Chi, and yet, the NCLB movement was meant to encourage lifting expectations for all students, was it not? Teaching up if you will.

Not exactly, jecrigler. While barriers for "traditionally male" occupations hadn't completely fallen, I think females of my generation (baby boomers) were long removed from the "get married and have children" mode as some (not all) of their parents' generation.

My wife has more years of college than I have. I can't think of any like-aged female friends of ours without a college degree and an occupation, even if it was not continued. We know many females our age with doctoral degrees.

Maybe it's socio-economic or a geographic thing? We've always lived in areas and had jobs where people were pretty well educated.

Raee, I think it had good intentions but the reality was different. It shifted to a teaching the test mentality and teacher's careers depending on their student's scores. They were no longer able to teach the way they felt kids learn the best but rather just drill the test subjects.

I'm far from an expert on it but that's my understanding from my experience in education and talking to my public teacher friends.

Opinions will vary vastly but watching my students has convinced me we teach them much less than you learned. Why do you think it is more? We teach students how to find information in a nanosecond so why should they KNOW anything? This may serve society for a time but it does not teach students to THINK because they do not have the prerequisite information needed for true thinking. Public schools today as in yester-year force the values of the majority onto students. The perspective of the texts, the books that literature teachers choose all support societal values. Access to social media 24/7 in schools only supports these lessons. College graduates are not needed at the amount they are being cranked out. Society needs drones and has moved to so subtley controlling our teen's values/work ethic and inability to know they are being pigeon holed. Today we don't pray in school but we clear our minds and practice religions so ancient no one remembers. We tell them to look only inward to what THEY WANT...we train them to be self absorbed. Be glad you were educated back in the day, be glad your kids were too. Pray for your grandchildren, their souls are at stake.

I suppose that politics and economics has always figured into education, but it seems to me that (at least in the district where I was employed) the efforts of the school system in arranging food service, building contractors, etc has taken on a heightened role of schools as business partners in the community aside from schools as educators.

Depending on the ethics of the particular district, that can end up being either a positive or negative force.

"I think we are seeing the start of a shift away from traditional college."

Chi, do you mean we will see a shift away from a liberal arts based education where undergrad provides a broad foundation and grad school provides the more practical one?

Or are you thinking about how college will not be as widely available as it has been since the middle of the 20thC.?

I graduated from HS in 1961 in Topeka KS. My HS was an excellent one, but it had "tracking". I was in the "College Prep" track. There was also a "General Studies" track and a "Trade School" track. It's a shame we don't go back to this. Yes, there were a few black students in the College Prep track but the Latino students tended to drop out of school as soon as they turned 14 (end of mandatory education in KS at that time). I didn't know any girls in the College Prep track that didn't go to college, including a handful that got pregnant on graduation night and had married by August! Amazingly, most are still married to their original spouse.

My children went to independent schools, my daughter to a local day school, my son to a prestigious New England boarding school. My son definitely got a better education than my daughter, but she was very fortunate to win an English Speaking Union Secondary School Exchange scholarship, and spent an Upper 6th form year at an English girl's boarding school in Shropshire. That is when she truly learned English literature, how to write and how to study. She took two A-level exams and got a B on one, which her Ivy university gave her 6 hrs of college credit for taking. When she got to college, she was very well prepared. If one can learn how to study for A-level exams, one truly knows how to study as it's cumulative over 2 years of coursework and reading. She crammed that in one subject into just one year; not possible to do in the 2nd subject, but she got a D on that A-level, an acceptable grade in the UK.

None of my 4 grandchildren go to independent schools - just too costly. And boarding school? It's now $60,000 a year! When my son went, it was $8000 and it had gone up to $12,000 when he graduated in 1988. Quite a difference! My two local grandsons have been very fortunate to get into a MST magnet school for both middle school and HS. Their HS is an amazing one - it had 30+ National Merit Semi-finalists again this year. That's lot for ANY school, but for a public HS in KY, it's astounding. He's applying to college to some highly competitive schools and stands a good chance of getting in, especially with his athletics and his state science fair wins. I wish he had had more writing in HS - this is where public schools today, fail badly. With large classes, and teachers teaching 5-6 classes, assigning long written assignments is impossible. They do need to have a life outside of school and still sleep! This is where small classes in independent school shine - 3-4 preps for a teacher and 12-15 in a class.

My DD has been lucky that she has two, very bright sons. If she had had more "average" children, she would have found the money somehow to send them to a parochial school (less expensive than the independent schools in our town). Truly bright children do well just about anywhere. They are highly motivated, self-starters, and have inquiring minds. Those at the bottom get a LOT of extra attention from teachers and aides, in hopes of getting them up to grade level. It's those in the middle who get forgotten if they are well-behaved. They are not encouraged to be the best they can be and they can really fall through the cracks.

My son lives in Gold Coast CT and his children go to one of the highly vaunted public school districts there. So far, so good. At least the classes are small and the school populations is pretty homogenous. No teaching to the lowest.

We ask a great deal of our schools today, our teachers in particular. They must provide nurture, discipline, socialization, toilet training in the early grades, and just about everything else these children's parents are not providing. Oh, they are also supposed to teach normal subject! Yes, there are some dreadful teachers out there. It is rare for a top student in college to choose to go into elementary education - even secondary. The pay is just too low and they have other options. No, we truly cannot afford to pay them more.

What was different in the past was the teachers. Many women who worked outside the home, chose teaching as they enjoyed it and their husbands were the main breadwinners. It was a great job for a woman with school-age children - same hours, same vacations, no childcare expenses. Now, these women chose to work in very high paying fields and can afford the childcare.

I had some extraordinary women teachers. They were of that generation of women who, if they didn't marry, had very limited acceptable career choices if they were college educated. Most became teachers. These women today would be very high up in the corporate world, but wasn't I lucky to have had them!

My late husband was independently educated, went to an Ivy, and became a secondary school math teacher. He loved it and was very good at it. Unfortunately, his parents never talked to him about the financial consequences of his choice, and no, they did not provide him with a trust fund to "make up the difference"! As much as he was dedicated to teaching, he would not have wanted to see our children go into it, nor out grandchildren.

As near as I can tell from the young people applying for work with me, they cannot function. Many are suprisingly old given their low skillsets. Its very true that they are deep in unique areas, but have no idea how it works together, and given they are older than 20 this is a marked difference than those I reviewed 20 years ago.

Rita, I'm not sure. It's really just a feeling based on what I've observed. My generation seems to be the one that learned about student loan debt the hard way. Some could plead ignorance to not understanding how difficult $100k on debt is at 22, but not anymore.

I think we are starting to see a shift towards people thinking more practically. I think trade education will pick up. And there are a lot of alternates coming out. For instance, I'm learning programming through a rigorous course right now that partners with major companies like Google and Facebook for the coursework. When I'm done I'll have a technical portfolio which demonstrates my ability to program, and these companies also recruit from graduates. It's more of a certification than a traditional degree but it's much, much cheaper.

In tech fields today, it's all about what you can show you know (tests at interviews) and certifications, whether it's a computer science or engineering degree, or self-taught. A STEM degree from an excellent college is still more valuable and recognized but I think options like these will grow in popularity.

Just retired from teaching 2 years ago. Ohhhhh.... I could write a book. But it would be about idiot administrators who don't ever come in the classrooms and never listen to the teachers. Today we are more worried about hurting their feelings ( everyone gets an A!) and boring them ( heard above). No practice and drill because it is "busy work". Everything is group work to prepare you for real life, but just like real life one student does all the work and the others in the group slack. No structure and order, because we need to keep standing on our head with new tricks that will get their attention.

All that being said, if a student is driven by parents or self motivated, he/she will succeed and do well, with the best or worst of teachers, and parents the best start you can give to your child is READ to them, and model reading yourself as part of your daily life.

I enjoyed the kids, and still do, admins, not so much.

Ladypat, I would love to read your book! I live in a district where As are in very short supply and my children attended school with a similar shortage, so I am fascinated to read about schools where children are pandered to. I think things are a bit over the top in my world. We need a balance.

Chi, I think you are right about the direction of education over all. I hope that works out better for helping people connect with better jobs- but there is a great deal of education that is nontechnical- the kind you have already that still needs to be in place in order to make someone an effective employee.

PS ... to make someone and effective employee, citizen and person, I should have said.

In the sixties in California public schools we had to pass a Civics exam to move on to high school. In high school we had to have several credits in Social Studies which included Geography, American History, World History and once again, Civics. In the 90s I asked my DS's History teacher about when he would be covering the Vietnam War. He replied that he was no longer allowed to teach that unit. It was too sensitive a subject due to the Asian student population.

In elementary school teachers were allowed freedom (and time) to adjust their lessons to share their own personal gifts with the class. One of my teachers loved music and not only made time for music in her class on "music day" but every day. Songs and listening to her play the piano were an everyday occurrence. Another had a love of reading. I was an early reader and at the top of my class in reading. Instead of having to read some boring reader every night she would give me library books to take home and read. That personal intervention opened my world to reading things I would never have read on my own. Another teacher loved art. He held art class once a week. Later an other who liked art started an after school program students could stay for. If kids misbehaved they could be isolated from the class. Kids who wanted to learn didn't have to put up with disruptions. My best friend had a severe peanut allergy. Her mother took the responsibility of teaching her never to accept food without absolutely knowing where it came from. No one feared the mere smell of peanut butter and nobody had psychosomatic allergy attacks. Parents provided lunch money or lunch. Even the most poverty stricken parents. They might be poor but they had pride. The kids might not have a lot of clothes but they were clean and pressed. No one packed designer lunches for their kids. Wealthier kids brought the same bologna and cheese or PJB as the poor kids. No stigma.

In elementary and middle school homework was something you brought home if you didn't finish your classwork or had a special project or report. teachers actually taught and had you do the work in the classroom. By the time my kids got to school in the 80's this was being phased out. teachers were starting to wear the hat of social service worker instead of educator when they weren't grading tests. Homework became hours worth of homeschooling. Assignments were sent home that the parents were expected to teach. No time for classwork.

Vietnam refugees were starting to come over. When they got to school they were immersed into a regular classroom. No ESL. No special interpreter. Same with immigrant students. They learned most of their English on the playground. Within months they assimilated,spoke the language and often excelled at academics.

Today our public schools are a mess. In California many schools have an "English learner" student body of as much as up to 87% percent. If you look at the stats for each school this is what you will find.

English learners from Asian cultures do well regardless. They tend to boost scores at schools. The Mexican children the largest percentage of English learners. Their percentage coincides with the most free/reduced price meal programs as well as the lowest test scores.

Here is the elephant in the room. The non PC reality. The high achieving public schools have a high percentage of Asian students. The lowest achieving have a high percentage of Mexican children. Where do the white children fit in? With Asian students the white students rise to the top tiers of test scores just below the Asian children regardless of income levels. Schools with a higher Mexican population not only drop to the bottom but the white students DROP with them, again regardless of income.

Our school district fired out Superintendent of Schools last spring. This woman had built her entire career on "diversity". She was a master at moving children around various schools like pieces on a chess board! She could then point with pride to the "correct" number of children of color, children whose parents had not completed HS, children who were below the poverty line, children with educated parents, and children with educated wealthy parents. It was like a recipe for fruit cake!

It's far easier to fix "diversity" than it is to actually improve how much a child is learning. That very poor child of color from a Section 8 household of a single mother and multiple siblings, all by different fathers, is not magically going to become a strong student just by busing the child across town to a wealthier school where the children come from brighter, better educated children. In fact, these children often have such poor social skills (they are raised by wolves, not parents), that their inappropriate behavior causes other students to avoid the poor child.

This same superintendent hired a consulting company that specialized in "magnet schools". These self-annoited "specialists", reviews the county districts magnet schools and decided that the MST program at my grandson's HS didn't have enough children of color and had no children who were developmentally challenged. They recommended that admission to it be changed from a lengthy application process that factored in many different things (not like the NYC elite HS's that are based on one test on one day), and that instead it be a "lottery" system.

The uprising of parents was a sight to behold! My SIL went to the packed BOE meeting where this was to be discussed. He was lucky he got there early to film the meeting as hundreds of parents were turned away and a speaker system quickly rigged up so they could hear the meeting from outside the room. Parents were outraged. Students talked about how hard they had worked to get into the various magnet programs at this HS, especially into the MST program, and they pride they felt in their accomplishment. The Chrm of the BOE publicly reprimanded the superintendent for this report and recommendations, reminding her that at no time had the BOE been consulted. Admission remains the same and this woman is gone. We have an acting superintendent and can only hope that a new one won't again attempt to dismantle what should be the "jewel in the crown" of our public school system. If it can just survive for three more years for my younger DGS...

I have watched the Advanced Program get watered down and watered down to be almost unrecognizable to how it started. I've seen long term assignments at my DGS's school being stopped as it was "unfair" to children whose parents didn't support them and their work. The AP was changed to "math-only", then by the time DGS2 was in it (it started in 3rd grade), the superintendent had decreed that they could not cover any more material than those in the none-AP program. Since they worked far more quickly, this meant that they were pretty much finished by March, and the teacher had to find ways to teach without violating this mandate.

We have got to get over this notion that ALL children are created equal. They are in the sight of God and the law, but not in any other way. Some are low normal, some normal, and some very, very bright. Some have supportive parents, others are raising themselves. There is no way to truly make it "fair", but depriving the bright children is just sinful and terribly wasteful.

Thank you Anglophilia. You actually get it. Upper level administration also lie like the politicians they are. In fact the Superintendent of schools I butted heads with is a lying piece of work who did move on to state politics where he once against chose to push for Latino rights over serving all his constituents. My DS applied to a Science and Technology magnet. He was so excited that he brought home the paperwork the first day, made me sign off on it immediately and turned it in the next day. His best friend at school was moving that year. But just in case the move fell through he decided to sign up at the last moment for the magnet program also. Not because it was an interest to him, he just wanted to be at the same high school as DS. It was clearly stated this was to be first come first served. Well DS waited for the response. Then one day he got his. He was put on the wait list due to "overwhelming response". Way down the wait list. That day his friend got his acceptance letter. I was furious. I called the district office and demanded answers. Remember I knew that his friend applied late. His friend with the last name that could be mistaken as Hispanic. His friend who was actually Irish. So they told me sorry they were full. I informed them that I knew quite well that they did not follow first come first in procedure. They insisted they had. I said no my DS's friend had applied long after DS. Would they like a letter from the friend's parents? They hemmed and hawed. Then I told them I knew they were cherry picking by counting yellow noses and green noses. Instant denial. I referred to DS's friend's last name. Well, we are sorry but there is no space left. I said listen, DS applied early. His friend did not. His friend will not be attending. He is moving next week and BTW you blew it. He's not Mexican, he's Irish. LOL. You now have a space. DS got in immediately.

have been student or teacher pretty much entire life... since kindergarten in 1955 with Dick, Jane & Spot. until mid-May was teacher aide working with special needs HS kids... respected suburban district.

had NO official training in special ed but YEARS of classroom experience... from K thru adult ed... even iin prison. worked with some great special ed teachers, some WONDERFUL kids. every day I said a prayer for the parents of children with serious disabilities!

imnsho... MANY HS kids (lazy, slackers) play the "IEP card" that they've had since they were 7... boys more than girls. personally, think many would have benefited more by being told to pay attention than given a label that allows them to get away with "murder" in school.

NO responsibility required. project due today and your isn't done... you don't even lose a point when you finally hand it in after teacher reminds you SEVERAL times.

a kid who LITERALLY does NOTHING can't get a zero on report card?? i think teacher could enter a zero but computer automatically changes to a 55. then teacher has to provide additional work so do-nothing kid can complete work?

i'm a math person and it really saddens me the LACK of math common sense that kids have?? on a standardized (multiple choice test) kids should probably be able to eliminate 1 response automatically cuz it makes no sense?? average student can't do any math without a calculator and has no idea if answer is remotely correct?

and kids (in general) don't know "stuff". clueless about directions... from here in NJ, which way to the shore? and what ocean is it? had girl semi-argue with Ag science teacher about growing zones. teacher was explaining how XYZ (a popular garden plant here in NJ) won't make it thru the winter. this girl, hands on hips, in a snotty voice... well then WHY can they grow it in Alaska and we can't grow it here?? semi-stomps her way to smart-board to point out where Alaska is on map... thought Alaska and Hawaii were right next to each other in a neat little box somewhere off coast of mexico or vicinity?? SAD!!

Dirtmechanic, I've observed a similar thing -- worked alongside fellow employees in a job which required us to file case reports, who were in master's degree programs yet could not write a coherent, easily understood paragraph with correct grammar and spelling.

Speaking of correct grammar, have you all noticed how pervasive speech that would have, in the past, signaled a less educated person, has become? Mixed tenses, adjectives instead of adverbs, double negatives -- I'm even seeing it in the newspaper and hearing it on newscasts. Like fingernails on a blackboard to me, and I am not even an English teacher!

Oh, and Anglophilia, I understand all your points, but I do want to object to the tendency to assume that the children of single parents are not going to be achievers. I don't mean that you necessarily do that, or meant that, and I grant you that we have a terrible, growing subculture out there with this problem; but such assumptions and parent-blaming are a real phenomenon in schools that I personally experienced when I moved from CA and enrolled my then 8 year old at this well respected Ohio suburban school.

We had come from another well-respected suburban school in a fairly well-to-do area, where my DD's IQ had been assessed at 155+, she had been student of the month twice, where she entered kindergarten already reading, where her 3rd grade teacher told me how sorry she was to be losing "the brightest child in the class", who was in the gifted and talented program --- and she was a child whose great grandmother was a college graduate, her grandparents were, her parents were -- but you would think, from actual statements that were made by my daughter's new teachers, that we were straight outta Compton. I was told that she wasn't as bright as I thought (when she was excluded from the gifted program here). I was told that she probably "seemed" bright in CA because "they knew what CA schools were like." I was told that "because you choose to work we have nothing to suggest" (when I inquired about enrichment programs, trying to make up for what she wasn't being offered). At parent-teacher conferences, when talking to the school principal and counselor, over and over I was given to understand that because I was a single working mother (and had been since she was 2 years old) they wouldn't even try to see her potential -- she was doomed. She was a well-behaved, cooperative, interested student, but doomed. Until, on the 4th grade end of year reading/writing assessments she scored so well that her school actually called me and apologized for being wrong! But, by that time the damage was done -- the child had fully absorbed their negative view of her and never really overcame that, despite my best efforts.

How many other children does that happen to, do you think? I think possibly many.

Some of these responses really bother me. All children deserve an equal education in the public school system. The best schools and teachers shouldn't be reserved only for the best and brightest students. Not at the public school level. If you want a school filled with certain demographic and economic classes, pay for private.

I do agree that the current process of throwing all kids together in the same class is ineffective. I believe in advanced or gifted classes for some kids. I believe in ESL classes, and special education for students who need it. I believe in a regular classroom for the rest of the kids. That's how it was when I was in school and it seemed to work.

Poor kids can do better in a better school. It's not some magic process. Better schools attract better teachers and better administration. Better schools usually have more financial resources. They often have specialists for learning disabilities or speech pathology. They have different programs. It's no coincidence that the best schools are usually found in wealthier areas. Rich kids are not necessarily brighter than poor kids. They just have more resources at an earlier age.

I do get why people are frustrated when decisions are based on things other than achievement. Hard work should be rewarded. But I also believe that kids who were dealt a crappy hand deserve a chance too. Kids don't choose their parents or their birth place or income level. Maybe they can't pursue extracurriculars that would make them stand out to colleges and scholarships because they have to work or care for family members due to circumstances beyond their control. There are many, many advantages that come from being born into a stable, middle class family. Some that are earned through hard work, and some that are given by luck of birth.

Sounds like the people you encountered in Ohio were myopic morons.

Bad grammar and misspelling bother me too.

Edit to add:

Again, I have to agree with chi. Some of you seem to be practitioners of shallow scapegoating. Imagine a problem, imagine a cause, done!

Public schools get thrown all the problems and detritus our communities can muster. I'm the last person to defend the capabilities of schools districts and the problems and inadequacies of their programs and employees - that's a huge problem too - but they have to deal daily with impossible/unwinnable situations. How can the resulting situations in our schools and shoddy educational outcomes for the kids of these programs be a surprise?

I had the ESL kids in my classrooms for years. I must say they tried a WHOLE LOT harder than the other kids. We started them with a Science text in their language, by semester they were using English text and Spanish text side by side and by end of school they were using English text only. I am not going to get into to whole political thing about illegals etc, As a teacher all I can say is they are here and we better educate them, or we will be in a lot worse shape. And as I said, they were eager to learn and worked much harder than some other ethnic groups that had everything handed to them by the government for generations. I taught at a urban public school, and my kids went to a suburban public school 20 minutes away. Big difference, mostly in parental interest and concern.

Elmer -- You've lived abroad. Although I don't know if your children were in public schools abroad, might you know something of how other nations cope with educating a range of students? I'd especially like to know the French philosophy on this subject. There has to be quite a range of backgrounds among children in France.

Ladypat1, I have to agree -- what I saw in my DD's southern CA school was that several children who spoke no English on entering kindergarden were, by the time she left 1/3 through 3rd grade, reading and writing very close to the level of the native English speakers. I had evidence of this from the letters that the class sent to my daughter over the rest of the year (the teacher took the opportunity as class writing practice). I wonder if the strongly phonics-based reading instruction helped with that. There was ESL instruction given also, but as a pull-out for a only very short time each week.

I do believe that large urban districts are overwhelmed with lack of money and demand to be all things to each child, but we have seen cases, classrooms and schools, in which disadvantaged students -- those expected by some not succeed -- respond brilliantly to higher expectations of both behavior in the classroom and academic achievement.

chisue, every country is a little different from one another but I think overall, European school systems are not the same as what we do here. They're more serious, more demanding with more work and more subjects, kids spent more hours at school over the school term, and rote learning but also with analytical thinking are important (especially the second in France). Many countries give a test sometime in the preteen or early teenage years to stream kids either to continue in more academic curricula (pointing toward university) vs those less capable or less interested learners who are prepared for vocations. Germany in particular has outstanding trade education programs with businesses being required to take a certain number of trainees in programs that have been coordinated with their schooling. I'm sure other countries do too, as I know France and other countries have an element of trainee programs.

You might describe some of them as being old-fashioned (compared to what's done here) but funny thing is, they're much more effective. France to a great extent, but other countries too, are facing major social problems with large bodies of immigrants (often North African, Middle Eastern, and as in Britain, Asian too) who are not assimilating into the local cultures. These are different problems and are present in but can't be solved in the schools.

I hope Elmer does not mind if I take a stab at the French education question since my children have all had French educations.

According to the OECD's PISA rankings the US and France are in the same grouping of countries in ranking, hovering in the mid 20s.

French language learners attend their version of ESL pull out classes called FLE (Francais Langue Etrangere.) While French schools do not suffer from the same uneven funding system as the American ones, their schools are segregated by real estate values- so a school in the 17th Arrondissement will be filled with a different kind of student than one from the difficult suburbs, called les banlieux.

French schools are not big on differentiation for fast or slow learners. The French national curriculum is quite rigorous with a strong emphasis on critical thinking, mathematics (huge differences between US and France on how they approach math) and oral expression. French students are sorted into academic versus non-academic tracks after middle school- a high stakes test determines whether or not you will study for the high school degree that grants you admission to a university.

Interestingly, the French do not teach reading until first grade (which many educators consider a boon) and they take an approach to mathematics that my husband, a very maths person, much prefers, and yet, the ratings between the two countries are incredibly similar. Plus the French have standard national curriculum and do not determine public school funding based on real estate taxes. One would think these differences would matter much more than they do in the end.

Of course not. Any view is welcome and of course specific information from someone with first-hand experience is always better than general information.

A book I very much enjoyed and can recommend is this interesting and amusing insight into French child-rearing attitudes, practices and governmental services for early childhood years. It's "Bringing Up Bébé" by Pamela Druckerman, an American journalist and mother living in Paris.

Yes, Elmer, I've read many excerpts from this book. I had no idea that my daughter and I were using French child-rearing practices! They just make sense.

I was a single mother for 3 years. My children qualified for free lunches at their school. At NO TIME was I made to feel "odd", nor were they! And this was in the mid-1970's when divorce was not that common in our area.

They both had excellent K and 1st grade teachers. DS had a phenomenal 2nd grade teacher - one of the best he ever had. Unfortunately, he left for a higher paying career when his wife had a baby. We moved DS from public to private after a month in 3rd grade. He ended up with a terrible teacher, I had remarried to a man who taught at an independent school (free tuition for faculty in those days), so we moved DS to that school.

The next year, we moved DD after 1st grade as there was a space for her. This proved to be disastrous for DD as she had a dreadful 2nd grade teacher and we could say little as my husband taught at the same school. We had her tested and evaluated and got through the year somehow - it was awful for her but we just told her to get through the year and it would be better the next year. We made sure that in 3rd grade her teacher was comfortable using the recommendations of the psychologist who tested and evaluated her. She said that was how she taught ALL her pupils so it was not a problem. She never again had a problem, and went to 3 more schools before she graduated from HS, due to job moves, grade where schools ended etc.

It is always assumed that higher performing public schools have more resources than schools in poor neighborhoods. That is simply not the case. There are huge federal funds available for extra aids, specialists in innumerable areas, etc. In fact, in my city, the poorest schools (which are also the poorest performing schools), receive over DOUBLE the dollars-per-pupil than the higher performing schools in better neighborhoods. MORE THAN DOUBLE!

Yes, gold coast suburbs of major cities, which have their own school systems, do spend more per pupil. This usually results in smaller class size, something very beneficial. But those children in the city are getting money spent on them and do have resources.

We know from innumerable studies that parents play a huge role in whether or not their child is successful in school. Some of this is just plain old genetics, but much is whether the parent values education, knows what is going on in their child's school, knows what they are studying and sees that homework is done. My cleaning woman told me last week that she had no idea what courses her daughter was taking in HS, but that they were all AP or "something like that". My school district plays lots of games with this abbreviation. They call many advanced classes "AP" for "Advanced PROGRAM". Only a few are actually AP (Advanced Placement) courses. It's astounding how many parents - yes, even those with college degrees, are unaware of the difference.

In my school district parents are asked for a yearly voluntary contribution of $1,000 per student (they get that and more). In addition multi-million dollar buildings are donated to the public schools by local residents (the gym at one high school and a new building at an elementary school) and parents (both fathers and mothers) flood the schools to volunteer, teach and mentor.

The town directly adjacent to mine is a basket case with practically no resources and certainly no parents with the flexibility in their schedules to make up any differences.

How fair is this? Why can't we do better? Well, actually I have some ideas about that too ... There is a parochial school in my town that charges very low tuition + a lot of financial aid and only educates children from low income families- and they are wildly successful- but they do everything the old fashioned way more or less and they absolutely insist on parent participation and education regardless of their situation.

ETA Tuition at the school that served low income families is $4,500 per year- I tried to find the percentage of financial aid recipients but couldn't. This is the school where service workers send their children.

Anglo, you say the poorest school in your city receives over double the funding that other schools. How much money does each school spend per pupil. Where I live, the donations not withstanding, the district gets little from the state and a great deal from its tax base. I am not clear on how it all works, but what matters is how much money is spent per student and then where do those funds come from.

Yes, today school curriculum is different to the ones I dealt with, but of course, I'm an Old Guy and my early education may be dated by some standards. However, there are basics that are the foundation to schooling and these do not change. One of these is handwriting,especially cursive. Cursive is no longer taught - what a shame and loss. I was surprised when I met an 8th grader who could not read what I wrote because it was cursive, (By the way, my handwriting is quite passable when I don't rush.) That's when I discovered that it was missing in his school. How do these kids sign their name? I was immersed in cursive from 1st grade onward until I could do a minimum acceptable job of it. My grammar school teachers would have been reluctant to alloy me to go beyond the 3rd grade if I could not write. Back then, your signature was very important. It was required to write checks, buy and sell property, and do business.

Admittedly, conditions are different at present. Most writing nowadays is done on a keyboard. But hey, do they teach touch typing today? It was an optional course when I was in high school. I didn't take because I hated it and saw no immediate use for it since I did not see myself working in that capacity. Wasn't typing something that secretaries did? When I graduated from High School in the 1950s, I had no inkling that keyboards would invade my professional life. A desk top computer was stuff of science fiction. A few companies were working on computer concepts and were saying, "My what \I could do if one existed. But you know, these do not exist. They are only pipe dreams. Why, we don't even know how to start building one. Can you imagine the imminence size of one with all those vacuum tubes. You could heat a house with one. Researchers were probing the ins and outs of the best number system to use. Should it be base 10 or base 3. Base 2 would be the simplest but what could you do with only ones and zeros? The transistor effect had been demonstrated in the lab in 1948. It would soon burst on the scene and become the most disruptive invention known to man, But who knew in 1955? No one, not even the inventors of the device! It brought changes to education systems all over the world. It made life more complicated, but at the same time, it made life more interesting. some of us got lost in the complexity it wrought. Sadly, cursive writing got pushed aside to accommodate other elements in our children's education.

I've been wondering about cursive writing in my school. I am not sure if its taught or not. I know my 4'th grader has learned cursive, but he's in advanced/gifted classes. I will be in and out of the school in the next few weeks and I am going to ask. If the schools are not teaching it in mainstream how are these kids to sign their signature, good question.

jemdandy, times change, curricula should too. Cursive isn't a subject to study, it's a tool to learn. A tool that's really not worth learning these days if the time can be better spent on academic subjects. That's the better question, what is the freed-up time spent doing?

I learned the different base systems for numbers in elementary school in the 50s-60s. Other than as an introduction to the binary system, it was somewhat interesting to know but other than to understand logic circuits at a high level, ultimately of no value to me nor to most people.

Cursive is helpful for note taking. Studies have shown that note taking via computer is not as effective as handwriting notes for learning the material. In order to hand write the notes, you have to condense the material somewhat, these engaging with the lecture. I imagine yo could use block letters to take notes, but that would seem laborious to me- but maybe not others.

PS French schools don't teach block printing.

So much to say, so much to say. With my oldest 2 now in high school, at one of those "top tier" public schools (but it is in So.Cal., so, you know), I have really noticed that there are 2 paths through the school. One of them is the all Honors/AP track, which is rigorous, difficult, challenging, "thinking"-oriented, and all of that. In fact, I know for sure it is much more difficult than when I was in high school (in So.Cal), and I was a top student who attended top tier schools for both undergrad and grad. I simply did not have this kind of homework load in high school. I didn't have any problems in undergrad or grad school, either. I felt well-prepared.

On the other hand, for those students at our local high school who are not academically motivated, boy oh boy, is the education dumbed-down and easy. I've seen papers written by a friend's son--and it was shockingly bad, but with an "A" at the top. Even this kid's mother was disappointed at the school's low expectations. And her kid's classes are full of stoners, vapers, and some really obnoxious, disruptive, rude young people. The Honors/AP classes do not have nearly those kinds of problem kids.

So, I see that there are 2 tracks, at least in our area, and it the higher track takes not only smarts, but also a real willingness to relentlessly work very hard, every day. There are plenty of bright kids who just can't maintain the relentless pace, however.

One more comment about those lauding the European system of testing students into a vocational track or a university-education oriented track. I don't like that. There is room for those tracks to be offered, for those who want to go that way, but this is still America, where students should be able to be whatever they want to be, or at least attempt whatever they are able to work toward. I simply hate the thought of some test, or a child's race, or a few years of a child's educational progress, determining what they are and are not capable of for their future. My very good friend grew up in Germany, and she admires the idea of kids not being typecast here they way they are in Germany. There is too much that goes on kid's lives, their maturity level, their parents' ideas and influences, etc. I think we need to encourage kids to reach higher, and maintain our expectations of high achievement, no matter what their race or background. But of course, the system can still support and encourage those who do want to do vocational tracks.

Mrs. S, I don't think the tracking between the European system and the American one is substantively different. Your example shows that. The children getting As for terrible work are not going to college and if they get there, they will not graduate, so what is the difference?

Community college is what sets American education apart compared to Europe. A Belgian friend of mine was a poor student and wound up on a technical track at school. He came here and was amazed to learn that he could go to CC and start over his academic career. After two years of CC he went to Cal Tech. That kind of redemption is impossible to imagine in Europe.

I know by the time they got to professional/grad schools, my kids took notes on their PCs (all had what were called Lenovo Tablets at the time, laptops with touch screens) and maybe for some of their undergrad years too. Each class session's presentation in Power Point format could be downloaded before class. Notes were often taken using a Note-it type utility directly on the slides being presented as the prof spoke. At a few schools, where attendance at lectures wasn't required, some students didn't attend class because they found the Powerpoint slides and textbook material enough to learn what the class required.

My kid who went to med school complained that one hour's lecture could easily have over 100 dense slides of material to learn, with the prof only touching briefly on each before moving on. A day's worth of slides on paper would be too heavy and bulky to carry or thumb through, much less one week or one month's worth.

My husband teaches a class at college...The students just want to know what will be on the tests so they can regurgitate the information. He wants them to think and they don't want to do that. It's sad.

A friend of mine who is 78 insists on writing only in cursive, and wonders why her letters and packages don't get delivered. She was surprised when I told her USPS asks for capital printing. She laments the lack of cursive training, but I have a hard time reading her writing. I used to do calligraphy, and have studied Greek and Latin. When I went back to school I took notes using a combination of these and half cursive/half printing and abbreviations. Everyone wanted my notes bc I got good grades. I said--here you go, good luck figuring them out! When I wrote papers, etc. in the 90s, I found that writing it out on paper before typing it always helped in the revision process, which is always necessary. I think the physical activity of writing is important somehow. Everyone needs a notebook and a pen.

Rita, local taxes (property and occupational taxes) fund 60% of the general fund and state revenue makes up the rest. There are special federal aid funds available to schools with the poorest students.

A good example of the disparity in per pupil expenditures is duPont Manual (where my DGS go - an outstanding HS) is $7000 per pupil. At Shawnee Academy, a very poor performing HS, it is $15,000 per pupil.

Poor performing students are called Title 1 students. The schools where a majority of them attend, are called Title 1 Schools. These schools get more than twice as much money as non-Title 1 Schools, yet the students in non-Title 1 Schools, out perform Title 1 School students significantly.

We are in a LCOL area so salaries are far less than many major metropolitan areas.

Just throwing money are failing schools and poor performing students has clearly not "fixed" the problem. I certainly want ALL students to get a good education, but if money won't fix it, what will? Parents must care about their children getting an education and make sure the children know its important. When the age of compulsory education was raised from 16 to 18, and one must be in school until 18 to get a driver's license, there were many parents who were furious - their children hated school and they wanted them to be able to drop out.

The old say, "You can't fix stupid" does come to mind...

LOL Elmer, I feel like such a dinosaur. Yes, the slides/note thing. What a different frame of reference. But, yes, that is what it is like where my son goes to school. I saw this for myself a few years ago and somehow I forgot- maybe I should have taken notes!

Anglo, wow, I am amazed at the amount of money spent and how different the sums are. My district is economically homogenous (more or less- different shades of affluence, from the post-economic set to the very well off, but still need to work, with a few low income people sprinkled into the mix.)

I understand you when you say money is not the only thing that matters in education. Of course the home culture makes more of an impact. But resources spent on the right things surely matter. I wonder what the poor performing schools are paying for? I am very suspicious of what bureaucrats think are important expenditures.

In defense of teaching cursive in early elementary: I remember liking it because it was almost like art class! making your letters as beautiful as possible, learning to string them together just right so they flowed across the page (and between those five lines!). It was much more fun than phonics, lol. Decent, FAST, cursive served me well many years in school and work-place because I could take notes, capture thoughts, better than most. Phonics continues to serve me well because I can sound-out words and guestimate spellings better than many.

As to how education has changed over the years, just look at a schoolbook from the early part of the 1900's, and compare it to a schoolbook today. First thing that jumps out at me is the "sesame-street-ization" of the text. 100 years ago, the text mattered. A few illustrations supported the text. Today, every page of every book regardless of subject is higgly-piggly ... text interrupted by shaded areas of other text, other text surrounded by colored lines, pictures everywhere. Short attention span theater! Hmmmph!

What I think is not well understood? Education changed because there were so many being left behind. If you didn't get it, you just dropped out. Anyone with a learning disability was up a creek. I remember hearing how so and so only got through the 4th grade or 6th... and thinking, what do you mean you didn't finish? Don't y'all remember family members who didn't finish the basics?

Rita, the extra money is spent on aids in the classroom - needed badly with so many unsocialized children. This way, they can get some small group attention. It is also spent to provide multiple teachers for those with special needs. At my DGS's elementary school, there was one woman and she met with small groups all day long. In the poor performing schools, there are many as so many children have learning/speech other problems and need extra help. I think that teachers may get an extra stipend when they teach so many children with so many needs.

I had not realized how negligent many poor parents had become until I became aware of the Blessings in a Backpack program for children who are fed two meals a day under the Federal Free and Reduced Meal program. Apparently, they go hungry on weekends. When someone from this program came to our church to tell us about the program, we asked if these families did not also qualify for food stamps. He told us they usually did but often their parent(s) sold their food stamps for drugs and didn't feed their children.

I guess I live a very sheltered life - I cannot conceive of not feeding my children, no matter what my circumstances.

" He told us they usually did but often their parent(s) sold their food stamps... "

I thought food support programs these days used debit cards with photo ID?

I probably judge people by their handwriting and grammar. Initial impressions stick with you until you get to know someone....

Thanks to Elmer and Rita for the information about French educational philosophy.

Regarding the Two Track systems, I think they work, provided there is later opportunity for the non-academic-tracked person to have another crack at higher education. Rita's Belgian friend is a great example! One should be able to pick up with academics later in life.

I support the 'test in' theory, where *publicly funded* higher education -- even at graduate levels -- is available to anyone, of any age, provided they can 'test in'. I don't think a 'now or never' test of middle-school students is fair. (Think of all the college graduate GI's who would not have 'tested in' or even realized the value of college at 14, or even 18.)

As I understand it, the reason *every student* under 18 is currently on a college track is because parents demanded every child have this 'opportunity'. It's failed many of the kids whose parents were most stridently for One Track. This sets too many kids up to fail. It results in kids who give up or drop out -- when they could have learned how to earn good livings in various trades. The idea that One Track + College Degree is the only means to a good living/good life is crazy propaganda.

DIL taught junior high math in the inner city in Chicago for four years. What she saw is what we saw when we watched "The Wire". Only a few of her students lived with a parent. Some lived with extended family members. Some were wards of the state. Parent/teacher conferences drew a handful of parents/guardians.

Kids came to school on Monday exhausted, hungry, and bedraggled. By Tuesday, having had food and a (relatively) peaceful atmosphere in school, they began to revive. They could learn on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

The neighborhood chaos would begin all over again on the weekend. The 'adults' were partying day and night -- boozing, using drugs and selling them. Gang warfare meant some kids would not have been outdoors all weekend. The area is a food desert, with few responsible adults who are financially or otherwise capable of preparing meals -- or *raising* children.

We'd be money and lives ahead to have publicly funded, voluntary boarding schools for these children.

I teach mostly freshmen at a public university. I have come to the conclusion that most of my students are mediocre intellectually (also, I don't teach the more gifted freshmen who test into the advanced composition class in the fall). Now, some of them seem to be better at science and math than English; they can solve a math problem with a definite answer, memorize for a test, but abstractions (ideas, ideologies, connections, parallels, analogues) and the ongoing intellectual curiosity that relies on analysis and synthesis and contextualization to explore them eludes them. And of course few actually read. The few (very few) that do read popular fiction. Most of my students are Hispanic in origin, varying in generations away from Mexico or other countries. Many are bilingual, which I actually think should be an asset to learning grammar (we only spoke English in my house; my Dad heard my grandmother speak Polish, but it was not encouraged in a family that wanted to assimilate in the 1940s); if one learns a different language, one has to learn the grammar, but they grew up speaking English and Spanish fluently. It's not like they went to school to be taught another language. Also, many of my students are Polish (Chicago holds the largest population of Poles next to Warsaw), and in contrast to my Dad's upbringing, many speak Polish at home, and even though they may have been born here, English is the second language. It is a challenge, and more so each year as the school takes in more underserved students who are more unprepared and need remediation. Some do show potential, but their background (as well their own internal struggles) often keeps them from achieving what they could do. And it's not just the minority students who are underserved; most of the students are struggling financially, and I've seen more who need to work full time to support themselves and their families. The traditional student who goes away for four years at age 18 and lives in the dorm and graduates in four years is more the minority. I could say more, but I've spent the last two days grading their first major project; I have so many papers to grade I cancelled class tomorrow (I gave them plenty to do in the interim) in order to get caught up. I do agree with some posters that basic writing techniques like cursive, civics, and grammar are no longer emphasized. Now, one can still learn them without the beat it into you/rote method I encountered, especially in Catholic school, but sometimes the new mediums to do so overwhelm the message,

Anglo, thank you for all the details about how the schools are funded in your area. I had no idea about all the special programs that were involved. I can't imagine how children can overcome such difficulties.

I know about the weekend hunger problem- there is a summer hunger problem as well. Our food pantry puts together weekend meals for children to take home on Friday afternoon along with a big push to get children fed over the summer months. It is a huge problem.

Chisue, I understand your point about public boarding schools. If there were some way to ensure these children were not abused (as is the case even in our regular boarding schools,) it would be aa no-brainer for all parties involved. Your DIL's experiences sound insurmountable.

Scott, I can't imagine the situation you describe at the college level.

Rita -- These kids are abused now. They are children in unbroken generations of welfare families. Teenage girls have babies *to keep the welfare coming*. Schools are tasked with feeding and raising children but have no influence on the children outside of school hours. These kids are being raised by people who see no future for them.

What we are doing is not working. We should expect better outcomes for our tax dollars. All adult/child interfaces can have abuses. All 'government money' can be wasted. There is no *perfect*.

I'm not talking about orphanages. Boarding school students would see their families as often as such children do in private schools. The schools would have the ability to put children on probation -- or expel them. I think a good percentage of welfare mothers would support voluntary boarding schools -- even if it meant Child Welfare payments were drastically lower. I'm banking on mothers wanting 'better' for their kids.

Rita, this concept has been tried in my city with limited success. A man who had been the head of a local prestigious day school and his wife, sold their house, and took all their assets and started a boarding school in the West End of my city for minority middle school boys. They had to be working at grade level - if they weren't, they would need to many expensive resources. The idea was that if they could get these boys out of their homes and into a safe place where they were taught manners, hygiene, self-discipline - all the things one needs in life - they would then be place in prestigious boarding schools.

It worked pretty well except many parents insisted their children come home on the weekends - home to no attention - but they wanted them to care for younger children in the home. How thoughtful! But the boys did well and worked hard in school. When it came time for HS, not one parent would allow their son to go to boarding school. Not one! They "needed them close to home". So, some moved back home, a few stayed and boarded at the school, and all were place in independent, parochial schools, and the top public HS.

The school has now expanded its work and includes pre-K - 8. It is still for all boys and now a few white children from poor families have joined. The school is tuition-free! The couple who started the school retired this past summer - they are in their mid-70's. Everyone hopes this school succeeds but it must depend on donations from their Board of Directors and the community.

Getting even the worst, most neglectful parent to give up a child is not easy. Often, they want them for childcare of other children in the family, to care for them, and they would also be embarrassed. These are not "child-first" kind of people! And the sole purpose of the court system is to keep families intact.

I don't know what the answer is. If I did, I'd run for office!

Chisue, you're right. The abuse argument is silly at best.

Anglo, what a wonderful couple to have devoted so much of their lives and resources to helping children whom others discard! I am so grateful there are such good people in the world. I was stunned reading that there were parents who would keep their children home when they could send them to schools that would ensure their future success and break the terrible cycle of poverty (by poverty I don't mean the simple lack of money.) If the boarding schools started when the children were in K then parents would perhaps not find the children as helpful to be around. At my school, there were boarders starting in 1st grade.