘requirements’.
I absolutely agree that parent involvement is the key to making some schools ‘higher achievers’. It is not the income level of the parents, it is the time spent at home with their kids and even more importantly, it is the time parents volunteer to help at school, especially in the primary grades. You don’t have to be wealthy or have a PhD to read to a child, or help a 1st grader read out loud.
Another point – children develop at different rates. While in today’s hyper-paced “everybody-should-be-gifted-and-white-collar-bound” world of unrealistic expectations, some kids will start reading in pre-school, but others will not begin reading until 1st or 2nd grade. This does not mean that the students are not equally intelligent, or that they are intellectually “slow”. It’s a different development rate, and before the end of elementary school these kids may be excelling beyond the ‘early readers’. I think it is a tragic error to label students not reading in kindergarten or 1st grade as being ‘way behind’. Every primary teacher I know understands the differences in kids development. There was a good reason why when I was a kid in the 60’s that it was in the 1st grade that we began to learn, or to be taught reading.
I honestly believe it may be a mistake to have mandatory homework before the 5th grade. Kids should be allowed to be kids. They should be encouraged at an early age – not forced. Family time should be fun, happy, and encouraging, not a constant struggle to force kids to do what amounts to “busy work” at home. Are there any studies that show a benefit to homework before forth of fifth grade?
There are schools with a higher % of families who are financially struggling at basic levels. These are not 2nd class citizens, nor are there 2nd class schools in AUSD. Some PTA’s have adopted ’sister schools’ to help “spread the benefits” of PTA assistance. While I agree that the grand entry to Kofman Auditorium makes AHS look far more grand than Encinal, I know their are equal opportunities inside the walls. I was so impressed by EHS’s BOE rep last year; I know there must be great things happening at that school. Personally, I feel really grateful for all the volunteers who prevented the developers from knocking down the entire historic block of what is today the adult school, AUSD administration, Kofman Auditorium, the old interim library, and the Historic wing of AHS. They ended up having to buy all the buildings from the state, bring them up to modern codes (in the 70’s) and gave them back to AUSD. I think they are a city treasure, even if such grand elegance is just the outside of the building.
Special ed students will always cost more per student that the general student population, that is a given, it has to be accepted.
What about the high school age bottom achievers? Is this what Jack was talking about? I agree that if you can’t get the students to attend classes, or if they are just going to be disruptive and interfere with the delivery of education, then those students need to be treated differently.
When I was a kid they were suspended or expelled. Today we believe that creates other social problems. I have seen the result of all the disruptive kids being shuffled off to ‘alternative school’ – the place became an unmanageable zoo. I have seen some moved into ’special ed’ system, and that seemed a $$$ wasteful way to prevent the effect of those kids bringing down the school’s overall state scores.
For these kids, regardless of race or socio-economic status, perhaps “separate, but equal” is the answer. Not all kids are college bound. Some what to work with their hands, some have those abilities, and may excel in skilled trades if given to opportunity. With the demise of shop classes through out the state education system, maybe these kids should be given the opportunity to go directly to CC to learn real skills instead of wasting there time, and the educational opportunities of others in the present school system which seems more geared for college prep. Is that a possibility?
Comment by Dave Kirwin — September 17, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
In your # 65, ANT, I don’t know who’s logic you’re referring to but mine says the pie is as large as you want to make it. Don’t tell me what challenges poorer families face, I lived it. New Orleans is a good example of what happens when you expect a beneficent big brother to look out for your interests or safekeeping.
#66
Great post Dave, I agree with everything you wrote.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 17, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Re: 67
#31 (JR)
“The student who is disruptive in class, who doesn’t want to learn and is pulling the whole class down should be unceremoniously removed from the class. I’m not going to waste resources in attempting to achieve equity for those (parents or students) who have no interest but self-interest. Resources are limited, use them for those who want to benefit from them.”
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — September 18, 2007 @ 7:40 am
Re. 68,67,31
Thanks, keep repeating it.
The student who is disruptive in class, who doesn’t want to learn and is pulling the whole class down should be unceremoniously removed from the class. I’m not going to waste resources in attempting to achieve equity for those (parents or students) who have no interest but self-interest. Resources are limited, use them for those who want to benefit from them.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 18, 2007 @ 8:53 am
I don’t think anyone is saying hire a special education teacher to work with the student who doesn’t want to learn. Equity in my mind means providing additional resources to those who want to learn but because of certain barriers – physical, social, economic, can’t reach their potential.
BTW, having had a child in a GATE program, I know that it(the general model of sperate services for “talented” or “gifted” students) was created in part to positively challenge students who were bored in a regular class setting and often disruptive. By that definition, according to Jack, his granddaughter should be “unceremoniously removed” from class.
Comment by notadave — September 18, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Re #70
Well Mr. notadave, what would you do with students who don’t want to learn, are disruptive in class, have no interest but self-interest and are pulling the whole class down?
Though not disruptive, positively wanted to learn, was not self-interested and was raising the level of the class, my granddaughter was unceremoniously removed from her regular class and was put in the Talented And Gifted Class. I have no problem whatsoever with providing kids who want to learn all the resources needed to reach their potential.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 18, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
It would depend on a lot of different factors, age – reasons for disruption etc. Lets take one example. Suppose you have a child who his hard of hearing but has not been fully diagnosed – say perhaps his parent(s) can’t afford it. That child is likely to be disruptive, not want to learn – because it is frustrating, and because they perform poorly on tests is probably “dragging the class down”. I would want to see additional services provided to that child to properly diagnose him/her, equip him/her with whatever is needed – including extra paraprofessionals, and provide the opportunity for that child to reach their potential.
Am I to take it from your responses above that you would kick that child out of class?
Comment by notadave — September 18, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
notadave…. “whatever is needed”… ?? is this maybe a health care issue? because i don’t think schools provide hearing aids. give the teacher a blow horn? that would injure the hearing of other kids. perhaps… put this child in the front row for starters?
or maybe the school district needs to hire some audiologists and acoustic engineers.
Comment by Jack B — September 18, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Jack R. #69,
right, and I’ll keep repeating this, MORE MONEY FOR PRISONS!
Comment by Mark — September 18, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Come on, notadave, stick to the question. Do you believe that every kid has a mitigating circumstance that makes it okay to keep him/her in class even though the kid doesn’t want to learn, is disruptive in class, has no interest but self-interest and is pulling the whole class down?
Wouldn’t you be sentencing every other kid in class to misery?
Comment by Jack Richard — September 18, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Re. 74
What’s money for prisons got to do with my #69, Mark. I don’t get the connection.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 18, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
I’ve never met a child who did not want to learn. Children (and adults) learn in different ways. Every school teacher learns about Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. There are many “gifts” and many ways of teaching children and adults. There are also many ways of contributing to a group. The idea that somehow my child is going to bring down your child if they sit in the same classroom is offensive.
http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Gardner.htm
This really comes down to the whole idea of eliminating “undesirables.” If you remove the most “disruptive” child from a class, then what becomes of the second most disruptive child? And where do these children go and what becomes of them?
http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid29963.aspx
Comment by Alameda NayTiff — September 18, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Re 77
ANT you may as well quit linking stuff, your interpretation is enough to get the drift.
Your argument has attraction. Throw all these kids into one group and let the alphas, albeit under the care of teachers familiar with Gardner’s theories, rise to dominance.
Most primates are wired to bring down their group adversaries in order to lead the pack. Humans are no different. Offensive or not that’s what raw learning is. Trouble is, what’s this got to do with the schools we live with? Teachers in our schools have a set curriculum, a set of standards and myriad tests to show that they are doing their job. In an ordered society bound by rules and protocols the alphas, deemed undesirable, will be unceremoniously removed (or allowed to remain under circumstances deemed politically correct).
Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of life on the jittery edge of chaos, near that point of existence that hovers between anarchy and control . That’s where innovation and imagination happen but it can’t happen often in public schools. In our schools It’s much easier to separate the two edges of the bell curve and let the middle drive the rest into the realm of the mundane. That’s why, as I stated in a previous post, I let the schools teach the mechanics of learning for my kids, the rest was up to my wife and me.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 18, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
JR – I am sticking to the topic, and you aren’t answering the question. You made a blanket assertion that every child that is disruptive and doesn’t want to learn should be kicked out. I have given you several examples and asked if they would meet your test for expulsion, and you have not responded.
Jack B. Actually there are resources for providing hearing aids and other assistance, once a child is diagnosed and a plan (I think it is called an IEP or individual education plan) is drawn up. The plan will include learning goals and services to be provided (hearing aids, speech teacher, etc.) Lots of districts are known to be reluctant to draw up IEP’s, and parents often have to resort to legal help or advocates in order to get one, ALameda seems to do a good job on implementing them.
Comment by notadave — September 19, 2007 @ 7:46 am
Re. # 79 hard of hearing kid
Sorry, thought that hypo was completed. First, Jack B answered your hypothetical then you answered it yourself in # 79.
What did the school teacher say about the hypothetical kid’s behavior? Apparently, if it’s an Alameda teacher, that situation is covered. I’d pretty much rely on the teacher’s assessment.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 19, 2007 @ 8:35 am
Would you say that you rely on a teach providing equitable assessment for all students?
Comment by notadave — September 19, 2007 @ 9:16 am
# 81
I would expect the class teacher to determine whether a student was disruptive in class, didn’t want to learn and was pulling the whole class down. Then make recommendations so that the class as a whole (minus one) and the student in question could each reach their maximum learning potential (whatever that means).
Comment by Jack Richard — September 19, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Jack, I hope you aren’t a doctor, because you would be tempted to cut of the arm if the hand itched, instead of prescribing medicine to heal the itch.
Comment by notadave — September 19, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Re # 83
This tit-for-tat could go on forever.
If I were a doctor and your hand had an itch and if that itch could spread to the class, and if this class was enclosed in glass unable to leave even by axe. Wishing no harm, I’d whack off your arm and save your mates from greater alarm.
Comment by Jack Richard — September 19, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
nicely understated.
Comment by notadave — September 19, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
#76
Simple answer, Jack. If you abandon disruptive kids and don’t want to spend money for them in the classroom you are likely to spend $40,000 per “pupil” later in life to house them in a dorm at San Quentin. No free lunch program for the poor kids and the aggressive ones are gonna beat your kid up for his lunch money sooner or later. Our current governor has taken money from education to spend on the prison system.
Comment by Mark — September 19, 2007 @ 10:06 pm