Aside from the incredible dumbing down of textbooks, I think much of it had to to not with spinsters but with collateral damage from feminism. (Not that I think feminism is bad, just that it led to some unforseen results.) Women who in the 40s and 50s would have become teachers were able to become doctors, lawyers, business women. And teaching became a profession for upwardly mobile blue collar women for whom it was a good job with good vacations rather than a profession for women who loved learning.

Not the sole answer--really dreadful things were done to textbooks--but much of it I think.

> I think much of it had to to not with spinsters but with collateral damage from feminism.Women who in the 40s and 50s would have become teachers were able to become doctors, lawyers, business women. And teaching became a profession for upwardly mobile blue collar women for whom it was a good job with good vacations rather than a profession for women who loved learning.

This is the fault of feminism? Please. If our society really valued education, they would pay teachers what they were worth, train them in college programs that helped them succeed, have mentor programs in the schools for new teachers, provide teachers with the materials they needed to teach a very heterogenous bunch of kids, and ditch the three months of summer.

Then there are the parents - I can't tell you how many I've run into who think their children are just darling, don't need lessons on consideration for others, and certainly don't need to be disciplined, oh no! We have new teachers running for the hills, dedicated and enthusiastic teachers who thought they could make a difference to find that the kids out of control tv/internet junkies, and to find that there was little or no support for them from the parents or administration.

PJ O'Rourke is a humourist who is not known for his thoughful commentary on any subject. I would take his statistics with a grain of salt. Let me educate you a little on this subject

Think back, way back. Pre WWII, most people didn't finish 6th grade. There were plenty of jobs to be had without the need for much education. Those who did, those who finished HS and went off to college were those with the motivation and parent support ot do so. Those who finished college were the creme de la creme (and probably had buckoo bucks). Back then school was not cumpulsory, and teachers could pretty much kick kids out if they were not up to standards. Certainly Special Education kids were not included - they were often hidden away in horrible institutional settings.

When WWII came up, the need for cumpulsory education started. This was even more so after Sputnik 50 years ago. Suddenly kids who didn't want to be there were, and teachers had to deal with discipline issues. As the civil rights movement started and children from minority families - often poor and uneducated - came to school with little or no background that many 4-5 years olds had. Then the door opened for handicapped kids to be allowed into the public schools. Throw in immigrants (legal or otherwise) and you have a mix of kids that can't be taught just one way. They need teachers who are flexible, schools that can adjust to their way of learning. But good flexible teachers have run for the hills, our schools are stuck in the 1950s, and our kids are losing out. As our technology developed to the point that education was required for most jobs that paid a living wage, more and more kids were left wanting. Oh yeah, throw in the 'must teach to test' mentality and its...

Then again James Fallows writes this in the same issue:

A leading Chinese university, Jiao Tong of Shanghai, publishes an annual ranking of the best universities in the world, based on their research excellence. These are more sober assessments than the fanciful "Best College" charts in U.S. magazines, and they emphasize AmericaÂs complete dominance of the field. On the latest Jiao Tong list, America has eight of the top 10 positions (exceptions: Cambridge and Oxford in England), and 17 of the top 20. (The other exception: the University of Tokyo, at 20.) China has zero of the top 100, and Japan has six. When I asked a Jiao Tong professor about the ranking, he said it was unfairly skewed, because American universities can take talent from everywhere else. Yes. We have to keep it that way, and for more than just universities.

I think there are a lot of reasons. Mainly it's because they got away from the basic ABCs. New math was something even the teacher's couldn't explain to me so I could help my boys. The classrooms are to big, teachers don't know the children as individuals anymore. I have mixed feelings about spanking. When my grandson went to his first day of school in our city, the teacher assigned him a seat and he wouldn't sit in it because it was by a girl. She tried to force him to sit down and he kicked her in the shin. She turned him bottom up and spanked him. From there on he minded and actually ended up with a crush on her. LOL Schools and teachers blame the parents, I blame the schools. They have lost control. There have always been children who misbehave and parents who don't do their job, but the schools had control and it worked out. Not anymore. Children know teachers can't spank them, nothing scares them anymore, we feared our principle when I was in school. We knew his footsteps when he walked down the hall and got very quiet.

Cindy, I DO agree with you about the push to keep every child in school until they graduate high school as being part of the problem, and I tried to say that it was unforseen collateral damage. By collateral damage I meant that it was similar to that caused by racial integration in this country that led to the unforseen result of the destruction of black communities with their own doctors, lawyers, dentists(who as black middle class could now buy homes outside of black ghettos), and teachers and schools (black teachers were left without jobs because no one would hire them to teach in integrated schools) that led to the huge loss of role models for black youth. (And please, when I say this, I am not, God forbid, trying to make an argument for segregation and its evils.)

BUT, certainly the loss of good jobs for people with 6th and 8th grade educations was a major part of the problem. As for huge class sizes and lots of immigrants, New York City schools in the early part of the 19th century sometimes had 50 kids in a class, speaking many different languages--Yiddish, Italian, a whole raft of eastern European languages. Again, those kids learned English but by the time they reached 8th grade, most of them had dropped out.

I also want to say that schools don't exist in a vaccuum; they mirror the society they are in. This concept is a basic one to understanding the role schools play and is taught in many teacher education courses around the country. Schools cannot change society--they are an institution of that society. If children are out of hand, if schools have no control, it's because the whole society has lost its control--over its children as well as over many other things--how much money they spend, how they spend their time, how families are together or not together, etc., etc.

Take the issue of children shooting children and schools' attempts to make them safe. Years ago, guns were actually much more available than they are now. I remember a friend of mine commenting that where he grew up in Indiana in the 50s, every teenage boy carried a rifle to school with him in his pickup so he could hunt on the way home if he felt like it. It's not the availability of guns that have caused school shootings. It's the idea, somehow, that massacreing the teachers and schoolmates that you're mad at is somehow acceptable. The very idea would have been literally inconceivable years ago.

>I also want to say that schools don't exist in a vaccuum; they mirror the society they are in. This concept is a basic one to understanding the role schools play and is taught in many teacher education courses around the country. Schools cannot change society--they are an institution of that society. If children are out of hand, if schools have no control, it's because the whole society has lost its control--over its children as well as over many other things--how much money they spend, how they spend their time, how families are together or not together, etc., etc.

Lacey, exactly.

I'd also suggest that anyone who thinks only one group (aka teachers) or factor (aka lack of corperal punishment) needs to take a visit to their local school and offer to volunteer for a bit. It will not take much to see what the teachers, parents, admin and kids are up against.

With the recall of so many toys, this possibility entered my mind (Remember Caligula and Nero?). The words below are not mine but excerpts from various web sites on the subject of lead:

First site: It's not surprising that Lead has been associated as a potential major factor in the fall of the Roman EmpireÂ.Its likely that lead played a minor role in comparison to other factors, but when combined with all other pressures, there is no doubt that it had an impact.

Second Site: A chemical analysis of skeletons of Romans killed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79 indicates that, although they were generally healthy and well-nourished people, some of them may have suffered chronic lead poisoning, an American archeologist reported here today. This is the first direct physical evidence that seems to support the popular hypothesis that lead poisoning, which can cause mental retardation and erratic behavior, contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Third: Lead is gone from gasoline and paintÂwith surprisingly beneficial results. But lead still poses dangers to kids, Â children are being damaged every yearÂand the results will be more school dropouts and more crime.

Fourth: Scores of studies link childhood lead exposure to diminished intelligence, school failure, behavioral disorders, violence, and criminality.

I completely agree with Lacey's points. I'd add--my mother, who grew up in rural PA in the 50's, remembers her small high school having a gun club. Boys actually brought their rifles into the school to be stored somewhere during the day and after school, used them in gun club! My family has many many public school teachers. My father, who taught in small rural district, said discipline issues shot up when corporal punishment was banned. My teacher/brother-in-law was threatened with a lawsuit by the parents of a boy after my brother-in-law pulled him off another boy during a fight in the school hallway. My immigrant grandparents started school knowing no English at all--my grandmother didn't even recognize her own name when spoken in English by her teacher. They learned English rapidly, with no special instruction, as young children tend to, and turned into good students, albeit eventual drop-outs since they needed to go to work. Their children and grandchildren, however, enjoy lifestyles nearly unimaginable to previous generations.

Am I advocating banning ESL instruction, spanking the bad kids and letting the boys carry guns again? Nope. Schools do reflect our society and the reflection in many areas is scary. Lack of decent jobs for the non-college educated, the horrible drug problem and the unspeakable crimes it spawns, worshipping at the altar of consumerism, the pervasiveness of all forms of media and its lowest-common denominator pop-culture influence on children and teens and the trend for children to do it all earlier, faster and better than anyone else along with the breakdown in family structure all seem to be factors contributing to the problem.

frongia. This is a great theory...but I doubt there is the data to back it up for the current educational difficulties. At least in my state, children are tested for lead levels throughout their young childhood. There are no significant lead levels to be found. 20 years ago we treated 2-5 children a month for plumbism in the hospital where I worked. I cannot remember the last child that was admitted for this treatment...maybe 10 years ago? It's no longer an issue. The environment has been cleaned up. There has not been an increase even in the last few weeks when the parents have been bringing their children for panic testing with the news re: the toys.

Bookmom - My husband also took his rifle to school, for rifle club, and this was in a large size city north of NYC.

When I was in elementary school, we had several children in our classes over the years who immigrated from Europe (esp. Hungary after the '56 uprising). First day in the room, they often spoke not one word of English...by the end of the school year, their English was fluent. I also don't think that ESL should be done away with, however, one-two semesters should be adequate...and not Bilingual education. The Canadians have known for years that total emersion in the second language is the key.

Not being an authority on the subject of lead poisoning myself, I must rely on those qualified individuals who do the studies. In continuing to look into the question of lead, I find that many reputable and up-to-date experts feel it is still a problem in many areas of the country (not necessarily all). I donÂt know, of course, if it is related to school issues in general, but it could be. It might be a positive move not to write it off completely as unrelated to any educational problems.

Another thought: Even if LP is not affecting todayÂs children directly, could it be possible that their parents were affected and, as a result, have diminished parenting skills?

The truth is most likely a combination of causes with perhaps no connection at all to this theory. This is just the result of much musing on the subject of educational decline on my part.

>First day in the room, they often spoke not one word of English...by the end of the school year, their English was fluent. I also don't think that ESL should be done away with, however, one-two semesters should be adequate...and not Bilingual education

One-two semesters? No, sorry. Like every aspect of education, you cannot put a number or requirement on an entire population when everyone is so different. Take a look at the below research article to see what I mean. My own experience as a teacher in a high ENglish Learner community is that the adults take 3-5 years to be comfortable enough to use English in public, takes the kids about 2-3 years to become fluent enough to be comfortable at school. Some kids go faster, for whatever reason. But restricting them to a few semesters is unrealistic for most learners.

> ESL, Bilingual ED

The meanings of each of these terms are frought with different interpretations. A career can be had looking at the differences between ESL, Bilingual ed, Dual Language, Immersion, Sheltered English Learning. Each of these methods are probably appropriate for some people.

BTW, did you know before the 1900s, immigrant children were taught school in their native tongue, and taught English as they could? Think of the Germans in the Midwest, the Chinese in California - those communities were often separate from others, so teaching in their native tongue made sense. It meant that these children were able to become fluent in their native tongue, able to keep up academically, and better able to attach a new language to what they already knew. I don't think that would work nowadays, but its interesting when people talk about how fast their ancestors learned English, perhaps don't know that tidbit of American history.

Here is a link that might be useful: Length of time from English learning to proficency

Grist for the mill:

Here is a link that might be useful: American kids dumber than dirt

Inkognito...good article.

When my husband started teaching in the 70's, the 8th graders he taught wrote 10-15 page (typed )research papers, with footnotes, etc. When he retired, early in this century, most of his high school seniors couldn't write complete sentences that were coherent, and certainly couldn't handle paragraphs. It was sad, and very frustrating.
He taught all but the highest level. To have the kids (we rarely refer to them as students) "read" a book...it was read out loud in class...painfully so in many classes.

inkognito, your article could be describing how our English education system is going. We always say what America does today we will be doing tomorrow. From the late '60's our secondary schools changed so they began resembling your High Schools. One size fits all, the Egalitarian Society. The children most damaged by this have been those who were bright but came from poor homes, no longer able to take advantage of scholarships to grammar schools with high academic standards.
Private education is only open to a very small % of the population. As soon as these schools were forced to pay their staff the same salaries as teachers received in State schools the fees shot up. A 'top' English 'Public' boarding School charges well over �20,000 pa. many of them rely on rich 'foreigners' to fill the places.
At the other end of the scale there are inner-city schools having to take ever growing numbers of immigrant pupils, although most are keen to learn, to the surprise of their English class-mates who attend under sufferance.
Fewer and fewer men take up teaching as a career, especially of the younger age-groups. This, as Cindy says, leads to a problem with lack of role models among the Afro-Caribbean boys who often seem to be 'fatherless'.
There is violence in our inner-city schools and although it hasn't reached US proportions, knife attacks are not uncommon. Although we worry about gun crime we still have a long way to go before we share the American attitude towards 'the bearing of arms'.
Oh, we don't yet have a problem with 'mindless evangelical Christian lemmings'; there are very few fundamentalists among us. We become less God fearing every year.

Amazingly our 'Nanny State' Govt. decided not to make smacking our children an offence, although schools are not allowed to undertake any corporal punishment.

Here is a link that might be useful: smacking not to be banned in England and Wales.

I always question those articles because I think its easy to pick and chose who you are going to interview, and I suspect that many of those student's elders are about as smart. That being said

Want kids learning? Then get society to value education. Not just school, but value learning for learning sake. Get kids curious, get them amazed at how the world works. Then show them how such things as reading and arithmetic open the doors to answers.

Then, pay teachers as professionals, not babysitters. Pay them what you'd pay a dr or lawyer, heck even a sports star. Get rid of some of the horrid mountains of paperwork, of administrators who change rules every year, and administrators who will suppor teachers in what they are doing - and maybe the best of the best will actually stay in the profession. Get our colleges to really train teachers to be prepared for the kids we have now - kids who come from homes without a book in sight, kids who are dealing with family issues that would have us covering our heads in bed, kids who have spent their life in front of a tv or monitor, kids who have never had to take responsiblity for anything in their life. When the student teachers know what they are getting into and how to help them learn, they will.

But I don't really think this society will ever change. We don't value learning. We don't like intellectuals or science. Our school's schedule is run on the lifestyle from the 1800s, and our curriculum is just barely out of the 50s. Nope, we won't change. TOo much interested in Paris Hilton and co.

On that note, my blood pressure is rising. I think I'll be skipping this thread. Happy discussing.

As far as the language used for instruction in schools, I think that must have depended on the community. My relatives, for example, lived in the northeastern PA coal-mining region. School instruction was in English--perhaps because Poles, Russians, Italians, Irish and the variety of Eastern European dialect speakers lived in mixed neighborhoods. Churches, however, were "segregated" by ethnicity and that is where the children went after school or on Saturday and received religious instruction in the mother tongue.

As far as paying teachers like sports stars? The cult of the athlete has reached absurd heights in this country. Instead of hoping a child gets an academic scholarship of sorts or into a good college and putting time into academics and grades, parents allow schoolwork to be given a lick and promise so Johnny and Janie don't miss out on soccer practice. Priorities... (and now I have to go watch Penn State vs Ohio)

I was a teacher for 34 yrs. and still substitute in the local high school. I consider myself fairly intelligent, perhaps I could have been a doctor?, and love learning....ditto my 2 daughter 23 and 29 who also have become teachers.
There are many problems with education in the US today. I think the salary issue is one-young teachers have to take numerous tests, courses and have a masters degree soon after beginning their career. These are all expensive, plus the school loans to pay off from undergrad education. My 23 yr. old is barely getting by in Maryland. Teachers should be paid as professionals and respected as such.
The children today do not come to school with the respect for learning and teachers they had in the past. I don't know what's going on in the majority of homes but it's not good. There is no respect for teachers, a dislike of reading and when the son/daughter gets into trouble the parents place blame everywhere but on the child. Teachers must be not only educators but counselors, confidantes, parents, etc. etc. to their students and the reams of bureacratic paperwork which accompany the job are staggering.
I don't know what the answers are.

I will not comment in detail due to lack of expertise, but I am old enough to have noted a distinct anti-intellectual, anti-science trend in American society since the 1960's and it is getting worse all the time.

I have actually met old-timers who went to school in small, one-room schoolhouses, with kids of all ages, who were far better educated than the average U.S. high school graduate of today.

From talking to my American friends who teach, it appears far too much time must be spent in basic discipline, rather than teaching the subject(s) at hand. Teachers in the U.S. also are not granted the prestige and respect that they are in some European nations, e.g. France and Germany. I cannot comment on the U.K.

Just as a matter of interest can someone please tell me at what age 'students' are allowed to leave school in the US or Canada and what is required to graduate from High School?
Over here in the UK (in case anyone is interested) the 'leaving age' stood at 15 years from 1944 until it was finally raised to 16 in the early 70's.
Quite a high % of kids leave with no qualifications at all and of those some can barely read and write.
At the other end of the scale more and more young people are being pushed towards university (it is rumoured to keep the unemployment figures low) where they take courses of little relevance to the world of work and on graduation spend years paying off student loans/debts working in supermarkets or call-centres.
Almost impossible these days to find an English plumber/electrician/builder; we rely on workers from the New Europe. The country is awash with Poles, Latvians, Ukranians doing these jobs.

Vee, our kids, too, can leave school at 16, ready or not.

I come from a family of teachers, although I was delighted when I found that there were other careers. (I don't have enough patience to teach.) At any rate, my mother began teaching in one-room schools with children from first through eighth grades, and as Woodnymph said, they (we) were well educated if they had good teachers. That was not always the case in Kentucky, as one could teach with a two-year teaching certificate until after WWII. As you would suspect, some were much better at the job than others.

It was my mother's opinion that learning took a downward curve when children who were below average in ability to learn were no longer able to stay at home on farms where they were capable of helping the family and earning a livelihood. In today's society, where is the place for those young people?

When I was in grade school, we had kids who had learning disabilities, even a couple who had Down's Syndrome, who came to school just for the social enjoyment until they got too old or too unruly to participate. Mama taught first grade the last twenty or so years of her career, and some kids never even learned to write their names, but they were not trouble to her. They loved both her and their classmates.

I don't know when we lost that love and respect. One of my brothers was sued by a mother who didn't like the way he disciplined her daughter. At the hearing, the judge dismissed the case and told the mother she should be glad someone was trying to teach her daughter how to behave; but the whole thing left a very bad taste in my brother's mouth. My mother taught until her last year at 65; he retired as early as he could, and he was a good teacher, too, who had liked the job for a long time.

woodnymph, I totally agree.

>I think that must have depended on the community

True, esp on the make up of those communities and the size. There's also the time period; around 1900 (tho it might have been later, WWI), there was a push to Americanize the immigrants, hence a push to English Only in schools.

>The children today do not come to school with the respect for learning and teachers they had in the past. I don't know what's going on in the majority of homes but it's not good. There is no respect for teachers, a dislike of reading and when the son/daughter gets into trouble the parents place blame everywhere but on the child.

Where did this respect go to? In my Jewish familyu, tradition education is a given, learning is paramont. In other cultures as well, certainly Chinese and Japanese, education is important. Even among my limited educated, limited English speaking parents, their respect for me is enourmous (it embarrasses me sometimes) They call me Teacher Cindy (Maestra Cindy) even tho everyone calls me by my first name. In those cultures and others, teachers are respected, education is the key.

So what happened to mainstream American culture that lost sight of learning? Or did it ever have it? As I said in my rant above, pre WWII most kids didn't go to school very long; My parents generation were the first in their families to graduate from HS (1938). Graduating HS was seen as a luxury; there was work to be done at home. And it was seen as a province of the wealthy, something they often had no hope to become. So is it just now, as our society demands a very educated workforce, that we are running up against a very long standing tradition of the unimportance of education and teachers?

carolyn, I somehow missed your post - I do think that one of the greatest things to have happened was the opening of the institutions for the disabled in the 70s, along with the law that mandated a free and appropriate education for them. I have seen great strides in so many areas now, many adults with disabilities doing just fine thankyouverymuch in the mainstream of society.

Whats happened now is that there isn't enough funding for all of the kids who need help. With the exception of big school districts, there often aren't the resources to help teahcers know how to reach these kids. And now thanks to No Child Left Behind, these special kids are included in our testing scores; they are not allowed to have any kind of adaptation to the test. Unless this changes, its only going to get worse, with stressed out teachers and kids.

I think this worry about the state of the education system is pretty much world wide. Certainly it is of concern here in Australia.

One of the things that bothers me is the insistence that students should stay at school until Year 12 (final year here). If a young person has left school early to start an apprenticeship or full time job or other study, does it matter that they are not at school? I think not.

Secondly, there is a lack of respect for teachers, coupled with students who 'know their rights' (but not their obligations in most cases). This is a general thing in society where people no longer stand for old people on public transport, talk loudly on mobile phones and by and large don't give a passing thought to manners or the comfort of others. Teachers are unable to discipline unruly students other than with suspension - and for most of these type of kids, that is just a holiday at home. Admittedly, at least the teachers don't have to deal with them for a while, but I don't think the students really see that as punishment for wrong-doing.

Then there is the overcrowded curriculum where primary school children have lessons in how to approach strange dogs, and once a week foreign language classes where they learn nothing, wasting time that could be spent on basics. AND the fact that teachers have to deal with special needs children with little or no support.

And all of this leads to one of my pet rants - how parents deal with their small children. I constantly hear parents asking for good behaviour e.g. 'Sweetie, please don't hit your brother, it isn't appropriate behaviour. Please stop it'. This kind of talk is administered in a pleasant voice.
If I admonished my dog in that type of voice, she would think she was being a good dog. A parent needs to sound cross - not, I hasten to add, to yell or scream, but just to sound like you mean it and expect to be obeyed.
This is coupled with the strange idea that parents have to be best friends with their children and don't like to discipline them in case their kids won't like them any more!!!!

OK, I think I should stop now *VBG*
However, this all makes it very hard for teachers to actually get any teaching done.

What I meant to add after my rant about parent behaviour, is that children brought up like this have no idea of respecting adults and often have never been asked to sit down and be quiet and do something they don't really want to, which makes the teacher's job all that much harder.

Astrokath, what you said above is it exactly. I see so many kids -- and parents -- today who feel so entitled to act any way they please. Not all of them, but enough to disrupt things. Other parents don't seem to have ever disciplined their children, and they run wild in school and cause tremendous disruption.

Unfortunately, America has become all about instant gratification and an overbearing sense of entitlement, and it seems in many cases kids don't learn to work for things or to have patience anymore. It's very disturbing.

I've worked hard to support my kids' teachers (my mom and sister are teachers) and make sure my kids, at least, are able "to sit down, be quiet and do something they don't want to." That, in a nutshell, is a major life skill!

The other day I wandered through a room with a television and caught a sad exchange between reporters on the street asking kids and teenagers if they thought they owed their country anything? (I don't what network it was.)

This is what they said, to the best of my recollection:
One girl seemed dumbfounded, but she finally stammered out, "Nuh, I-I-I doan think so."

A boy got indignant, "What's the country done for me?"

Another boy was emphatic, "H*ll no! My country owes me; I don't owe it."

With this attitude of entitlement, I guess it's no wonder that students think they have better things to do than to try and really learn something in school.

I blame all the usual suspects: parents, out-of-touch administration, bureaucratic meddling, and a culture that doesn't value education except for the possibility of the earning power that it might give. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with learning to earn, of course, if that's what is truly being done, but I doubt it in many cases -- there are too many people going through programs and getting pieces of paper that are essentially worthless in the earning department. There is little learning for the sake of learning, a concept that I doubt is even comprehensible to most adolescents -- or adults either, for that matter.

The main thing I noticed, when I tried my hand at teaching after I quit journalism, was that so few students like learning, at least in the formal sense. Maybe my brothers and I were weird during our own adolescence, but we enjoyed school so much that we played school after school. I remember that girls, particularly -- my friends and classmates, anyway -- often said they loved school; but I don't think I've heard, in a long time, a student say s/he liked school. I've heard plenty whine, though, and make sarcastic remarks. I suspect some might actually like school a little bit -- maybe a lot -- but it's unfashionable to say so.

I have been following this thread with great interest. I believe that pupils who are not interested in learning should be allowed to leave school early if they can find a job that suits them. Both my children left when they were 15 and were happier than trying to sit in classes when they were too restless and unhappy from age 13, with formal education. We did try alternatives like Montessori, home schooling, a loose-structured school and even a boarding school. They just did not want to be taught! Luckily they were well placed in the work they picked, child care and apprentice motor mechanic. Their children like school fortunately!

The work alternatives annpan mentions above are missing from US schools. At least in this area, everything is geared toward college, with almost nothing for the kids who would be more interested in a trade than a college degree. Practical apprenticeships would be a great alternative for some kids, and it would definitely fill a huge need -- it's getting harder and harder to find a good mechanic, electrician, plumber or carpenter, and these jobs can be just as lucrative as any other. IMO, a good plumber or electrician is worth his or her weight in gold.

Oh, above post, meant to add - those kids who are slow learners can get jobs through state programs and social agencies but usually these kids are mentally handicapped or sensory handicapped. Those who are 'just slow learners' either go to a tech school if they can afford it, or flip burgers for minimum wage. Thats about it for choices

> Luckily they were well placed in the work they picked, child care

ann, how much do child care workers make in your area? Here, its very low paying. This is another bone I have to pick - this means that the people we ask to care for our children are paid the minimal our society allows. Which means the caregivers are often HS drop outs. They often do not know how to give the quality care that our children deserve (I am generalizing here, of course, and its probably different where you live). Its frustrating that we don't require some kind of child care license for these teachers. Our society does our kids a disservice not having trained personnel and paying them a living wage.

I do agree with you tho about letting kids out who really don't want to be there. But it has to be followed by some kind of tech system that trains them for actual work. As sheri says, these are few and far between.

Practical apprenticeships would be a great alternative for some kids, and it would definitely fill a huge need -- it's getting harder and harder to find a good mechanic, electrician, plumber or carpenter, and these jobs can be just as lucrative as any other.Sheri, do you reckon this is so because those professions don't have the right cachet, even though they are lucrative, and are considered too hard work because they are physical? Generally, it seems anything physical -- except sports -- is considered demeaning. Tech school attendees, apprentices and journeymen don't get much respect. Even experts in those fields don't get the respect of "experts" in university-degree fields.

By the lack of comment to the anecdote I posted above about kids not thinking they owe their country anything, am I to assume that it doesn't seem as surprising or sad to others as does to me?

Frieda, you ask a good question. I'm not sure if these professions are considered too blue collar or they are simply not on kids' radar at all. At the high school level here, it's all about getting into college and launching the big career after that. It may be a prestige issue, I'm not sure. These are good, steady, well-paying jobs, and there are most definitely a lot of kids who just aren't cut out for higher education. I think we owe it to these kids to guide them toward some kind of skilled profession that doesn't require a college degree so they don't end up flipping burgers or working low-end minimum wage jobs all their lives.

As for the comments you posted above regarding teens not feeling they should give back to their country, many kids and adults just have a sense of entitlement that has no basis in reality. Hmmmm. Might that be a result of too much emphasis on good self-esteem in school? *W*

On the other hand, you said those interviewed were teenagers, and some (and certainly not the majority) teenagers can be blissfully ignorant, arrogant, and self-centered. It may also be a case of picking and choosing responses, too. The reporter may have wanted to skew the responses to outrage viewers.

I think we owe it to these kids to guide them toward some kind of skilled profession that doesn't require a college degree so they don't end up flipping burgers or working low-end minimum wage jobs all their lives.I couldn't agree more with you, Sheri. Now, if the general climate would just change to agree with us, too.:-)It may also be a case of picking and choosing responses, too. The reporter may have wanted to skew the responses to outrage viewers.Yeah, I think there was cherrypicking of responses, because the kids who didn't have a clue or who were most obviously resentful of the question gave more succinct sound bites than the kids who gave standard answers (and there was about an equal number of those, but I don't remember them as easily). The shock value, as you say, certainly got my attention.

Frieda, I don't know if it is the same in the US, but over here the non-academic 'pupils' are very unlikely to get much advice from 'careers teachers' (often the PT teacher who hands out a few leaflets). Brighter kids are always pushed towards the professions, because that is all their teachers
know.
Some schools used to have arrangements with local techs so the less academic boys could attend courses in plumbing, bricklaying etc a couple of days a week, but those teachers/trainers often complained that the schools were sending them the worst pupils (true) who would never make the grade in those trades. The modern less-able kid, it seems, is unable or disinclined, unmotivated to use his hands or his brain.
We are now finding over here, that quite a few 'upper crust' young people are going into joinery, pottery, stained glass. Perhaps rather arty-farty and not much use when you check the yellow pages to find someone to make you are new door frame or unclog the septic tank but I don't think these skills are looked down on.

Btw it would have been unheard of, even when I was at school during the 50's-60's to admit that we enjoyed being there. No-one ever arrived on a Monday morning saying "Goody, double algebra followed by a French test and the whole afternoon spent on the muddy sports field in the pouring rain being shouted at by that sadist with the huge bosom."
We would have been as popular with our class-mates as the girl who unwisely reminded the maths mistress that she had forgotten to set us any homework for the weekend.
I'm sure almost no young people, or most adults, think they owe anything to this country. It has become seen as an out-of-date Victorian concept. So many of us have grown up under the 'Welfare State' (in itself a wonderfully caring concept) that they have lost any idea of what they can do for others and expect the world to give them a living.
Of course I am generalising as there are many exceptions with eg's of young people helping the less fortunate, giving their time to charities etc.

Veer, Frieda,
When I was teaching (highschool) I found that most students wanted to be at school, since that was the place they met with their friends. So a suspension was not much wanted by them. Then there was the unpleasantness of the discussion that evening with their parent(s). That said, once at school, your comments ring true for many of the hallway wanderers; who looked for easy subjects, with little homework. One the other side of the coin, there were many who willingly took difficult, optional courses, with an eye to their futures. A very few were there out of genuine enjoyment in learning about something new and exciting to them. Interestingly, if there were a few of the latter in the class, they seemed to provide a momentum that served to enhance the learning experiences of the former.
WRT parential support; there seemed to be no predicting which parents took a positive interest in their childrens progress (except at report card time). I recall sons and daughters of doctors, lawyers and other professionals at both ends of the spectrum. The same went for those who's parents both worked hard just to make ends meet. I suppose their personal value systems were the best predicters.

Regards,
Bob

There is quite a lot of interest from young people in apprenticeships in Australia, as most tradespeople, especially those in the building area, make very good money. However, the problem is finding employers to offer the apprenticeships.
After closing all the technical high schools in the mid to late 1970s, the government is now reinstating them. Obviously it is partly in order to keep up that magical Year 12 retention rate, but I think people have realised that many students want to learn trades and to work with their hands.

I hesitate to step back in this conflagration I started, but I just wanted to say that I meant to share a humorous illustration of the spurious use of statistics and anecdote. I wonder if there's a graph or chart showing the disappearance of those white-oak rulers with brass edges that were so good for whacking knuckles and if that could be correlated with the state of education.

My personal electrician was just here, and he said his son was going to college to be an electrician (not an electrical engineer). So much for apprenticeships.

A friend just started her teaching career (French, high school) in September. She's rather discouraged at having to teach basics to fifth-year students instead of sitting around discussing Proust and Sartre.

Cindy, I checked with a young relative who works as a child carer and she said that she did a course at a technical college and holds a Diploma of Children's Service 0-12 years. A similar qualification can be obtained by training at a Child Care Centre. There are several levels of income and she currently earns $20 an hour which is quite a respectable amount.
I am pleased that there was not condemnation of my posting from RPers who are in the teaching profession. As Astrokath said, blue collar workers are well paid in Australia and well respected and highly sought after at present in our State where we currently have an industrial boom and the 'tradies' are going North for huge wages.
If you are interested, please look at www.tafe.wa.edu.au for an idea of the courses on offer in this State.

>but I just wanted to say that I meant to share a humorous illustration of the spurious use of statistics and anecdote.

Ha! Like Twain said 'there are lies, damned lies, and statistics" BTW a book everyone should read is How to Lie with Statistics. Read this in a statistics class and wow - it really helped me look differently at anything I read or hear (helped that I also read Hiyakawas Language in Thought an Action in HS, which covers some similar ground). Its from 1982, but still pertintent.

>I hesitate to step back in this conflagration I started

Actually I have been pleasantly surprised. What I thought was going to be a conflagration turned into a thoughtful discussion. But then, this is the RP crowd; I can't imagine anyone here creating problems that I have seen happen elsethread (heck if anyone would, probably be me with my opinionated fingers :)

ann, $20 an hour? Be prepared to have a slew of folks come running to your shore. I suspect thats with benefits? Oh, how I wish we did that here.

>Diploma of Children's Service 0-12 years

We have something called Child Development Specialist that you get in the two year colleges here. Having it does raise your salary, but not all day care facilities require it (just last year, the Head Start program - federal program for low income families- started requiring it, as well as requiring their teachers to have an Early Childhood Certificate)

Here is a link that might be useful: How to lie with statistics

It's a great idea to pay child care workers $20/hr, but it would have to be heavily subsidized by the government. Most parents couldn't afford to have child care at that rate, since a large percentage of them don't even make that themselves. I'm not sure what the answer is.

My nephew's wife just quit work to stay home with their two kids because they couldn't afford for her to work.

Wow, $20 per hour is pretty good Annpan, because I thought childcare workers were poorly paid too. My guess is that is a casual wage (which is what I get), higher than permanent part time but with no sick leave or holiday pay. I was offered either but chose the casual as I am rarely sick (touch wood) and the extra per hour more than covers holidays.

Astrokath, this $Aust20 per hour is for a permanent 38 hour a week position in a top level, one step under Assistant Director. She gets 20% deducted for tax (which covers Medicare etc.) 10 days paid sick leave, 4 weeks annual leave with an extra wage loading after a year, lunch with the children (rather bland, I must admit!) and has quite a lot of paperwork to do.Each 'Room' in her Centre has 1 qualified person and two assistants for a number of children proportionate to their age.
The centre caters for all parents but some are eligible for subsidies and then there is the childcare rebate on their tax. There is a shortage of qualified staff so the hordes are welcome to come! As my relative is on Maternity leave, she has been offerred a 3 day week after Christmas with free childcare included, otherwise she would not consider returning for at least 6 months. Her husband works and she gets maternity benefits as well as the $A4000 from a government eager to increase the birthrate to 3 children per couple (one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country, said a politician!).
I hope that this reply answers your questions.

Annpan, I live in Adelaide, so I know about the maternity benefits etc.
I still think that seems like a reasonable wage - I know the permanents where I work don't get that much - but I wouldn't work in childcare if you paid me $200/hr *VBG* I have a couple of my own (and thank goodness they are 17 and 20 now) but I'm just not patient enough for that kind of work.
I know there is a shortage of decent childcare in Australia. I never considered it for mine as I couldn't bear the thought of other people looking after them, and we were able to live on one wage. Although, I have to say, many people today say they need two wages, and without doubt many do, but I see so many who aren't prepared to do without - we had one room with no furniture at all for about 10 years, and most of our furniture was hand me downs from relatives until we could afford better.

Astrokath, thanks for your reply, I do know that you are living in SA but I broadened my posting to include a query from another RPer in the US. When I spoke to some tourists I met in Bali, they were surprised about the 4 weeks paid holiday I was entitled to and that my journalist husband got 6 weeks. They told us that they only got 2 weeks.
RPers, if I seem to have got away from the original subject, it was to answer a query about childcare as a career.I am full of admiration for those patient people who work with children of any age. I'm with you on that, Kath, although I looked after my children and worked from home until they were of school age, I was glad that they were then in more professional hands from there on!

Sorry Ann, I obviously didn't have my thinking cap on.

Kath, no worries!

Just finished having Parent-Teacher conferences in my school. We have a set of twin brothers whose family emigrated from Egypt, and at the conference, their father explained that in their culture, God is top, then next is teachers. Almost brought tears to our eyes, especially after having one set of parents tell us that their 10-year old doesn't feel he needs reading support any more and so he directed them to "sign him out" at the conference, and he was staying up to hear that they had. Another set of parents apologized for the fact that their son doesn't know his multiplication facts, but he doesn't like to practice, and gets angry at them when they make him practice before he plays his video games, so they haven't been practicing much. My question both times was "who is in charge at your house?" In my classroom, I don't ask them if they'd like to learn about compound sentences or practice making inferences-nor do they get to decide who is in their project group or when recess will happen. Those who think they will have those decision-making privileges, learn very quickly that they don't. One said to me recently..."Do you mean that in here you are kind of the Queen?" My answer was "Absolutely."
There are, no question, parents who will not hear any criticism of their child, but more often, I find parents who were afraid to "stifle the spirit" of their little ones, never said "no" or "you will" and have created 10 year old monsters with a big sense of entitlement.

cece, you could be writing about UK school children and their parents.
I watched a 'Property' programme on the TV the other day. One of an endless string of 'How to give your house a makeover and make ££££'s' 'Where to buy a house and cripple yourself with a huge mortgage' 'I know nothing about decoration but I'll paint my kitchen purple' etc.
The TV 'presenters' had shown a couple several over-priced properties and the final one was full of golden door-knobs and taps, grantite surfaces and obsidian loo seats (as loved by chavs over here). They went wild about the house and garden, didn't seem to care that is was a stupid price but said they couldn't commit to it before consulting their three year old daughter to see if she approved. And they were serious. ;-)

I heard a funny story just today from a retired teacher. She had a third grader on the first day of school tell her his mama said if his teacher so much as touched him, she would sue the school. The teacher is a great lady who loves children, but she advanced toward him and said sternly that she would take him up on that threat on the spot. He backed away, and she said, "Now, what did your mama say?" He said, "Nothing, she didn't say nothing!" All the teachers in the school loved it.

Veer, you and Martin have both mentioned "chavs" recently. I gather that refers to persons with tacky tastes but where did that come from and how is the word pronounced?
I've been back in Oz for 4 years now so have lost track of some things, I suppose!