Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Truly sad - if true

I got this surfing some interesting links and ended up on a conservative board reading this. I have quoted this because I don't want to bring up politics or have this descend into an ugly political discussion.

Two thoughts on this...

1) I hope the dedicated AP English teacher is not disciplined (or dismissed) for teaching at an academically advanced level.

2) Regarding the quote: "the principal, aggravated and arrogant, told me schools no longer believe in academic excellence because demanding subjects no longer appeal to the mainstream student or to his parents"... unfortunately many on these forums have experiences which may indicate that some schools may work to make demanding subjects unappealing to students and parents... as the schools work toward equal outcomes for all... essentially mainstreaming all students... cutting down tall poppies.

Two points:

1. I agree that IF the story is true is something to consider. The source you quoted is just telling us that someone told him that the principal said so. So I'm automatically dubious.

2. That said, there is truth in the idea that US public schools have serious problems and that lack of academic excellence is among them. No, I'm not claiming that the problem is universal in public schools or that it doesn't exist in private ones. It's an education thing.

But still, there are some very serious problems about lack of academic excellence in public schools. Teachers, especially at the K-8 level, have low GRE and SAT scores and many admit to being math-phobic. Yet if you try to note this fact, you get accused of "bashing" teachers who work so hard. (Nice segue, that.) And it must be that they're underpaid, right? Well, around here, average salaries range from the mid 70s to the 90s, and we still have an awful lot of lousy teachers.

People look for simplistic answers that suit their needs, and no one seems to want to take a good hard look at the many factors that drag our education system down:

* Many teachers don't know the subject matter (but they know how to "teach," which apparently makes up for that)

* Poverty/lack of a meaningful safety net creates huge stress for families (and their parents get the blame for "not caring" or being "uninvolved," and no one seems to notice that it's hard to be "involved" like our vaunted upper middle class mommies are, when you're working 80 hours a week just to pay the rent). If you've ever had trouble focusing at work when a major stressful event was going on in your life, you have an inkling of how poor people live every day, except they face multiple stressors daily

* A rabid focus on high-stakes bubble tests drags us down

* Lousy textbooks make it hard for even a good teacher to impart knowledge

* We help poor performers (which is good) to the exclusion of others (which is bad; see: bubble testing, above)

* We pretend that everyone should go to college and don't focus on jobs for people who don't want to do that or can't afford it/don't want to be debt serfs

Etc.

IMO, the conservatives are right about problems in education (low standards). But so are the liberals (poverty). And the Libertarians have good points (too much testing and too much job security for teachers). Thing is, many in these groups seem to believe that their pet peeves are the only problems. So everyone argues, and we can't make progress because we're all so partisan right now. Unfeeling conservative! Knee jerk liberal! [Insert insult] [insert group]!

In the 1990s, some people in Ireland who had been involved in a vicious conflict that went back centuries decided that they hated the conflict more than they hated each other, and created a peace agreement. We don't seem to be there yet, unfortunately. We care more about seething at one another than we do about fixing our problems.

Val, this is an excellent summary.

I would add that the current, common model of moving children from subject to subject every 40-60 minutes, when combined with teachers who do not have subject matter expertise, is problematic at best. How much better might it be if the days were structured to focus longer on specific subjects and/or hands-on projects. So for example, a child might only have four classes in a day, but still cover all subjects during a week without losing the time that it takes to move 20-35 young children from one subject to the next. Depth and breadth could be gained at no extra cost.

This is exactly how DD13's high school is structured. Eight classes, four a day on alternating days. Plus on certain days they squeeze in a study time for a) working on assignments b) getting help from teachers c) meeting with student groups to work on projects.

Now as for the subject matter expert issues, that's different. DD is planning on bringing home her Geometry text in order to, you know, actually learn some math... instead of having psudo-Social Studies time in every class.

*clapping*

I am in NZ so slightly different. I will use US grades rather than NZ for convenience. I was at high school in the early '80s. (Grade 8 to 12). The grade 10 exams were structured to fail about 50%. It was expected that about half the kids would leave school at or before the end of 10th grade. Most of the rest left the next year either for university or work. Less than 10 out of the original 180 stayed for 12th to sit for scholarships. Because of this once you got past 10th all subjects were academic since everyone there was university bound.

By the end of the 1980's things had changed. The leaving age was raised to 16, new assessment systems increased the pass rate to about 75% and internal assessment allowed second chances. Grade 12 subjects such as photography appeared. Now several changes later most kids stay to at least 11th and more and more non academic options are added. Many kids see they get as many credits for hospitality as physics.

It is not that I think there shouldn't be non academic options just that I am not sure that high school is the right place.

We can only speculate about the authenticity of the original quote. But I choose to believe that there is some truth to it based upon my own recent experiences with a public, rural elementary school that has no ability or desire to meaningfully facilitate gifted children. Lots of talk, lots of smiles, and lots of promises. No action. Kids stagnating. But everyone is complying with state and district policies, so no harm done, right?