Public education's intractable problems

The situation in elementary and secondary public education in this country is little short of desperate. The schools' physical plants are crumbling, but citizens, rebelling against suffocating taxes, refuse to vote additional monies for them.

For more than two decades, public schools also suffered the trauma of an unpopular and costly busing integration program that proved a near total failure. Much of the legislation prompting this has been rescinded, but the damage already is done. It helped cause the demise of the public schools by forcing concerned parents to enroll their children in private schools or move to the suburbs, where better systems prevailed. There were good reasons for this "white flight," for youngsters have only one chance at a good education. Few parents are going to sacrifice their offspring to unproven social programs.

Meanwhile, the government-mandated policy of "inclusiveness" weakened school academics. Already overworked teachers had to watch over and integrate the severely handicapped into the classroom. The idea was a do-gooder's dream turned nightmare.

A great number of students, coming from dysfunctional families, were undisciplined and had no respect for authority and little interest in learning. Decorum in the classroom virtually has vanished. The old expression of one rotten apple spoiling a barrelful was forgotten. Among many blacks, students getting good grades were condemned for "acting white." In many cases, the troublemakers, who couldn't be kicked out of school because of concern over false charges of civil rights violations, solved the problem themselves by dropping out. This proved bittersweet at best, for school funding usually is based on enrollment.

Finally, the states that have an overflow of immigrants, legal and illegal, are given the near-impossible task of contending with up to 20 different languages spoken by those enrolled in a single class. One art teacher friend commented that he could succeed in part only because art is a universal language, but couldn't understand how math and science teachers could do it:

The most telling criticism of public schools comes from IBM CEO Lou Gersten. He says that businesses spend $30,000,000,000 a year on remedial education for high school graduates they hire. Additionally, industry loses another like sum in an attempt to upgrade others who can't handle training in high tech.

Education? Who needs it? Most of all, the public schools do!

Relationship Between Problems In Education And Society

According to "A Nation at Risk", the American education system 
has declined due to a "rising tide of mediocrity" in our schools.   
States such as New York have responded to the findings and 
recommendations of the report by implementing such strategies as the "Regents Action Plan" and the "New Compact for Learning".
        In the early 1980s, President Regan ordered a national 
commission to study our education system.   The findings of this 
commission were that, compared with other industrialized nations, our 
education system is grossly inadequate in meeting the standards of 
education that many other countries have developed.   At one time, 
America was the world leader in technology, service, and industry, but 
overconfidence based on a historical belief in our superiority has 
caused our nation to fall behind the rapidly growing competitive 
market in the world with regard to education.   The report in some 
respects is an unfair comparison of our education system, which does 
not have a national standard for goals, curriculum, or regulations, 
with other countries that do, but the findings nevertheless reflect 
the need for change.   Our education system at this time is regulated 
by states which implement their own curriculum, set their own goals 
and have their own requirements for teacher preparation.   Combined 
with this is the fact that we have lowered our expectations in these 
areas, thus we are not providing an equal or quality education to all 
students across the country.   The commission findings generated 
recommendations to improve the content of education and raise the 
standards of   student achievement, particularly in testing, increase 
the time spent on education and provide incentives to encourage more 
individuals to enter the field of education as well as improving 
teacher preparation.
        N.Y. State responded to these recommendations by first 
implementing the Regents Action Plan;   an eight year...

Educational Underachievement

Educational underachievement is a big problem in society's school systems. A lot of problems faced with students today can revolve around their domestic life. If there is no motivation for learning and excelling in school, the student will not. Every student needs some type of incentive to achieve the expectations of their school system.

Possibly there could be some interest conflicts due to the subjects that your child is taking. Many students do not do well in classes or subjects that they do not enjoy or view as valuable in life. To help this problem, it is wise to make the subjects alive and applicable in the student's life. Sometimes the subject material is so easy that the child has no motivation and can even become stagnant in their learning community. Fixing these problems can help to ensure that your child will excel in his/her school system.

Method for Fixing Educational Underachievement

Fixing these problems of educational underachievement is very important for the child to succeed in school. If the child has problems studying or concentrating in class, a method called educational kinesiology may be helpful. Maybe the child just needs a little help at home with his parents. This will ensure quality time spent is with the parents and doing homework may become enjoyable because of that.

The main key is to make the subject alive or relative to the child. Every child has different interests and if the subject is applied or based around that interest, the child will learn mor efficiently than if the child isn't interested.

There are many different programs to help children correct their shortcomings in school. Finding the right program can be tough. Searching online will help you find ways to help your child or friend become a better student.

The Problem with Gender-Based Education

Yesterday's New York Times Magazine featured a very long article that's purportedly about single-sex public schooling, but is really about a narrower--and much more problematic--concept of gender-based education. Gender-based education is the notion that "Boys and Girls Learn Differently"--that's even the title of a book by Michael Gurian, one of the leaders of a cottage industry that's grown up to promote the idea. Specifically, it's the idea that recent neuroscience research shows significant difference in male a female brains and that as a result educators must employ different approaches in teaching male and female students. Unfortunately, many of the arguments for gender based education are bunk--and often have more to do with outdated gender stereotypes than the cutting edge research proponents claim they're based on.

In the NYT magazine piece, author Elizabeth Weil profiles Dr. Leonard Sax, a family doctor from Washington, D.C.'s Maryland suburbs and a leading advocate of gender-based schooling. She also describes 3 different public schools implementing single-sex education--an all-male and an all-female New York City charter school, as well as a coed district school in Alabama teaching children in sex-segregated classrooms. And she does a decent job in laying out some of the key critiques of Sax's work. Sax and Gurian exaggerate the neuroscience and get some of it flat-out wrong. Much of the science they do cite is primarily descriptive--it's not adequate to serve as a guide to making decisions about teaching or policy. And they ignore the fact that variation among both males and females often far exceeds average differences between the genders.

But, since the critiques don't appear until roughly halfway through a very long article--the first part of which reads like a puff piece on Dr. Sax--many readers may miss them. Moreover, while Weil's airing of critiques gives the article an appearance of balance, she glosses over a bigger issue: There wouldn't be a "controversy" over gender-based public education at all if Sax and Gurian weren't aggressively marketing their idiosyncratic--and flawed--notion of gender-based education.

Actual neuroscientists--whose work Sax and Gurian claim to base their arguments on, though neither are themselves neuroscientists--aren't the ones banging the drum on gender-based education. In fact, many caution against trying to draw practical implications for schooling from their work. Much of what Gurian and Sax call "brain research" is still in its infancy, a long way from being able to support practical applications in education. Jay Geidd, one of the preeminent neuroscientists studying brain development in children (including gender differences) cautions that gender is much too crude a tool to differentiate educational approaches: the variation within each gender is often larger than the average difference between genders, and there's substantial overlap in the distributions.

Geidd's caution is well worth heeding even in areas where science--not just neuroscience but also other less flashy but often more relevant fields of child development research--does show real differences in boys' and girls' development. There is pretty strong evidence that preschool-aged boys develop gross motor skills faster than girls do, while preschool-aged girls tend to have an advantage in language development. As a result, boys and girls are, on average, at different levels of language and motor development when they enter school. Sax and Gurian see this as one argument for separate sex, gender-based schooling. That might be reasonable if gender were the only source of variance in young children's learning. But it's not: Young children's development is highly variable. Some 5-year-old girls might lag many boys in language skills, and some boys' motor skills might lag those of their female peers. If one is really concerned about adjusting education to variations in children's development, increased customization and multi-age groupings in early elementary school, which allow teachers to group children who are developmentally similar, regardless of age, and children to progress at their own paces, are a far better solution than simply separating children by sex.

The appetite for single-sex and gender-based educational approaches is understandable--and it's not just a manifestation of sexism. While this country does a lousy job of educating low-income and minority students generally, we do a particularly poor job of educating poor and minority boys--and there's a desperation for approaches to correct the high rates of disciplinary problems and school dropout among these young men. When folks like Gurian and Sax come along promoting single sex education as a silver bullet approach, it's no wonder some educators seize on the idea.

Unfortunately, there's no evidence that the gender-based approaches work in improving student acheivement. Even if Sax and Gurian's didn't have such a weak basis in neuroscience, a basis in neuroscience isn't enough to make an educational approach effective. Lots of educational strategies based in "cutting edge" evidence about "how students learn" have proved to be failures. What's needed are rigorous evaluations showing the approach produces positive results in practice. But Sax and Gurian's theories have never been subject to a rigorous, independent evaluation of their effectivness. There are no randomized controlled trials of gender-based educational approaches. There's even evidence that some of their recommendations are wrong: For instance, Sax argues boys will do better in school if parents wait until they're 6 to enroll them in kindergarten--a practice known as kindergarten redshirting. But researchers have studied the effects of kindergarten redshirting and found no evidence it make a significant difference for long-term educational outcomes. And, while there has been research on single sex education, a recent Department of Education meta-analysis of that research found mixed results.

Two of the schools Weil profiles--The Young Women's Leadership School (which, while single-sex, does not employ a gender-based education approach) and Excellence Charter School--do seem to be having a positive impact for the predominantly low-income, minority students they serve. But that impact has at least as much to do with their rigorous academic approach, committment to high-quality teaching, and shared culture of excellence as it has to do with the fact that they're single sex. No one disputes that single sex schooling can have benefits for some students--particularly for girls in math and science. And a single sex approach may also help educators to create the strong, shared culture and values we know highly effective schools have. But there are plenty examples of schools doing this in coed settings as well--which is good, because for the foreseeable future the vast majority of students will be attending coed schools. (Sax claims that 360 public schools nationally are single sex--but in a nation with more than 14,000 school districts and 4,000 charter schools, that's not even a drop in the bucket). Wouldn't it be nice if the New York Times devoted at least as much attention to the strategies we know are working to educate students in these settings, as it has on a faux controversy about marginal gender-based educational approaches?

High school diploma vs ged in the real world

tatistics seem to suggest that it is better to stick out your last year or two of school and get your diploma, rather than getting a GED. 15% of GED recipients who go to college earn a degree, compared to 65% of those who went with a high school diploma. Research suggests that high school graduates are favored in entry level positions over GED recipients, and that GED recipients statistically earn less than those with a high school diploma. When comparing the success of those with high school diplomas and those with a GED, there seems to be little doubt that a high school diploma can make a huge difference in life.

But, is it a fair comparison?

First, let’s consider what a GED really is. GED is mistakenly thought to be an equivalency diploma by many people. In fact, it is not an equivalent. GED stands for General Education Development. It is a certificate issued to those who pass the exam, showing that they have at least a basic ability level.


Originally, the GED was implemented during World War II. It was meant to be an opportunity for veterans whose service prevented them from completing high school. In 1947, New York offered the GED to civilians. By 1973, 49 states gave the opportunity for those who, for various reasons, were unable or unwilling to complete high school.


While a GED is not seen, statistically, as an equivalent to a high school diploma, it does open doors for its recipients that are closed to high school drop outs. For one thing, 95% of American employers accept GED recipients, often on the same terms as those with high school diplomas. Additionally, 90% of colleges and universities recognize the GED.


So if most employers and colleges do recognize a GED, why is it that the statistics are so much more favorable to earners of traditional high school diplomas?


The reason may not lie in the inferiority of the GED certification, but in the commonalities among the recipients. People who opt for GED’s are usually people who had trouble in school, often people who had already dropped out, or those who have little desire or hope to finish. These troubles may include poor performance in school, lack of discipline or effort, undiagnosed learning disabilities, a dislike for their educational environment, boredom with traditional learning models, teen pregnancy, lack of parental support, or drug and alcohol addictions. In other words, GED recipients in general were not successful students who were likely to achieve a traditional high school diploma.


In this light, a GED is a step in a positive direction, but not a solution in itself to the problems that led to it. If the obstacles that prevented an individual from obtaining a high school diploma are not overcome, then those problems will continue to impede the person’s progress. It is not the GED itself that lowers a person’s chances for success, but that the people who obtain GED’s are generally people who had a lower chance of success to begin with.


No doubt, there are high school graduates who have had similar obstacles. But the difference is that these people were able to overcome them before it was too late. As the statistics show, they are reaping the rewards for their hard work, dedication and perseverance, both during and, most likely, after graduating high school.


But in the “real world,” is the high school diploma itself really superior to the GED certificate? In fact, yes; but, surprisingly, not by much.


For the GED recipient, success will depend upon the individual and their ability to overcome the problems that prevented them from finishing high school. The GED itself is only a slight handicap that, with effort and perseverance, can be overcome completely.


For example, if a GED recipient manages to obtain an Associates degree, or a certification from a trade school, they will have leveled the playing field. They will have an equal chance of getting into other schools, obtaining higher degrees, or securing positions and salaries comparable to that of a high school graduate with an Associates degree.


In essence, a GED itself is not a huge obstacle to overcome; it is the ability, performance and commitment of the individual that will, in the long run, determine one’s success in life.


This does not devalue a high school diploma; the experience and education obtained by one who has completed high school is an invaluable asset to a one’s personal growth. If a high school diploma is a possibility, one should strive for it. Taking a direct route to success whenever possible is quicker and easier than taking a detour.


GED recipients may never compare well statistically to high school graduates, in that higher earning potential and better career opportunities are often directly linked to the level of education one obtains. Since GED recipients are people who initially had problems in completing a traditional education, chances are that continuing their education may not be the beneficial, or even the preferred, path to take. But happiness and fulfillment is not something quite as easily measured by the statistics.


However, success is possible for both high school graduates and GED recipients. Some people may start on the right track, while others will have to come to it when they are ready. As long as a person has the drive and determination to succeed, having either a GED or a high school diploma will help them along the way.

Education Problems

The modern American educational system is filled with an assortment of problems. Many students are not learning much at all. Most students are graduating with less knowledge and capability than similar students in other industrialized countries. Classroom disruptions are surprisingly common, and in some Classrooms, nearly continuous. School violence is rampant, including the many violent incidents we all hear about in the news. Even violence and other incidents on school buses is a tremendous problem.

What is the answer?

In general, the common approaches are to throw money at the problems, and for distant Bureaucrats to establish very broad guidelines and laws to solve INDIVIDUAL problems of the system. Regarding performance issues, the Teachers are generally blamed, and so better selection of Teachers and better Teacher training are publicly called for. Regarding violence, metal detectors and uniformed police officers roaming the halls are considered to be the common "solution." In addition, everyone demands newer, bigger, more advanced school complexes.

These are all bureaucratic attempts at solutions for problems that arise on a very individual basis. Essentially, some bureaucratic "expert" in an ivory tower somewhere believes that he/she has a universal solution for a problem which he/she never actually faced in a Classroom. Such "experts" have no idea of the emotions that erupt in the Classroom, including in the Teacher, when violent behavior begins. It is a peculiar and frustrating situation to be a Teacher a few feet away from two fighting students, knowing that even touching either one of them could send you to jail. I doubt if many of the "experts" know that feeling.

Such "top-down" approaches to establishing a peaceful and safe and productive environment in the classroom have little chance of ever succeeding. Each student is an individual. Each teacher is an individual. They should all be treated like individuals, with whatever amount of respect they each personally deserve, rather than as cattle in enormous herds. You might as well take their names away now and just give them numbers, because the American Public Education System is essentially telling them that they have little importance as individuals, and they better behave like the rest of the herd if they want to avoid being in trouble. Is THIS the way young people should be "controlled"? I hope not. Is THAT the way to prepare then to become quality adults? I hope not. Such authoritarian and bureaucratic structures and attitudes diminish whatever creativity and zest everyone brings to the table. Don't I remember that this country was BUILT on the creativity and diversity of early settlers? So why should we move in directions of Schools being "armed camps" where any behavior that is "different" is subject to question and doubt and possible punishment?

Whoever came up with No Child Left Behind was clearly a good slogan-maker, but whoever tried to think up how it was to work seems to have demonstrated that he/she was a PRODUCT of a failed educational system! In one fell swoop, they managed to absolutely eliminate ALL CREATIVITY in all (public) classrooms. No Teacher is now allowed to actually Teach any personalized perspectives or enthusiasms, because such efforts would be WASTING time which is now supposed to be spent to prepare the students to do well on ONE SINGLE STANDARDIZED TEST. A Teacher is no longer a Teacher but simply an information coach, constantly pounding the same few concepts and themes that WILL appear on the Standardized Test! It is foolish for any Teacher to ever now spend any time in CREATING his/her own quizzes or tests, because they are all given the ACCEPTED quizzes and tests that have been approved as being focused on those specific subjects that will be on the Standardized Tests. And can any Student have any creative thought? No, such things MUST be quashed, because they also distract from the single function of the American Public Education System today, to score well on the Standardized Tests. And in case all that wasn't restrictive enough, ALL Public Schools KNOW that whether they get government funding (which is most of their budget) depends 100% on how well their students do on those Standardized Tests. So, in case School was not boring enough for students, and it is for many, the fact that NCLB forces an absolute uniformity of handling all students, makes sure that the better students will NEVER face any interesting challenges! And those smarter students are smart enough to see that the Teachers now all spend nearly all their time and effort on the poorest students. The smart kids WILL do OK on the Standardized Tests, so why waste any time in working with them? No, instead, spend thirty times as much time with the High School kid who never even learned to read at First Grade level, because THAT kid could screw up the class results in the Standardized Tests. Could anything be WORSE than the idiotic system that is applied that is called NCLB? Even though the CONCEPT behind NCLB was very admirable?

Considering the tens of thousands of (Public) Schools in America, the total financial cost of each of the proposed "top-down" approaches is staggering. And, unfortunately, the likely benefit of each of these approaches is minimal. Yes, metal detectors at School entrances might keep most weapons out of the School buildings, and uniformed full-time paid Police Officers walking the halls might lessen the number of violent incidents. What would keep an angry, vindictive adolescent from then waiting outside, as happened several years ago in the South, where some kids waited outside with weapons to pick off children leaving school? All of the expensive solutions suggested have similar likelihood of success. They may reduce some aspects of symptoms of a problem, but a related, different problem will arise as a result, such that very little real advantage actually results.

I find a similar situation already existing in most Courthouse buildings today. A few incidents of violence had occurred in Courtrooms over the years, so Laws were passed where Courthouses now have metal detectors and a lot of Security Personnel. This is VERY expensive! Is it for OUR benefit, to keep us safer in the building? Apparently not, because people are still shot outside such buildings. The Judges are probably safer now, especially since they look so different out of their robes and since they enter and leave the building by separate private entrances. But the millions of dollars of expense for every one of those large public buildings has almost no benefit for the public. And it has a tremendous downside attached to it. I personally do not like to have to do any business in such buildings, because of the over-bearing feeling of military-style authority that seems to pervade the environment there. It is also clear that many of the Security Personnel definitely enjoy their ability to harass and intimidate anyone they choose, including frisking and body-searching people with essentially no actual reason. I also don't enjoy the mere THREAT of being frisk searched, under the assumption that I am a potential criminal. I am NOT a criminal, in fact, I have been a Pastor of a Christian Church for many years, yet that system seems to REQUIRE each person to somehow PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE! Isn't America supposed to be based on the ASSUMPTION of being innonent UNTIL being PROVEN GUILTY of something? Don't they have it backwards at Airports and Courthouses and Schools? To initially ASSUME that everyone entering a building is dangerous and guilty is a horrific thing for society, and especially for the educational environments for young minds.

Is that the environment that would be conducive to young minds being open and receptive to new educational ideas? Not a chance! Instead, it foments an atmosphere that minimizes creative thought or intellectual growth, very much like our military branches INTENTIONALLY do during boot camp or basic training. As soon as metal detectors and an obvious police presence exist, the light, airy environment necessary to effective learning experience evaporates.

As it happens, I was both a student and then later a Teacher at Thornridge High School in Dolton, Illinois. As a student, I happened to win First Place in the Illinois State Science Fair, which the High School took to be something significant. They mounted a Brass Plaque with my name and that accomplishment on the wall of the hallway of the Science Building. I was later an effective and respected Science Teacher in that same building a few years later. At a later time in my life, I happened to pass near Dolton and decided to see if the Plaque was still there (and whether the Teacher's Cafeteria still made a delicious lunch meal!) I barely entered the door before three Armed Security Guards surrounded me and demanded that I lie down on the floor! They didn't ask a single question and simply issued that demand! It was clear that I was about to be seriously beaten! So I repeated over and over that I used to be a Teacher there and that I wanted to be taken to the Administrative Office (where they might still have recognized me as a prior Teacher). The Security Guards would NOT take me to the Administrative Office, and my only option was to talk to them. Since they clearly were looking for some entertainment in beating up an elderly white man, there was no future in that. Since I was only two steps inside the School building, they eventually decided that they would let me back up and leave, as my ONLY available choice! I have no idea if there is still a Brass Plaque honoring me in that School, and I never again had the slightest interest in ever knowing. (I was immediately aware that if I had been an elderly BLACK man and they had been young WHILE security men, they would have immediately been put in prison for what they did to me that day, and I probably would have won millions in a Civil Rights legal action! Sometimes, there are severe disadvantages of being a white man!) It could not have been any more of a Military Camp environment. I was GLAD that I was no longer a Teacher, as I could never Teach under those conditions, and I REALLY was glad that I was no longer a student, as I would have been in permanent fear OF THE SECURITY GUARDS, in addition to whatever threats that they believed existed that they were paid to overwhelm. I was NOT impressed!

IF you work in an office somewhere, do you think you'd get your work done as efficiently if you continuously saw an armed Police Officer out of the corner of your eye, often staring at you with the apparent expectation that you might be about to do something illegal or dangerous? You might for a little while, out of a fear factor. But, soon, you would likely have an indescribable feeling similar to paranoia, whether regarding the permanent reminder of the possible threat the Officer is supposed to thwart, or because of his presence itself. Your clarity of thinking, your creativity, your overall efficiency, your learning of new skills, would all certainly degrade. Just because he was there.

This is the real world. Bad things sometimes happen. There are bad people. In principle, we could each hire a dozen permanent armed guards to stand outside our homes, 24/7. We could do the same for our vehicles. Is this the future we are looking toward? Or desire?

Should we live every moment of every day, dreadful of the multitudes of dangers and threats "out there"? Should we provide a Public School environment that inculcates this attitude into our young people? I hope the answers are no.

Does this mean that there is no answer to the problems?

Not at all.

I taught high school in Illinois for four years some time back, before I started my manufacturing business. I might have stayed in Teaching, if it hadn't been for one characteristic that was in the process of change about then. When I had been a student, the locus of authority in every Classroom was in the Teacher. Both the Teacher and (the majority of) the students KNEW that the Teacher was virtually God in that Classroom. The students certainly had no authority there, and, in a sense, seemed to have few rights, except those graciously permitted by the Teacher. School administrations, parents, society, all believed in and supported that environment. It may not always have been perfect, but it allowed for reasonably consistent learning to occur in classrooms.

Students all KNEW that if they did anything bad in Class, the Teacher might call their Father, and the consequences at home could be really undesirable.

These days, people look back on those days as the "Dark Ages" of Teaching! It was certainly true that a rare Teacher would take advantage of the vast authority he/she held, and a few bad things DID happen to some children. Granted! However, most Teachers comprehended the importance and the responsibility given them in that position. After all, society and the parents WERE handing the children to those Teachers to mold their minds, and what could be more important than that? Wouldn't it also seem appropriate to put total trust in the Teachers' judgments regarding social, moral, and ethical issues that arose in that classroom? To enable and empower each Teacher to establish personal and possibly unique behavioral guidelines that would apply whenever anyone was within that specific classroom?

Aren't there rogue Cops who break laws, steal drugs and guns and money captured as Evidence? Do we therefore ASSUME that all Police are horrific people who cannot ever be trusted? No. We CHOOSE to still trust Police, ASSUMING that there are methods in place to weed out the bad seeds.

Doesn't a similar situation apply in the workplace in privately owned companies? Doesn't the boss/owner set an assortment of rules, to which each employee must comply? In most cases, this is done to establish organization and structure and consistency in the operations of that company. (In rare cases, it is because of some character flaw in the boss/owner.) Most employees tend to stay in such environments, and comply with the existing rules. A few choose to leave, to look for some other company that has rules that seem more personally compatible. Some are successful at finding such an alternative, some are not.

The Teachers' Unions Last Stand

Should the teachers be held accountable (to the point of even being fired) if they don't prove their job performance adequately through student standardized test scores?

There's a lot of talk about this issue lately. But how would it work? Teachers belong to unions, and unions disallow such actions. This weekend, there's an extensive article in the New York Times that examines the pull and push between momentum for education reform and how unions fit into the evolving framework.What do you think? Are unions antiquated and on their way out? Should unions be modernized for the new millennium?

How are unions helping teachers, students, education reform, and the country? Big questions, I know. But I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. PR: wait... I: wait... L: wait... LD: wait... I: wait...wait... Rank: wait... Traffic: wait... Price: wait... C: wait...