Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

What's wrong with our schools, and why they won't be fixed.

1 view

Skip to first unread message

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/11/00

I sent the follwing message to members of the Oakland, California
School board last spring. I believe it's point may be relevant to other
school districts.

What’s Wrong With Our Schools
And Why They Won’t Be Fixed

American’s secondary educational system is in crisis. It has been been
in crisis for a generation, and many of the social evils that have been
visited upon this nation are a direct result of failures within our
educational system. An affordable and effective solution to this crisis
in education is available, but that solution will never implemented.

The foregoing may seem outrageous, but what is lacking among the
victims of our present educational system is, in fact, a sense of
outrage. The root cause of this crisis in education is not money, not a
lack of trained teachers, not children with “attitudes”, not aging
facilities, not a lack of text books, not even the “un-involved”
parents who are so often the scapegoats of this tragedy. All of
these “causes” are in reality only symptoms of a much more fundemental
problem.

So what IS the problem? The problem is rooted in the cultural gap
between the educational establishment and the children whose mission it
is to educate. Think about it, college training is a required minimum
qualification for virtually all of our teachers. Virtually all of our
school administrators and policy makers are college trained; virtually
all of the political structure which controls educational policies are,
you’re right, college trained. And lastly, college educated parents are
the ones most likely to participate in school policy making activities.
So what’s the problem, you may ask? Shouldn’t we want the “best and the
brightest” in charge of our children’s education? Well, maybe, maybe
not.

First let’s look at the schools where I live, Oakland, California. Our
schools suffer from all of the ills of other urban schools. Any
differences are purely a matter of degree. For the 2000-2001 school
year, Oakland Unified School District will be spending in excess of
$574 million dollars on the education of some 54,000 students. Under a
just signed labor agreement, an entry level teachers’ starting salary
is $37,918, while a classroom teacher with 26 years of experience and
some postgraduate training, will be earning $68,000, plus generous
benefits. Not princely wages by any means, but, not bad for 9 months of
work and a liberal holiday schedule. Even at these rates, Oakland still
has difficuly recruiting enough qualified teachers. So, in round
numbers, Oakland is spending a little over $10,000 per student,
including all direct instructional costs and over-head. Top
administrators in the Oakland School District can earn in excess of
$150,000 per year, depending on their performance. “Performance” in
this context carries some irony. Oakland Unified School District has
among the lowest reading and math test scores in the state, and admits
to a 24% dropout rate between the 9th and 12th grades. An analysis of
the District’s own statistics indicates a real dropout rate which is
much higher. At the end of the 1998-1999 school year, a little over
1,600 students graduated from Oakland’s Highschools. At the beginning
of the 12th grade, there were over 2,000 students in these highschools;
at the begining of the 9th grade, in 1995, there were nearly 4,000
students in this class of ‘99. Between 1996 and 1999 over 2,000
students of the class of ‘99 left Oakland Schools. Where did they go?
Well you might ask.

But does anyone at District headquarters ask? No, not really. Each
year, School Board Directors can be found shaking hands at high school
graduation ceremonies around the city. When given the opportunity, they
chortle in self-congratulatory tones about “how many of our bright
young people tell us they plan to go to college”. What could be so
wrong with a school district that has so many children going off to
college? Raise the issue of the “missing” 2,000 to school officials,
and you get little more than blank expressions. Or, “well, you know,
they were no doubt from troubled homes, single parents, you know”, “lot
of drugs in those neighborhoods”; “they just stopped coming to school,
we don’t know what happened to them”; on and on. Some administrators
will tell us that, “well, some of the parents probably decided to put
their kids in private schools”. Right, I’m sure Reggie who used to
sleep in the back row of Social Studies was a real strong candidate for
a scholarship at one of the city’s best private schools. If he doesn’t
get a scholarship, at $15,000 a year, plus expenses, Reggie’s family
will really have to hustle to pay for one of the better private schools
in Oakland. . What soon becomes clear is that these 2,000 children
dropped off the District’s radar screen faster that a 747 running out
of gas. Or, perhaps more to the point, five 747’s running out of gas.

Does anyone at District headquarters CARE about what happen to these
children? Would you believe that Oakland Unified School District makes
absolutely no effort to track what happens to children who successfully
complete highschool, much less, track the kids who drop out? Tests, yes
we do have tests: S.A.T., SAT9, STAR, you name it. There’s an acronym
for every day of the year. But wait, what’s the point of all this
testing? To “measure student performace” you say?. “To make the schools
accountable” you say? Hold it right there! The only true measure of
any educational system is its ability to prepare children to live as
successful adults. But, wait, now we’re getting close to the crux of
the issue. Just what are our schools supposed to be educating our
children for? This question also has relevance to the issue of the
missing 2,000 children of the class of ‘99. Consider the proposition
that many of the “missing 2000” made a conscious, perhaps to a degree
rational, decision to leave school because their highschool was not,
and showed no prospect of ever offering them an education that was
relevant to their needs. It was not preparing them to lead responsible,
productive adult lives.

Nearly every American has high school experience which can be applied
to this issue. What is taught in high school? Algebra; Advanced English
and Reading; Government, American History, General Science, Chemistry,
Biology, Geometry, Trigonometry; Calculus, Foreign Languages, etc.,
etc.. All valuable subjects, especially if little Mary is on a college
track. Matter of fact, College-track Mary gets quite a bit of attention
and encouragement. Everything she hears tells her she’s one of the
select who will get into a good college and have a career that she, and
her family, and her teachers can be proud of. Everyone is there to
support her and re-enforce her conviction that all the study and
perseverance was really worth it. Mary is the educational
establishments poster child. She’s the paragon that the educational
establishment uses to convince us that it knows what is needed to
educate our children , if only the parents and taxpayers would give
them sufficient resources. Resources, meaning money and time. Time is
what these children don’t have. And money? Think about it. Oakland
spends $10,000 per year, per child. Over a 13 year period (K-12),
that’s $130,000 for every child in the Oakland School District. Your
intuition might tell you that $130,000 ought to buy a pretty good
education!

But, again, what about the “missing 2,000”? What was their school
experience like? Other than their teachers, they may not have even
known anyone who had ever been on a college campus. There are probably
few, if any books in their home. No newspaper gets delivered to the
door. They don’t have a personal space set aside for study and
homework. Home, more likely, is a place of poverty, tension, turmoil,
instability, insecurity, perhaps even crime, violence or substance
abuse. Many years before they left Oakland’s schools, these children
knew that college just wasn’t in their future. Many of them have the
native intelligence to compete with any middle class child on
the “college track”, but, considering the circumstances of their
lives, the “college track” was never really an option. What they have
again and again heard is that “a mind is a terrible thing to waste”,
if they don’t go to college. Many (most?) of our children know they’re
not going to college. So, does that mean their minds are wasted? No it
does not!

And it’s not just the kids at the lowest rung of the economic and
cultural ladder that are victimized by our myopic educational system.
Most highschool graduates never complete a four year college program.
Many young people attend Community Colleges, taking courses that are
only marginally more advanced than what were offered in the better
highschools. Community Colleges have the saving grace that they do
offer programs of practical vocational instruction. And therein lies
the key to the issue at hand. Practical career vocational instruction.
Why do these children have to attend Community College to gain the
training that could have been given to them in highschool? I would
argue that the answer goes to my original thesis that the problem lies
in the fundemental cultural gap between school curriculum designers and
the non-“college track” students. Non-”college track” students may drop
out in the 9th, or the 10th, or 11th grade; or they may even graduate
from highschool. But what kind of adult lives are the prepared to lead?
Do they have craft or technical training? What have they been taught
about “people who work with their hands and not their brains”? Give me
a break! If you haven’t noticed, it takes more training and experience
to be a journeyman carpenter than it takes to be a college educated
social worker! It pays better too! High-tech companies all over the
country have many well paid employees who don’t have college degrees.
How many times have you seen want ads with the phrase “college or
equivilent experience” in them? Businesses are not run by fools. A
Liberal Arts degree means nothing if you don’t have the skills. And
these skills rarely include knowing Latin, trigonometry or Shakespear.
All things being equal, a college degree is an asset, but not a
panacea, and our children can have successful careers, raise families
and experience a life of happiness and fulfillment, without a BA.

What our children learn, as some of us did in our own time, is that
most of what we were taught in school really had little value in our
adult lives, unless, of course, we were on the “college track”. We are
taught to read, but not to enjoy it, so we spend our adult lives
watching television. We are taught the value of democracy, but then
don’t vote, or worse, vote for the candidate who raises the most
campaign contributions. History is taught as the lives of famous dead
people, not as a lever to understanding who we are, or could become.
Math is taught as a series of disconnected computational procedures,
but no school taught us how to invest, or evaluate risk versus reward
in the real world. We are taught that cheating on tests is
unacceptable, but almost nothing is said about fidelity, patience,
integrity, kindness or modesty. The teachers of our children are, by an
large, very admirable people who do the best job that they can, given
the resources available. But it must also be said, that they cannot
teach our children what is beyound their own experience and training.
Few of them have much experience with traditional crafts and trades, or
even with current generation computer and telecommunications
technology. Our children need both And it’s not academics OR vocational
training; its academics AND vocational training!

Wage figures from the California Employment Development Department tell
us the the average wage for computer Engineers is $66,000; Utility
Customer Service Represetatives $39,150; Court Reporters $34,210; Pest
Controller $30,440; Police Officers $58,370; Forest and Conservation
Workers $34,270; Auto Body Repairers $37,880; Air Hammer Operators
$44,060; Automotive Mechanics $36,010; Bindery Machine Setters $35,030;
Brick Masons $49,670; Bus and Truck Mechanics $39,650; Camera Operators
$38,370; Carpenters $40,740, Ceiling Tile Installers $48,130; PBX
Installers $38,830; Communications Equipment Installers $46,070;
Concret Finishers $38,940; Construction Workers $42,640; Electricians
$48,060; Grader-Bulldozer Operators $46,460; Lathers $50,250; Office
Machine Servicers $44,170; Plasterers $45,910; Pipelayers $46,790;
Plumbers $50,250; and scores of others, at similar wages. Again, these
are the AVERAGE salaries of these positions, not the highest! They also
don’t reflect the possibilities of advancing into supervisory or
management positions within these trades, or the possibilities of
entrepreneurship. None of these jobs require a college degree! Every
one of them could be a part of a highschool vocational training or
internship program. No child should leave our highschools without the
skills necessary to earn a decent living. But nearly all of them do!
Again, it’s not academic studies OR career training. It must be
academic studies AND career training! But the career training has to be
offered early enough that these children do not leave school without
the skills they need to earn a living for themselves and their families.

In Oakland, as in most other urban school districts, vocational-career
programs receive only token support. In Oakland, that amounts to less
than $2 million out of a budget of $574 million. Even this meager
allocation reflects a $200,000 cut for the 2000-2001 school year. Why
is this so? Again, the college-track bias of school policy makers.
Newspapers and broadcast media tout the accomplisments of children in
academic programs, but consistently ignore the accomplishments of
children, who against all odds, succeed in life without college
training and without highschool curriculums directed at their needs..
The fact that so many of these children go on to lead happy and
productive lives is a testiment to the indomitable strength of the
human character.

And the system will not change! The “college-bound” predjudice is
firmly entrenched. It works it’s worst on children who are minorities,
are poor, or live in non-Englsh speaking homes. The parents of these
children are frozen out of the policy making process at every level.
They don’t contribute to political campaigns; they seldom call or meet
with school administrators; they don’t socialize with the culture
makers in the media or in politics. No one ever trys to tell them that
their childrens’ failure is not their fault. The educational, political
and media elites have created a culture with a bias that is subtle and
yet pervesive. The bias is so subtle that its carriers aren’t even
conscious of its influence. The children intuitively know that
something is wrong, but when they strike out, it’s against the school
facilities, or the teachers, or against each other. For a tragic few,
crime and drugs are the last refuge.

It doesn’t have to be this way. When will it ever change? Perhaps in a
generation, or two, or three, the victims of this insidious system will
find their voice, rise up, and demand that the system serve their needs
too. Perhaps.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Alberto

unread,

Nov 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/11/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> I sent the follwing message to members of the Oakland, California
> School board last spring. I believe it's point may be relevant to other
> school districts.

You know, your post is long and I can't go over everything. But there's a
couple of points I want to comment; this hit a nerve in this Brazilian born,
raised and educated minority citizen.

[qualified snip...]

> So what IS the problem? The problem is rooted in the cultural gap
> between the educational establishment and the children whose mission it
> is to educate.

It is actually rooted in the cultural gap between America and the children's
home where people can't get to grips with living within an American society
in that society's terms.

> Think about it, college training is a required minimum
> qualification for virtually all of our teachers. Virtually all of our
> school administrators and policy makers are college trained; virtually
> all of the political structure which controls educational policies are,
> you’re right, college trained. And lastly, college educated parents are
> the ones most likely to participate in school policy making activities.
> So what’s the problem, you may ask? Shouldn’t we want the “best and the
> brightest” in charge of our children’s education? Well, maybe, maybe
> not.

Why not ? The concept that students in a place like Oakland should not be
pushed to the same extent that the students of, say, Newton Massachusetts,
is a bit foreign to me. Go down to Rio where I was educated, and see if my
old high school, or my college for that matter, will drive any of its South
American students any less hard than Andover or Amherst drive theirs up
here. But let's carry on.

> First let’s look at the schools where I live, Oakland, California. Our
> schools suffer from all of the ills of other urban schools. Any
> differences are purely a matter of degree. For the 2000-2001 school
> year, Oakland Unified School District will be spending in excess of
> $574 million dollars on the education of some 54,000 students.

Here in Nashua, NH, the average is more like $6,000. And considering the
results, although it could be a lot better, it ain't nearly that bad.

> Under a
> just signed labor agreement, an entry level teachers’ starting salary
> is $37,918, while a classroom teacher with 26 years of experience and
> some postgraduate training, will be earning $68,000, plus generous
> benefits. Not princely wages by any means, but, not bad for 9 months of
> work and a liberal holiday schedule. Even at these rates, Oakland still
> has difficuly recruiting enough qualified teachers.

Well, drive down to San Jose' and look around. How much will someone with a
fresh M.Sc. in computer science or electrical engineering will make ? Here
in the greater Boston area, twenty-something olds, fresh out of a masters
degree in computer science, are being paid $50K or $60K, plus stock options,
and what else. So, even for NH standards, $38K for starters is pitiful, and
you bet that a computer professional with 9 years experience, around this
area, will be making well over $70K. And California salaries are well above
those in our areas.

So, it's not surprising that qualified professionals shun teaching! Besides,
have you heard of the job market crunch ? Managers like myself will go to
great lenghts to get competent people to fill the slots in our ranks, and
we'll certainly pay more than a public school district if that's what it
takes.

> If you haven’t noticed, it takes more training and experience
> to be a journeyman carpenter than it takes to be a college educated
> social worker! It pays better too!

But it doesn't pay more than being a computer science major with a masters
degree. Or more than a college educated electrical engineer. Actually, many
jobs in hot demand today just cannot be performed by individuals without
that magic degree.

> High-tech companies all over the
> country have many well paid employees who don’t have college degrees.

High tech companies have overwhelmingly more college degreed employees among
their well-paid people. In fact, top notch companies that can afford to
choose their people not only don't hire people without college degrees, but
hire exclusively from the top tier colleges. High tech is becoming more and
more sophisticated, and it's getting harder and harder to survive in it
without a degree and a lifetime commitment to learning more.

And you know what, right now we're scrambling for people and finding none,
and part of it must be because the school systems aren't making those
professionals we need. So we're going out to Canada, to Europe, to India, to
China, to find people, and we pay great salaries, relocation, you name it -
while those minority kids from Oakland high won't be even qualified enough
to get a blip in the radar screen, let alone be noticed and employed.
Because, mind you, the answer is in the opposite direction: we need people
who know MORE, who know DEEPER, who work HARDER, who get RESULTS.

When I was a young professional straight out of college, I put up many a
whole-nighter; one day I worked 72 hours nonstop, and that straight out of
an 11 hour airplane trip. Look around your students, and tell me straight in
the face, how many are ready to face that pressure, to take that bull by its
horns ?

The way I see it, what's missing is METTLE. Gimme, gimme, gimme, that's all
I hear. No wonder they don't get very far!

> How many times have you seen want ads with the phrase “college or
> equivilent experience” in them? Businesses are not run by fools. A
> Liberal Arts degree means nothing if you don’t have the skills. And
> these skills rarely include knowing Latin, trigonometry or Shakespear.
> All things being equal, a college degree is an asset, but not a
> panacea, and our children can have successful careers, raise families
> and experience a life of happiness and fulfillment, without a BA.

It's getting harder and harder to guarantee that kind of thing; high school
is a bare minimum, and often not enough even for non-college-degree
professions. I for example may hire people without a college degree (I'm a
high-tech R&D manager) but it's going to be a rare thing, most of the people
I hire have either a computer science degree or an advanced mathematically
oriented degree. And you know what, I won't hire someone without a college
degree unless that someone has a whole lot more experience than a kid with a
M.Sc., and even then, nine times out of ten I'll hire the guy with the
degree. You know, when it comes to our own professional neighborhood, we
certainly know where our problems are, and what kind of people we need.

> Wage figures from the California Employment Development Department tell
> us the the average wage for computer Engineers is $66,000; Utility
> Customer Service Represetatives $39,150; Court Reporters $34,210; Pest
> Controller $30,440; Police Officers $58,370; Forest and Conservation
> Workers $34,270; Auto Body Repairers $37,880; Air Hammer Operators
> $44,060; Automotive Mechanics $36,010; Bindery Machine Setters $35,030;
> Brick Masons $49,670; Bus and Truck Mechanics $39,650; Camera Operators
> $38,370; Carpenters $40,740, Ceiling Tile Installers $48,130; PBX
> Installers $38,830; Communications Equipment Installers $46,070;
> Concret Finishers $38,940; Construction Workers $42,640; Electricians
> $48,060; Grader-Bulldozer Operators $46,460; Lathers $50,250; Office
> Machine Servicers $44,170; Plasterers $45,910; Pipelayers $46,790;
> Plumbers $50,250; and scores of others, at similar wages. Again, these
> are the AVERAGE salaries of these positions, not the highest!

I don't know about the others, but computer salaries are way higher than
that. My students are getting $50K or $60K straight out of their M.Sc., and
you only have to look at places like monster.com to figure out the real
salary computer specialists are demanding. Unless, of course, the figures
include blue-collar computer work, but then, maybe you're right, one doesn't
need a college degree for those, and the salaries will be significantly
lower than those obtained by kids with computer science or EE degrees.

> They also
> don’t reflect the possibilities of advancing into supervisory or
> management positions within these trades, or the possibilities of
> entrepreneurship. None of these jobs require a college degree!

Computer work requires the equivalent of college level knowledge, and lack
of a degree is a great glass ceiling. Unless, of course, you include
technical jobs within the umbrella of "computer engineer", but then, you're
fooling yourself and your students. The jobs that pay the bucks require
knowledge, of the nontrivial type, that must be learned, and that is usually
taught by professionals and computer scientists, and requires knowing math
and computer science, typically well beyond HS level.

The bottomline is, the dialetics of noncollege vs. college degreed
individuals is a false one. Granted, we should do more in what regards to
technical education. But no, we shouldn't do it at the expense of our
preparation to college.

> Every
> one of them could be a part of a highschool vocational training or
> internship program.

Computer professionals will be much better off coming out of a 4-year
computer science college degree.

> And the system will not change! The “college-bound” predjudice is
> firmly entrenched.

No more than the fantasy that one doesn't need a college degree to be
successful in a highly technical career. I am sorry, nobody pays much to
people who can only do what everyone else can do! It's nontrivial knowledge
that gets one to make good salaries, at least in the technical professions.

> It works it’s worst on children who are minorities,
> are poor, or live in non-Englsh speaking homes. The parents of these
> children are frozen out of the policy making process at every level.
> They don’t contribute to political campaigns; they seldom call or meet
> with school administrators; they don’t socialize with the culture
> makers in the media or in politics. No one ever trys to tell them that
> their childrens’ failure is not their fault. The educational, political
> and media elites have created a culture with a bias that is subtle and
> yet pervesive. The bias is so subtle that its carriers aren’t even
> conscious of its influence. The children intuitively know that
> something is wrong, but when they strike out, it’s against the school
> facilities, or the teachers, or against each other. For a tragic few,
> crime and drugs are the last refuge.

If you drive a couple of hours out of Nashua, NH, where I live, you will
find people that are way more marginalized than your Oakland CA denizens,
and they're neither minority nor foreign-language speaking. Give me one
reason why I should feel more grief for your California foreigners, blacks,
or hispanics, for example, than I feel for a white NH citizen who lives in
the boonies eating moose and deer for a life. But the culture we have
created, specially in our large cities, is one of coddling: coddling
self-segregation, coddling the refusal to speak English, coddling rejection
of the country's culture, coddling their isolating their children from the
American mainstream. And then, when their kids fail, mostly because they
don't really belong in the society around them, often because of their own
parental choices, they cry foul.

You see, it isn't up to society to change to be the way we want, it's up to
us to take steps to belong to the society within which we choose to live.
And if someone's refuge is crime and drugs, serve them right - there's
nothing in my arithmetic that effaces the need for self control and personal
responsibility. I'm sorry, on this subject you get no sympathy from me.

> It doesn’t have to be this way. When will it ever change? Perhaps in a
> generation, or two, or three, the victims of this insidious system will
> find their voice, rise up, and demand that the system serve their needs
> too. Perhaps.

The answer is simple: RESPONSIBILITY.

Behave like an American, you will be treated as an American. Ignore America,
and America will ignore you. Challenge America, and America will challenge
you. Reject America, and America will reject you. It isn't the school
system's responsibility to figure out how to change the country to suit me,
it's my problem to figure out how to fit into the country. Otherwise, what's
the point in being here ?

And until that happens, no, things won't change.

Alberto.

Donna Metler

unread,

Nov 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/11/00

----a few inserted comments from this inner-city public school teacher....

I sent the follwing message to members of the Oakland, California
School board last spring. I believe it's point may be relevant to
other
school districts.

What’s Wrong With Our Schools

And Why They Won’t Be Fixed

American’s secondary educational system is in crisis. It has been been
in crisis for a generation, and many of the social evils that have
been
visited upon this nation are a direct result of failures within our
educational system. An affordable and effective solution to this
crisis
in education is available, but that solution will never implemented.

The foregoing may seem outrageous, but what is lacking among the
victims of our present educational system is, in fact, a sense of
outrage. The root cause of this crisis in education is not money, not
a
lack of trained teachers, not children with “attitudes”, not aging
facilities, not a lack of text books, not even the “un-involved”
parents who are so often the scapegoats of this tragedy. All of
these “causes” are in reality only symptoms of a much more fundemental
problem.

So what IS the problem? The problem is rooted in the cultural gap

between the educational establishment and the children whose mission
it

is to educate. Think about it, college training is a required minimum

qualification for virtually all of our teachers. Virtually all of our
school administrators and policy makers are college trained; virtually
all of the political structure which controls educational policies
are,
you’re right, college trained. And lastly, college educated parents
are
the ones most likely to participate in school policy making
activities.
So what’s the problem, you may ask? Shouldn’t we want the “best and
the
brightest” in charge of our children’s education? Well, maybe, maybe
not.

First let’s look at the schools where I live, Oakland, California. Our

schools suffer from all of the ills of other urban schools. Any
differences are purely a matter of degree. For the 2000-2001 school
year, Oakland Unified School District will be spending in excess of

$574 million dollars on the education of some 54,000 students. Under

a
just signed labor agreement, an entry level teachers’ starting salary
is $37,918, while a classroom teacher with 26 years of experience and
some postgraduate training, will be earning $68,000, plus generous
benefits. Not princely wages by any means, but, not bad for 9 months
of
work and a liberal holiday schedule.

---No teaching schedule is 9 months of work. While students are in school 185
days here, my contract is for 210. As a teacher with multiple degrees and quite
a large amount of experience and additional training, I make about $35,000/yr. I
could easily make more per hour at almost any job requiring a college education.
As far as the liberal holiday schedule, I have NO control over when I take my
holidays or vacation, and my salary will be docked if I get sick at the wrong
time of year. I get no bonuses or performance rewards.

Not bad, but not good either.

------

Even at these rates, Oakland
still

------
Talk to those people who are actually in the trenches in inner-city schools. We
know and we care what happens to our students. You also sell our kids short as
far as their capabilities. Many of my students are effectively living
"responsible, productive adult lives" while still in elementary school-they're
full-time caregivers for siblings, are tap dancing and tumbling on Beale street
to earn money from tourists (a sad situation-but the kids I know who are doing
it are usually not trying to earn money for a new playstation), are doing
laundry, cooking and shopping for families.
---------

-------
This is why there are different high schools. Memphis has vocational/technical
high schools, career programs, vocational training which feeds into the
community college system for vocational 2 year programs, JROTC and similar
pre-military career programs, and similar things. At my school, we spend a lot
of time on career clusters, and letting kids know what opportunities are out
there. Yes, college is an option, but we let them know what else is available,
too.
-----

a break! If you haven’t noticed, it takes more training and experience

to be a journeyman carpenter than it takes to be a college educated

social worker! It pays better too! High-tech companies all over the

country have many well paid employees who don’t have college degrees.

How many times have you seen want ads with the phrase “college or
equivilent experience” in them? Businesses are not run by fools. A
Liberal Arts degree means nothing if you don’t have the skills. And
these skills rarely include knowing Latin, trigonometry or Shakespear.
All things being equal, a college degree is an asset, but not a
panacea, and our children can have successful careers, raise families
and experience a life of happiness and fulfillment, without a BA.

------
Vocational programs have been around for several generations. I have a hard time
believing that Oakland doesn't have them.
______

What our children learn, as some of us did in our own time, is that
most of what we were taught in school really had little value in our
adult lives, unless, of course, we were on the “college track”. We are
taught to read, but not to enjoy it, so we spend our adult lives
watching television. We are taught the value of democracy, but then
don’t vote, or worse, vote for the candidate who raises the most
campaign contributions. History is taught as the lives of famous dead
people, not as a lever to understanding who we are, or could become.
Math is taught as a series of disconnected computational procedures,
but no school taught us how to invest, or evaluate risk versus reward
in the real world. We are taught that cheating on tests is
unacceptable, but almost nothing is said about fidelity, patience,
integrity, kindness or modesty. The teachers of our children are, by
an
large, very admirable people who do the best job that they can, given
the resources available. But it must also be said, that they cannot
teach our children what is beyound their own experience and training.
Few of them have much experience with traditional crafts and trades,
or
even with current generation computer and telecommunications
technology. Our children need both And it’s not academics OR
vocational
training; its academics AND vocational training!

----------
You may want to do a search on ATLAS model schools. This North American Schools
model is designed to lead to career development and vocational skills-and it
starts at kindergarten and goes through high school. The Memphis city schools
have several ATLAS pathways, as do quite a few other large cities, so you should
be able to find web information.
----------

are the AVERAGE salaries of these positions, not the highest! They

also
don’t reflect the possibilities of advancing into supervisory or
management positions within these trades, or the possibilities of

entrepreneurship. None of these jobs require a college degree! Every

one of them could be a part of a highschool vocational training or

internship program. No child should leave our highschools without the
skills necessary to earn a decent living. But nearly all of them do!
Again, it’s not academic studies OR career training. It must be
academic studies AND career training! But the career training has to
be
offered early enough that these children do not leave school without
the skills they need to earn a living for themselves and their
families.

-------
Computer Engineers definitely benefit from the college degree. My husband's
company has been attempting to find even generic "programmers" (which is much,
much less technical than Comp. Engineering), and none of the non-college
wunderkinds can generally work from the rather hazy descriptions that end-users
give firms. Unless they are either designing from their own areas of skills or
have a real software developer holding their hands, they are almost useless.
OTOH, a computer scientist or real computer engineer, even if they don't know
the language, can take a hazy description, turn it into a spec, and, in a
reasonable amount of time, code it in any language.

Many of the other fields listed strongly recommend a college degree, or at least
some training. There are few police officers who have not had some college
coursework at least, especially in psychology/sociology.
--------

And the system will not change! The “college-bound” predjudice is
firmly entrenched. It works it’s worst on children who are minorities,

are poor, or live in non-Englsh speaking homes. The parents of these
children are frozen out of the policy making process at every level.
They don’t contribute to political campaigns; they seldom call or meet
with school administrators; they don’t socialize with the culture
makers in the media or in politics. No one ever trys to tell them that
their childrens’ failure is not their fault. The educational,
political
and media elites have created a culture with a bias that is subtle and
yet pervesive. The bias is so subtle that its carriers aren’t even
conscious of its influence. The children intuitively know that
something is wrong, but when they strike out, it’s against the school
facilities, or the teachers, or against each other. For a tragic few,
crime and drugs are the last refuge.

It doesn’t have to be this way. When will it ever change? Perhaps in a

generation, or two, or three, the victims of this insidious system
will
find their voice, rise up, and demand that the system serve their
needs
too. Perhaps.

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 11, 2000, 9:22:01 PM11/11/00

In article <3A0DC17D...@moreira.mv.com>,

Alberto <alb...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
> jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I sent the follwing message to members of the Oakland, California
> > School board last spring. I believe it's point may be relevant to
other
> > school districts.
>
> You know, your post is long and I can't go over everything. But
there's a
> couple of points I want to comment; this hit a nerve in this
Brazilian born,
> raised and educated minority citizen.
>
> [qualified snip...]
>
> > So what IS the problem? The problem is rooted in the cultural gap
> > between the educational establishment and the children whose
mission it
> > is to educate.
>
> It is actually rooted in the cultural gap between America and the
children's
> home where people can't get to grips with living within an American
society
> in that society's terms.
>

First, thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting. I feel
very strongly about this issue, and do not believe it gets nearly the
attention which it deserves.

Now to address your well considered points: If we say the problem is in
the children's homes, where does that leave us? Are we going to change
the culture in the homes of all these children. I don't think that's
practical. Do we give up on these kids. Oops, wait, we've already tried
that! We make little or no effort to shape a school curriculum that's
appropriate for these disadvantaged children. Already 50% or more 8th
graders will drop out of high school or fail to graduate for academic
reasons. These are the raw material for the ghetto underclass, with
it's drugs, crime, violence and lost lives. If they can't "come to
grips", who pays the price. The obvious aswer is, WE ALL DO!

I have a question. When you train your employees, how much time and
money is spent on teaching them social studies, creative writing,
algebra, geometry and American History. Not much I'd wager. Now I love
history and political science, I majored in them in college, but by no
stretch of the imagination can they be considered life survival skills,
or even employment skills.

> > If you haven’t noticed, it takes more training and experience
> > to be a journeyman carpenter than it takes to be a college educated
> > social worker! It pays better too!
>
> But it doesn't pay more than being a computer science major with a
masters
> degree. Or more than a college educated electrical engineer.
Actually, many
> jobs in hot demand today just cannot be performed by individuals
without
> that magic degree.
>

But for 80 percent of the kids in Oakland Schools, that's all academic
(in both common usages of the word). Going to just isn't a practical
option.

I do know that Oakland Unified School District had legal control of
these kids for 13 consecutive years, and if the result is as you
describe, isn't it a prime candidate to receive a substantial part of
the blame? I know hi-tech employers salivate at the idea of bringing
the best and the brightest to America from less developed countries,
but you know, we have "less developed countries" in the inner-cities of
every large urban area of America. Are you saying we've spoiled these
people with too much kindness? Or that making a greater effort to
accomodate their needs would be detrimental to their character?

Hey, you nknow your business much better than I do, but what I read is
that for many I.T. managers experience trumps class-room every time.

> > They also
> > don’t reflect the possibilities of advancing into supervisory or
> > management positions within these trades, or the possibilities of
> > entrepreneurship. None of these jobs require a college degree!
>
> Computer work requires the equivalent of college level knowledge, and
lack
> of a degree is a great glass ceiling. Unless, of course, you include
> technical jobs within the umbrella of "computer engineer", but then,
you're
> fooling yourself and your students. The jobs that pay the bucks
require
> knowledge, of the nontrivial type, that must be learned, and that is
usually
> taught by professionals and computer scientists, and requires knowing
math
> and computer science, typically well beyond HS level.
>
> The bottomline is, the dialetics of noncollege vs. college degreed
> individuals is a false one. Granted, we should do more in what
regards to
> technical education. But no, we shouldn't do it at the expense of our
> preparation to college.
>

I support college prep programs, but 80% of our children will never
graduate from a 4 year college, and yet the success of our educational
system is judged by our success with that 20%, with very little
consideration given to the other 80%.

You've got your's, so screw them? I don't think you really believe
that. Would you consider going to an inner-city highschool and looking
into the faces of these children and tell them, "if you can't over-come
the violence and ignorance in your home, the crime in your
neighborhood, the drugs on every corner, the apathy of your teachers,
and the negative pressure of you friends, screw you!"?

> > It doesn’t have to be this way. When will it ever change? Perhaps
in a
> > generation, or two, or three, the victims of this insidious system
will
> > find their voice, rise up, and demand that the system serve their
needs
> > too. Perhaps.
>
> The answer is simple: RESPONSIBILITY.
>
> Behave like an American, you will be treated as an American. Ignore
America,
> and America will ignore you. Challenge America, and America will
challenge
> you. Reject America, and America will reject you. It isn't the school
> system's responsibility to figure out how to change the country to
suit me,
> it's my problem to figure out how to fit into the country. Otherwise,
what's
> the point in being here ?
>
> And until that happens, no, things won't change.
>
> Alberto.
>

I guess it's easy to reject these kids, they don't look like us, have
our values, speak out language, and, well, we don't go into that part
of town anyway. When commandment love your "neighbor" was given, I
don't think it just included the people on our block.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Nov 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/12/00

In article <3A0DC17D...@moreira.mv.com>,
Alberto <alb...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:

>jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

>> I sent the follwing message to members of the Oakland, California
>> School board last spring. I believe it's point may be relevant to other
>> school districts.

>You know, your post is long and I can't go over everything. But there's a
>couple of points I want to comment; this hit a nerve in this Brazilian born,
>raised and educated minority citizen.

[qualified snip...]

>> So what IS the problem? The problem is rooted in the cultural gap
>> between the educational establishment and the children whose mission it
>> is to educate.

>It is actually rooted in the cultural gap between America and the children's
>home where people can't get to grips with living within an American society
>in that society's terms.

>> Think about it, college training is a required minimum
>> qualification for virtually all of our teachers. Virtually all of our
>> school administrators and policy makers are college trained; virtually
>> all of the political structure which controls educational policies are,

>> youre right, college trained. And lastly, college educated parents are

>> the ones most likely to participate in school policy making activities.

>> So whats the problem, you may ask? Shouldnt we want the best and the
>> brightest in charge of our childrens education? Well, maybe, maybe
>> not.

What does a "college education" mean? To the educationists
and bureaucrats, a "level X" education means time served with
good behavior, with a modicum of brownie points accumulated.
None of this is relevant. In my daughter's high school honors
physics course, that the students learned physics was not due
to the fact that the teacher had a college degree, but that
they were specifically allowed to get help outside class.

>Why not ? The concept that students in a place like Oakland should not be
>pushed to the same extent that the students of, say, Newton Massachusetts,
>is a bit foreign to me. Go down to Rio where I was educated, and see if my
>old high school, or my college for that matter, will drive any of its South
>American students any less hard than Andover or Amherst drive theirs up
>here. But let's carry on.

Let me put it otherwise. A child with a given ability and
willingness to learn in Oakland should be getting the same
quality and quantity of education as one in Newton. It
should not matter if the others of the same age cannot do
it; it is the individual who gets the education, not the
class.

If there is a difference in distribution of ability,
outside background, and desire, there WILL be a difference
in the distribution of results. Those who consider all
children to be essentially the same are at best ignorant.
The implications of this should be clear, but they seem to
contradict the philosophy of the current educational system.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Alberto

unread,

Nov 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/14/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> First, thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting. I feel
> very strongly about this issue, and do not believe it gets nearly the
> attention which it deserves.

I feel strongly about it too - I feel it in my very skin, continuously, and
it's not going to disappear as long as I live. I'm doomed to live with it,
for good or for evil.

And while we're at it, let me remind you that not every foreigner is poor,
ignorant, uneducated, violent, on drugs or a criminal, neither does every
foreign justify being either of these and shun the need for self
responsibility and for having character and mettle.

> Now to address your well considered points: If we say the problem is in
> the children's homes, where does that leave us?

It leaves us where we teacher should leave: when the threshold of one's home
is crossed. Who are we to assume rights over the way families educate their
kids ?

> Are we going to change
> the culture in the homes of all these children. I don't think that's
> practical.

But that's not the issue. Whatever happens in those kids' homes, it happens
in those kids' homes, yet school must not be the extension of those kids'
homes. Do they speak Portuguese at home ? Too bad, here at school people
don't. Do they believe in "la raza" and on its supremacy over the gringos ?
Too bad, here at school people don't. Do they reject "white male european"
culture and brand their kids as "oreo cookies" if they get out of the fold ?
Too bad, here at school people don't. Do you speak Ebonics, Spanish,
Tagalog, Hindi, Mandarin ? Here at school people don't.

It's the condoning with the culture at those people's homes that leads to
problems. The attitude should be, I don't care where your family comes from
or what language you speak at home, here at school you're going to learn how
to be an American and how to behave like one, and that must necessarily
entail the demand that minorities get out of their cocoons and get strongly
exposed to a culture that's not theirs.

Note well, it is very possible to keep one's own culture and race, and yet
not be in constant shock with the cultural environment in this country. I
have managed it, I know plenty of people who came from the same hole I did
who also manage it. Rich or poor, it doesn't matter. For example, the
humblest of the workers in my company, the janitor, is Brazilian. Poor.
Uneducated. I would even say ignorant. But you know what, he now has two
kids in college, and they're both quite American, and he's very proud of
them, and of his achievement.

There are plenty of them around, you see, just open your eyes and look.

> Do we give up on these kids. Oops, wait, we've already tried
> that!

Give up in what sense ? In the parenting sense, my answer is a resounding
yes. Parenting is, or should be, none of a teacher's business. In the
academic sense, no we don't - but what I heard you saying is a solid yes,
meaning that we should, indeed, give up on trying to incorporate those kids
into society, give up on trying to make those kids college material, by
caving in to their own biases. We cannot, must not, educate them as
Africans, South Americans, Middle Easterners, or whatever else - we must
educate them as AMERICANS. And that entails a nontrivial amount of culture
shock, and there's basically nothing we can do about it, nor should we be
even trying to hide the basic issue that they WILL have to give a lot of
cultural concessions in order to be able to fully participate in the
nation's life. I did, my wife did, every fellow South American I know did,
my predominantly Asian students do it continuously, and that's a fact of
life. We cannot, and should not, twist America into a copy of South America,
Africa or the Middle or Far East.

> We make little or no effort to shape a school curriculum that's
> appropriate for these disadvantaged children.

And we shouldn't. If we do, we're lying to them. Life doesn't coddle anyone
because of a disadvantage. In fact, the more disadvantaged we are, the more
personal mettle we must have, the more resolve we must put together, because
we're going to rowing upstream and against the wind, moreso than our fellow
men and women. Self pity, mind you, helps nobody here. Disadvantaged
children need more the equivalent of a good drill sargeant than they need a
motherhenny teacher.

> Already 50% or more 8th
> graders will drop out of high school or fail to graduate for academic
> reasons.

And those ACADEMIC reasons must be addressed, and cultural inadequacy is one
prime reason behind academic failure. But it isn't the academics that must
change, but the kids' attitudes. It isn't that we must change the curriculum
to fit the kids' attitude, it's that we must change the kids' attitude to
fit the curriculum.

> These are the raw material for the ghetto underclass, with
> it's drugs, crime, violence and lost lives. If they can't "come to
> grips", who pays the price. The obvious aswer is, WE ALL DO!

I come from a poor country. I can take you to a lot of places there where
people have little more than their little vegetable patch and hunting of
fishing to live, if that much. But you will find plenty of solid, honest,
hardworking, people in there. In other words, poverty is no excuse for crime
- go look at the roots of crime elsewhere. What seems to go hand in hand
with crime is poverty backed by a culture of entitlement and a resentment
for not having pretense entitlements fulfilled - and that's PRECISELY the
kind of mentality our current school system fosters. We coddle "anger", we
coddle "rights", we coddle "self-esteem", and we teach our minority students
that they have some magic "right" to be angry and to vent their anger at
society, all while we encourage the very attitude that causes them to detach
themselves from society. And then, when those worlds collide, they obviously
resort to crime, because they can't come to grips with the basic fact that
the real issue is that no, they do NOT have the right to be angry or to vent
their anger on someone else, no, they do NOT have the right to convert
America into another Cuba, Vietnam or Ivory Coast, no, they do NOT have the
right to demand that people from other races and cultures drop off their
tracks to remark how beautiful their own culture is, and no, they do NOT
have the right to self-esteem, that comes with competence, and competence
comes with work ethics: you earn self-esteem, you're not entitled to it.

We all do pay the price indeed, but we're paying the price of people sorely
mishandling minority citizens and doing their best to convince them that
they're entitled to more than what majority citizens do. It is THAT that is
generating the problem, and it is THAT that's draining our pocketbooks and
filling our jails.

> I have a question. When you train your employees, how much time and
> money is spent on teaching them social studies, creative writing,
> algebra, geometry and American History. Not much I'd wager.

I don't train my employees, there's a whole sector of society out there that
addresses that need. That sector has professional administrators, and
scientists, and teachers, and I can't dream of replacing their knowledge and
expertise with my tight corporate resources. When I need people, I look for
professionals who have gone through the hoops in reputable teaching
institutions such as colleges and universities.

> Now I love
> history and political science, I majored in them in college, but by no
> stretch of the imagination can they be considered life survival skills,
> or even employment skills.

First, every little corner of human knowledge can become a lifelong interest
and money earner. There is no such thing as unusable knowledge. But there is
plenty of "I don't want to learn that" around.

But second and more important, the objective of K12 is not to give anyone
employment skills, but to give students a cultural basis from where they can
spring out into other things and further learning. So, we teach American
History, because that's the backbone of this country's culture and
civilization, and none of us can be a real American without knowing what our
predecessors went through. We teach Creative Writing, because writing is the
very core of learned communication as you and I know it, and virtually
nothing can be accomplished without the corresponding writing activity being
carried out. We teach them Social Studies, because we want them to know the
fabric of society as we know it: we want them to get out of their cultural
ghettos and to realize that they're no longer in Rio, but rather living
within one of the most sophisticated and advanced cultures the world has
ever known. We teach them Algebra and Geometry, because those are the basis
of science and engineering, and both science and engineering are the very
cornerstones of our modern way of life: there's little if anything we do
today that's not strongly conditioned by our scientific and technological
prowess, and even to learn something as basic as being an electrician or an
electronics technician requires a little bit of Algebra and Geometry.

Even if you don't want to talk college, go to your nearest vocational
school, take a few courses, see what's needed. But you know, this country
needs way more than plumbers and carpenters to move forward.

> But for 80 percent of the kids in Oakland Schools, that's all academic
> (in both common usages of the word). Going to just isn't a practical
> option.

So, are you proposing we drop the 20 % by the side of the road ? Are you
proposing that we encase those 80 % in a tight glass ceiling because it
isn't "practical" ? When those kids grow up and want to go places, they will
see people leaving them behind, left and right, and they blame it on being
black, or being hispanic, or having an accent, or on prejudice, or whatever,
when the real reason they're been left behind is, THEIR TEACHERS DID NOT
PREPARE THEM TO BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD because of their belief that it isn't
"practical". You know, this kind of attitude perpetuates the gap and widens
it.

Indeed I will blame the School District for much of what's going on, but my
blame is placed on the other side of the fence. Not to be personal, but I
place the blame on your side of the fence. As a minority citizen and a
father of two young women, I wouldn't have DREAMED of letting my kids to be
educated the way the typical American minority is educated. But my bias is
in the precise opposite direction as yours: I strongly believe that until we
make minorities FULLY accountable, to the same level any white is,
minorities will not see any substantial progress.

> I know hi-tech employers salivate at the idea of bringing
> the best and the brightest to America from less developed countries,
> but you know, we have "less developed countries" in the inner-cities of
> every large urban area of America. Are you saying we've spoiled these
> people with too much kindness? Or that making a greater effort to
> accomodate their needs would be detrimental to their character?

If I'm looking for the best and the brightest, I don't care where they come
from, and I pay what it takes - my industry isn't known for skimping on
salaries. And yes, I'm saying we have spoiled those people and turned them
off much opportunity in life because of the way we coddle them. More, I
don't call it kindness, I call it weakness. Real kindness prepares people
for life, and if life is tough, kindness means making them tough. If life is
demanding, kindness means preparing people to face the demand. If life is a
continuous marathon, kindness is preparing people to have the intellectual
stamina that's required.

And so on. You see, it isn't "their" needs that matter, it's the needs of
society, and the demand that society will put in them, that are the key
points. If education wants to be real and to make a real difference, it must
move from being centered on student need to being centered on societal need,
from a "me" approach to an "us" approach. They must be taught that they're
part of a bigger "us", and that that "us" includes a whole lot more than
just the people of their race, religion or culture, and that the "us" is a
whole lot bigger than the part of town they can falsely claim as "theirs".
The self-fulfillment in this sense can only come as the student grows more
and more able to handle the demands society puts on him or her, there is no
other possible way.

Being employed is the typical situation: it isn't my needs that matter, it's
my employers' needs: if I satisfy them, I'll be well paid, well treated, and
my needs will be satisfied as a consequence. But if all I think is about
myself, chances are that unless I'm lucky I'm going to have a real hard time
in life, and if that happens, I have no one but myself to blame. And if I'm
so self-centered to go on through life demanding that my employers change to
suit me and my culture, I'm going to need a lot of luck, because before I
blink I'm going to be replaced by some Chinese or Indian professional, and
I'll never really stand on my two feet again.

> Hey, you nknow your business much better than I do, but what I read is
> that for many I.T. managers experience trumps class-room every time.

IT is just the tip of the iceberg, there's a whole lot more out there. And
the real good-paying jobs aren't in IT but in programming and in R&D. You
don't need to go to college to get many IT jobs, just like you don't need to
be an Electrical Engineer to work in a power plant. But if we put our
blinders on and we decide we'll only prepare our kids to handle blue collar
technician jobs, they'll be blue collar all their lives, and that's a glass
ceiling by itself. While a lot of people are pretty happy just being that,
the call of blocking a student's access to higher things is not for a
teacher to make, that must be a decision made by each individual at the
light of his or her own personal situation.

> I support college prep programs, but 80% of our children will never
> graduate from a 4 year college, and yet the success of our educational
> system is judged by our success with that 20%, with very little
> consideration given to the other 80%.

If that's true, one more reason to concentrate on those 20%, because they're
the ones on whose shoulders the well being and progress of the country, and
of society as we know it, is squarely placed. But the dialetics of 20% vs.
80% is a false one, even if that's the split: the important thing is, EACH
ONE STUDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO OPT IN OR OUT OF EITHER BRACKET, and that
means that everyone should be educated to the highest need. Otherwise, we
teachers are making a call we're not entitled to: that is, to limit a kids'
education and doom him or her out of a whole lot of rewarding careers, and
railroad him or her into a blue collar job for life.

Here in Nashua, NH, where I live, I recently read a statistics that about
55% of the HS students proceed into 2-year of 4-year college. I don't know
the split between these two, but there seems to be a whole lot more 4-year
degree offerings in this area than 2-year offerings, so I suspect that the
figure for 4-year-college-bound kids will be higher than your 20%. But
still, that's irrelevant, we need those 4-year college kids a lot more than
we need the others, therefore a lot of energy must be put in their
education.

More, look around yourself, and see how many foreign professionals this
country is importing. Go to your typical grad school or 4-year college class
in engineering or computer science, and see how many students are foreign
born and foreign educated. The bottom line is, each of those slots should
have been filled by an American, isn't there plenty of supply ? Or do you
think that if we went to your district's senior HS class and offered a
decent education package in exchange for a lifelong lucrative career that
they'd all opt out of it and go be ill-paid blue collar workers instead ?
And then, even if we could give them that opportunity, how many would be
able to take advantage of it if all the had gotten for the last 5 or 10
years was the kind of education you're proposing ?

Someone I know was too poor to be able to afford college. She went into the
computer industry as a junior, and she grew through the ranks. She got to a
point where she saw that she couldn't go further without a college degree,
so it took her 8 years and a whole lot of energy and spunk to get a degree
from MIT, working evenings and weekends while holding a full time job. The
fact that she could do it reflected a solid K12 educational background: but
you know what, she's an English woman, she got her excellent out there.

Now, look at your average HS student, and tell me whether the educational
background they get should or should not be one that allows this kind of
road to be taken.

> You've got your's, so screw them? I don't think you really believe
> that.

No, that's not the point. The point is, there are plenty of people of their
very race, nationality and background, who make it. Why don't they ? Why is
it that people of my race or nationality have to carry around the stigma of
needing handouts to be able to produce anything real ? You know, the average
professional looks at a South American man like me, and the first reaction
is, "incompetent", and if you were inside my hide you would feel that
attitude just about everywhere and anywhere, all the time. And why is that ?
Because, unfortunately we - meaning people of my race and nationality, as a
group - have well earned the label. We refuse to join in, we refuse to learn
the new country, we insist in forcing our own culture onto everyone else, we
demean the majority culture and way of life, we refuse to learn new ways and
new things, and then we have the gall of demanding that everyone stops and
bows to our own culture and views, as if we were some sort of superior race.
We forget why we left our original culture, our original country, our former
countrymen, we forget that our culture and attitude is the prime reason why
things back there are so screwed up, and we have the gall of demanding that
the richest country in the world, which was built on cultural premises very
different from ours, stops and adopts our model instead.

Can't you see the arrogance, the irrationality of that approach ? And you
ask us teachers to condone, to coddle it ?

> Would you consider going to an inner-city highschool and looking
> into the faces of these children and tell them, "if you can't over-come
> the violence and ignorance in your home, the crime in your
> neighborhood, the drugs on every corner, the apathy of your teachers,
> and the negative pressure of you friends, screw you!"?

I will consider going ANYWHERE - inner city or not, doesn't matter, what is
it that makes inner city any more special than anywhere else ? - and tell
them, it is YOUR responsibility not to engage in violence, crime and drugs.
It is YOUR responsibility to stand up to your peers. It is YOUR
responsibility to learn and be a productive member of society. In my
mathematics, there is NO excuse for lack of responsibility, and I see
NOTHING - I repeat, NOTHING - that excuses someone from it. No, ignorance
at home does not excuse it. No, teacher apathy does not excuse it. No,
negative pressure from your friends does not excuse it. And if you engage in
that sort of behavior, you can count on society's and the law's arm to fall
heavy on you, it's a question of time.

And you know what, again, I'm not trying to be personal, but the way I see
it, placing teacher apathy or ignorance at the same level as crime is a very
reprehensible thing to do. Is my parent's ignorance an excuse for me to be a
criminal ? Does my teacher's apathy justify my violence, me being a criminal
?

Please.

> I guess it's easy to reject these kids, they don't look like us, have
> our values, speak out language, and, well, we don't go into that part
> of town anyway. When commandment love your "neighbor" was given, I
> don't think it just included the people on our block.

If they don't want to speak society's language, live within society's
values, they shouldn't be living within that society. It isn't "their" part
of town, it's everyone's part of town, mine too - my passport is the same
color as anybody's, so's my tax money. And who gave them the right of
setting up a country within a country ? Again, arrogance, disregard, spite,
and a mentality of entitlement, that's what I see. When things get that bad,
when there's such a fundamental cultural conflict that one can't live within
the country's society's parameters, there's only one sensible thing to do,
which is, look at oneself very carefully, and wonder what one's doing here.
But even the whitest of us should have the right to live anywhere he or she
wants and not be subjected to live or behave as if this wasn't America but
some branch office of a foreign country.

And if that's what you want, sorry, I couldn't disagree more. My view in
this regard is very simple, and I tell that to my fellow Brazilians all the
time - because I can talk to them eye to eye, without the encumbrance of
racial or cultural differences - you want to live like a Brazilian, go to
Brazil. You want to live in America, live as an American.

But if you want to live as a Brazilian in America, do it at your own risk,
and don't expect the country to kneel at your feet. And be very sure to tell
yourself all the time, you're not doing America a favor if that's the way
you choose to live.

Alberto.

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/14/00

> ---No teaching schedule is 9 months of work. While students are in
school 185
> days here, my contract is for 210. As a teacher with multiple degrees
and quite
> a large amount of experience and additional training, I make about
$35,000/yr. I
> could easily make more per hour at almost any job requiring a college
education.
> As far as the liberal holiday schedule, I have NO control over when I
take my
> holidays or vacation, and my salary will be docked if I get sick at
the wrong
> time of year. I get no bonuses or performance rewards.
>
> Not bad, but not good either.

**************************************
Consider this. What would it be like if we threw out existing teacher
contracts, and stood the wage scale on it's head? Specifically: a new
hire teacher is eligible to be employed at the top of the wage scale,
based on experience, an in-depth written application, and an interview
with the parents of the children he/she will be teaching. Regardless of
their starting wage, teachers are evaluated at the end of the school
year, and interviewed again by the parents of the children coming into
the teacher's class. If the teacher has proven to be effective he/she
gets re-hired at a newly negotiated performance-based salary. If the
teacher hasn't performed, we go back to interviewing new teachers. What
good is to hire teachers at the lowest wage they are willing to work
for? These are our children that we are offering up to them! What's
more important than our children??!!

No more of the in-service training that eats up time and money either.
Let the teacher herself determine what will help her be more effective,
and then get that training/experience during the summer, or after
school. Nothing like a tight connection between cost and benefit to
focus the attention. The teacher has to know that she will be rewarded
for superior performance.

****************************************************

> Talk to those people who are actually in the trenches in inner-city
schools. We
> know and we care what happens to our students. You also sell our kids
short as
> far as their capabilities. Many of my students are effectively living
> "responsible, productive adult lives" while still in elementary
school-they're
> full-time caregivers for siblings, are tap dancing and tumbling on
Beale street
> to earn money from tourists (a sad situation-but the kids I know who
are doing
> it are usually not trying to earn money for a new playstation), are
doing
> laundry, cooking and shopping for families.

***********************************************************
No! I don't sell these kids short. Every kid should succeed to the
maximum of his/her ability. It's natural for teachers to focus in on
the kids that are succeeding, or over-coming handicaps, or, well, just
sweet kids who share the teacher's values. But what about the others?
The ones who sit in the back row, until they can drop out. Or graduate,
and then ask themselves: "what now? that damn school never did teach me
how to earn a living, assume responsibilty, work co-operatively, or
instill values and morality".

I went to a public high school. They haven't really changed in 40
years. They still go to great pains to teach kids chemistry,
trigonometry and advanced algebra. You know what. After 40 years of
resonably successful adult living, I've never met a person who used any
of that crap! Teachers and administrators love them because these
courses are required by the "best" schools, and when one of their
charges goes of to one of the "best" schools, everyone feels great
about themselves. But what about the other 98% of inner-city students
who aren't going to be doctors or chemical engineers. What are they
being taught? Is their "success" important to any one?

> -------
> This is why there are different high schools. Memphis has
vocational/technical
> high schools, career programs, vocational training which feeds into
the
> community college system for vocational 2 year programs, JROTC and
similar
> pre-military career programs, and similar things. At my school, we
spend a lot
> of time on career clusters, and letting kids know what opportunities
are out
> there. Yes, college is an option, but we let them know what else is
available,
> too.

***************************************************
Yea, right! The public schools have our children for 7 hours a day for
13 years, and at the end of the process, what are we
told: "congratulations, now you can go off to a community college on
your own time, and your own dime, and try to learn something that has
some practical value". Honestly, I truely believe that k-12 teachers
have the most important responsibilities in our communities. If our
schools fail our children, we all suffer the consequences.
**********************************************

> ------
> Vocational programs have been around for several generations. I have
a hard time
> believing that Oakland doesn't have them.
> ______

*********************************************************
Yea, Oakland School District has them, but their heart really isn't in
it. Except for a show-case computerized drafting program, they are
under-funded, un-focused and marginalized. Thousands of kids drop out
of school before they even get the opportunity to get into a career-
track program. Look around your teacher lunch room. How much real-world
work experience do your fellow teachers and administrators have? I know
it's facile and unfair, but you too have heard it said, "those that
can't do it, teach it". If teachers got as angry over failing students
as they do about adding another 15 minites to the school day, maybe
parents would be more inclined to increase taxes to pay for better
facilities and higher salaries.

Case in point: Oakland has a large number of students whose home
language is not English. You can't go far without knowing some English,
right? Well, under the current system, kids can spend up to 5 years in
bilingual programs! Come on! If it was important for these kids to
learn English, they'd be in school at 7am, and stay there until 5pm,
and probably be there on Saturday and during the summer too. But it's
not really important, so it takes 5 years! Well, it doesn't REALLY take
5 years, 'cause they drop out long before then...

***************************************************************

> ----------
> You may want to do a search on ATLAS model schools. This North
American Schools
> model is designed to lead to career development and vocational skills-
and it
> starts at kindergarten and goes through high school. The Memphis city
schools
> have several ATLAS pathways, as do quite a few other large cities, so
you should
> be able to find web information.
> ----------
>

> -------
> Computer Engineers definitely benefit from the college degree. My
husband's
> company has been attempting to find even generic "programmers" (which
is much,
> much less technical than Comp. Engineering), and none of the non-
college
> wunderkinds can generally work from the rather hazy descriptions that
end-users
> give firms. Unless they are either designing from their own areas of
skills or
> have a real software developer holding their hands, they are almost
useless.
> OTOH, a computer scientist or real computer engineer, even if they
don't know
> the language, can take a hazy description, turn it into a spec, and,
in a
> reasonable amount of time, code it in any language.

*****************************
Each of us must draw on our own experience. I was computer software
development from 1962-1998, and saw very little correspondence between
education and success in programming computers. To get a BS or BA, 90%
of their course work has nothing at all to do with computer technology.
What they do need to know (project scheduling, C++, visual basic,
networking architecture, etc.) can be taught in a few weeks of intense
classroom work, and several months of practical application. One of the
primary functions of institutionailed education is to filter out people
who have not successfully internalized our cultural norms. If a kid can
wade threw the muck of higher education, the he/she must be ready for
the our life pointless project meetings, careerism and corporate back-
stabing. Dilbert cartoons should be rquired reading in every university.

rober...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/14/00

In article <8uk35f$bbc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

>I'm not sure what it's like in the U.S. but I know that here in the
U.K. there are a number of reasons for the poor quality of our
education system.One of these reason is sim8ilar to that of the U.S.
schools in that teachers in both countries i believe are severly
underpaid in relation to the stress they undergo,the training they
recieve,the after school activities that theyare not paid for.
This seems to be a common flaw in most countries and until these
factors are taken into consideration when deciding on payment it will
continue.

LinLu...@webtv.net

unread,

Nov 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/14/00

you make some really good points and this issue does need to be
addressed but.....If you want anyone to pay attention to what you are
saying you need to make your points in quicker. Your origanal post is a
way too long for the average person to read. It is too easy to lose
interest fast. I will read youir post again...when i am alone and make
comments. You sound very intelligent and I can say this much allready:
The High school my 17 Yr old attends does very little to prepare these
young adults for the real world. Most of the teachers, in my opinion,
are over payed and under worked. Most do not give a damn about the kids
and are quite relieved when the kids that have learning differences drop
out. I have had many issues over my son's education for about 6 yrs now
and I am treated like I don't count. It is only the kids that are on
the "college track" that matter. That is because the teachers and other
faculty do not have to work very hard to get them through 4 yrs of
curriculm. And they say the kids are lazy...I believe it is the
teachers who are the lazy ones.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Nov 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/14/00

I'm not Alberto, but I've argued with him enough to understand his argument
even when I disagree with it.

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Now to address your well considered points: If we say the problem is in
>the children's homes, where does that leave us? Are we going to change
>the culture in the homes of all these children. I don't think that's
>practical. Do we give up on these kids. Oops, wait, we've already tried
>that!

His answer would be - none of the above. But if the kids want to succeed in
21st century America, THEY have to not give up on themselves - THEY have to
abandon the losing aspects of their own culture. No one can do it for them;
they have to do it for themselves.

Alberto was himself disadvantaged in background, and overcame that background
in a country a lot less forgiving of bad background than ours is. His father
was even more disadvantaged in background, and still worked himself up to a
respectable level in his society.

>We make little or no effort to shape a school curriculum that's
>appropriate for these disadvantaged children.

His argument is that the appropriate school curriculum for a child has
NOTHING to do with the child's background, and everything to do with where he
is trying to go.

>Already 50% or more 8th
>graders will drop out of high school or fail to graduate for academic
>reasons. These are the raw material for the ghetto underclass, with
>it's drugs, crime, violence and lost lives. If they can't "come to
>grips", who pays the price. The obvious aswer is, WE ALL DO!

Of course, and this is where I tend to disagree with Alberto. On the other
hand, who is entitled to decide for a 9th grader that he will take a
less-challenging vo-tech high school curriculum, one that will shut him out
of the college option possibly permanently? Not the teachers or the school
district, and by that age perhaps not even the parents should have the right
to so constrain their childrens' future. So the schools have to teach all
kids as if they were potentially aiming for the top. The vo-tech programs,
even if they pay as well as the lower tiers of the college educated, simply
require less background and less preparation than the corresponding college
degrees, and someone with college can switch into a vo-tech career much
easier than someone with vo-tech training can go back to college for a degree
(indeed, burnt out engineers and programmers OFTEN make the switch into
non-technical careers, and do so with relatively little effort).

>> Why not ? The concept that students in a place like Oakland should not be
>> pushed to the same extent that the students of, say, Newton Massachusetts,
>> is a bit foreign to me. Go down to Rio where I was educated, and see if my
>> old high school, or my college for that matter, will drive any of its South
>> American students any less hard than Andover or Amherst drive theirs up
>> here. But let's carry on.

I think this is key to his argument. With the exception of our most academic
schools, we simply do not demand of our schoolkids nearly as much as other
countries do in their schools. We have high school kids who have TIME for
jobs on the side (and you note that some of the kids in Oakland NEED that
time to care for siblings and help support their families) and also for extra
curricular activities, but high school students in most countries do not work
and are expected to spend their high school years LEARNING. The ones who
choose a non-academics track are pretty much permanently shut off from the
higher track (and I thereby show the prejudice you complain about in saying
that the college-educated academic track is the "higher" one, but in our
society, blue collar workers are a lower social class even if they manage to
parlay their skills into good money - and our society wants to pretend that
there are NO social class distinctions, so it will not encourage people into
a track that it will discriminate against, especially if they are minorities
who already have a history of discriminatory tracking).

>I have a question. When you train your employees, how much time and
>money is spent on teaching them social studies, creative writing,
>algebra, geometry and American History. Not much I'd wager. Now I love
>history and political science, I majored in them in college, but by no
>stretch of the imagination can they be considered life survival skills,
>or even employment skills.

They are neither employment nor life survival skills. They are part of what
we call an "education" as opposed to mere "training". Alan Lichtenstein is
the stronger proponent of schools being for "education" rather than for
"training" than is Alberto, and again I disagree with Alan's extremist
position, but our society has chosen to include those subjects you mentioned
as being the marks of an educated American, and will not accept as an equal,
someone who has shunned those indicators of education.

Now also in answer to your question, Alberto expects all his employees to
know a lot more math than merely algebra and geometry before they are hired
and therefore would not consider training employees in them. It's safe to
say that there are very few professions that would not benefit from these
subjects, though often they are not taught in ways that show kids how useful
the subjects are in everyday life. Creative writing is not that important,
but American business often decries the lack of ability of workers to write
clearly and concisely.

Social studies and American history have little to do with the workplace, but
they are vital when it comes to an election like the recent one - why should
the kids of Oakland be given any different preparation for their
responsibilities as American citizens than any other American kid on any
educational track? If anything, the fact that they come from a background
further removed from those who typical end up leading this country means that
we have an even greater responsibility to see that the kids of Oakland get
all the cultural background needed to understand and possibly to compete
should they ever decide to seek elective office. Those from the "right
background" will have gotten some amount of acculturation to political
leadership merely because of their background.

>> > If you haven’t noticed, it takes more training and experience
>> > to be a journeyman carpenter than it takes to be a college educated
>> > social worker! It pays better too!
>>
>> But it doesn't pay more than being a computer science major with a
>masters
>> degree. Or more than a college educated electrical engineer.
>Actually, many
>> jobs in hot demand today just cannot be performed by individuals
>without
>> that magic degree.
>>
>But for 80 percent of the kids in Oakland Schools, that's all academic
>(in both common usages of the word). Going to just isn't a practical
>option.

But who should decide which are the 80%. Not the kids, because they are
still kids and should not be making such life determining decisions. Not
their parents who are limited by their own lack of education and experience.
Not the teachers who as you say are limited in their understanding of the
kids and their culture and background. So we treat all kids the same and
expect the most of them ALL, then provide alternate paths as late in
education as possible for those who drop off the "high" track. the reason
why we have vo-tech classes in community college now instead of in high
school, is because the kids are adults when they choose those classes, and
they have the right and responsibility to choose their own paths. Our
society does not want to let them choose a path we consider socially "lesser"
when they are still children.

That they choose anyway, by dropping out, is the flaw in the underlying
prejudice. This is at least an argument for letting 16 year olds (thus of
the age to drop out) choose a vo-tech path and providing for that path. but
I would question whether alternatives would be acceptable to the American
public for any but the severely disabled who cannot succeed on the "top
tracks" because of their handicaps.

>> The way I see it, what's missing is METTLE. Gimme, gimme, gimme, that's all
>> I hear. No wonder they don't get very far!

>I do know that Oakland Unified School District had legal control of
>these kids for 13 consecutive years, and if the result is as you
>describe, isn't it a prime candidate to receive a substantial part of
>the blame? I know hi-tech employers salivate at the idea of bringing
>the best and the brightest to America from less developed countries,
>but you know, we have "less developed countries" in the inner-cities of
>every large urban area of America. Are you saying we've spoiled these
>people with too much kindness?

I think Alberto would say that ALL American kids are spoiled by too much
catering to their individual wants as contrasted with what society NEEDS of
them.

>Or that making a greater effort to
>accomodate their needs would be detrimental to their character?

Why are their needs different from the needs of any other American kid?

>> I don't know about the others, but computer salaries are way higher than
>> that. My students are getting $50K or $60K straight out of their M.Sc., and
>> you only have to look at places like monster.com to figure out the real
>> salary computer specialists are demanding. Unless, of course, the figures
>> include blue-collar computer work, but then, maybe you're right, one doesn't
>> need a college degree for those, and the salaries will be significantly
>> lower than those obtained by kids with computer science or EE degrees.

>Hey, you nknow your business much better than I do, but what I read is
>that for many I.T. managers experience trumps class-room every time.

Alberto considers most "I.T. managers" to be working with what he has termed
"blue-collar computer work".

You are correct that experience trumps classroom. But the experience Alberto
seeks is seldom accessible outside the classroom unless someone effectively
turns their home computer lab into a personal classroom and learns the field
by doing it on their own. For others, computer work is a chicken and egg
situation - you can't get the job without experience or a degree, and you
need the job in order to get the experience.

>I support college prep programs, but 80% of our children will never
>graduate from a 4 year college,

And Alberto would say that the fact that this number is so low means that we
will end up hiring the missing college graduates from outside this country.

But your numbers are low. As of 1998 per the Census Bureau, 24.4% of
Americans 25 and older had completed 4 years of college or more, and the
percentage was rising at just under 1/2 percent a year. Among the younger
people, those 25 to 34, 27.5% had completed a 4 year degree or higher, 8.7%
more had an associates degree, and 19.8% had some college but no degree.
Thus more than 55% of the people the new high school graduate will have to
compete with in the workplace will have some college, and more than a third
will have some kind of degree, and in 10-15 years when they themselves are in
the middle of that 25-34 age group, the percentage willlikely be 5-10%
higher.

>> You see, it isn't up to society to change to be the way we want, it's up to
>> us to take steps to belong to the society within which we choose to live.
>> And if someone's refuge is crime and drugs, serve them right - there's
>> nothing in my arithmetic that effaces the need for self control and personal
>> responsibility. I'm sorry, on this subject you get no sympathy from me.
>>
>You've got your's, so screw them? I don't think you really believe
>that.

No he doesn't. Not exactly.

Would you consider going to an inner-city highschool and looking
>into the faces of these children and tell them, "if you can't over-come
>the violence and ignorance in your home, the crime in your
>neighborhood, the drugs on every corner, the apathy of your teachers,
>and the negative pressure of you friends, screw you!"?

No, he would probably say something like "You CAN overcome the violence,
ignorance, crime, and drugs. But it has to come from inside YOU, by hard
work over a long period of time. No one else can get you out of the ghetto
but yourself, but you yourself CAN. Life is not fair, and you can't expect
any breaks - you'll have to make your own. And if you don't, you will be
screwed, and you'll only have yourself to blame."

>> > It doesn’t have to be this way. When will it ever change? Perhaps in a
>> > generation, or two, or three, the victims of this insidious system will
>> > find their voice, rise up, and demand that the system serve their needs
>> > too. Perhaps.
>>
>> The answer is simple: RESPONSIBILITY.
>>
>> Behave like an American, you will be treated as an American. Ignore America,
>> and America will ignore you. Challenge America, and America will challenge
>> you. Reject America, and America will reject you. It isn't the school
>> system's responsibility to figure out how to change the country to suit me,
>> it's my problem to figure out how to fit into the country. Otherwise, what's
>> the point in being here ?
>>
>> And until that happens, no, things won't change.
>>

>I guess it's easy to reject these kids, they don't look like us, have
>our values, speak out language, and, well, we don't go into that part
>of town anyway.

Alberto doesn't "look like us" and came from his country not speaking our
language very well, and he still doesn't exactly share the typical American
values (he has what used to be called the "American Protestant work ethic",
though he is not of that religion or culture in background - relatively few
Americans have that work ethic anymore - we are too rich a people and expect
wealth to come to us without the hard work, and figure that if we don't get
it, itr is because of our lack of connections and not our lack of work)

>When commandment love your "neighbor" was given, I
>don't think it just included the people on our block.

His is the tough love of Jaime Escalante (see the movie _Stand and Deliver_)
who took kids from an LA slum just as bad as Oakland and got large
percentages through AP calculus through hard work.

I'm not sure that his approach would work for all, but higher expectations,
indeed higher DEMANDS made of our kids, with less room for the kid to choose
*not* to succeed, would probably lead to higher educational success. Whether
we are willing to sacrifice the implicit decrease in our freedom of reducing
the choice to fail in order to allow pursuit of other goals is something that
is still in need of debate.

lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 14, 2000, 11:45:12 PM11/14/00

> >I'm not sure what it's like in the U.S. but I know that here in the
> U.K. there are a number of reasons for the poor quality of our
> education system.One of these reason is sim8ilar to that of the U.S.
> schools in that teachers in both countries i believe are severly
> underpaid in relation to the stress they undergo,the training they
> recieve,the after school activities that theyare not paid for.
> This seems to be a common flaw in most countries and until these
> factors are taken into consideration when deciding on payment it will
> continue.

I used to think that too. Classroon teachers in Oakland earn up to
$68,000 per year. I subscribe to the British magazine New Scientist. It
has page after page of job postings for PHD's that don't earn nearly
that much. Would any of them be interested in teaching high school in
sunny California?

$540 million dollars to educate 54,000 for 9 months should be enough.
In addition, last spring the citizens of Oakland approved funding for a
$300 million re-building of school facilities. The current answer to
all of our problems is known as the "Small Schools Project". The
educational theoreticians have come to the conclusion that our schools
are too large, and that having many small schools will do the trick.
Let's see, let me look in my crystal ball. Yes, it's 2005 and we've
discovered that our administraive costs have gone ballistic because all
these "small schools" require principals, and assistant principals, and
medical stall, and counselors, and clerical staff, and oh my God what
else. And, worse yet, the kids are doing no better for it all!! I do
hope my crystal ball is lying to me. There are too many children's
lives at risk already.

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 15, 2000, 12:54:52 AM11/15/00

In response to your considered comments...

I left high school (which I hated) in 1961 and went to work in a book
bindery for $1.25 an hour. I felt fortunate to get the job. I worked
there for 6 months, and, with the draft hanging over me, I enlisted in
the Air Force. Among other things, the Air Force gave me training in
computer programming, punched card machine wiring and basic statistics.
In less than a year, I had the training for a lifetime of well-above
average income and status. The Air Force didn't ask me what courses I
took in high school (none of any particular relevance), or what college
degree I had (I had none). What they saw in me was potential I didn't
know I had. I was thirty years of age by the time I got around to
getting a college degree.

Now, I know personal anecdotes don't mean much, but, I do know that
over the last 35 years, I've worked with a lot of people that didn't
have degrees, but you wouldn't know that unless they told you.
Everywhere I worked, performance was what mattered, not your pedigree.
Now, I hate to be the dog in the manger here, but, my experience has
taught me that college degrees are vastly over-rated. I discovered that
college wasn't nearly as difficult as the "real world" was. You read a
few chapters, take a couple notes, write a few book reports, and wolah!
You're an cultured, educated man. Look, they even give you a piece of
paper that says so. Give me a break!

Well, the Army is not that much of an option for inner-city kids today.
Many of them already have police records by the time they leave high
school.

Yes, I too have seen the census numbers on college graduation. Please
consider this: in many middle - upper middle class suburban high
schools, 90% of the class goes to college after graduation. Now look at
Oakland's schools. 4000 kids leave the 8th grade to enter high school,
of these 1,600 graduate! I'd be very, very surprised if 400 of these
kids ever graduate from a four year college. Oakland's SAT9 test
scores reach down into the single digit percentiles. And the SAT9
test population includes hundreds of other failing inner-city schools,
and does NOT include the top private schools (like Ms. Clinton went to,
for example).

The other day I was talking to my 12 year old son about making rational
choices. I told him that evaluating risk is an important element in
making rational choices. Several comments have been made on this forum
about the risk of depriving some of these inner-city children of a
college education. I really believe that an objective analysis of the
risks envolved would show that these children have a much better chance
of dieing from a drug over-dose, gang-rape in some prison hell-hole, or
being shot in some random act of violence, than they'll ever have a
risk of missing out on their chance to go to a university.

"Life is not fair, and you can't expect any breaks". Is that really
where we are, as we begin our 21st century? After all the great
philosophical, technological, socialogical "progress" we have made
since we pulled ourselves up out of the muck, it really comes down to
that? As I said before, God help us all....

Alberto

unread,

Nov 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/15/00

I have been posting in misc.education for many years now, and my viewpoints
are well known by the regulars. And unfortunately I have a lot to say about
it!

Alberto.

Alberto

unread,

Nov 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/15/00

to Bob LeChevalier

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> I'm not Alberto, but I've argued with him enough to understand his argument
> even when I disagree with it.

It's good to see some understanding, even at the price of disagreement! Thanks,
Bob, for putting it in less extreme terms than I did. I just want to further
comment on a couple of points.

> And Alberto would say that the fact that this number is so low means that we

> Alberto doesn't "look like us" and came from his country not speaking our

> language very well, and he still doesn't exactly share the typical American
> values (he has what used to be called the "American Protestant work ethic",
> though he is not of that religion or culture in background - relatively few
> Americans have that work ethic anymore - we are too rich a people and expect
> wealth to come to us without the hard work, and figure that if we don't get
> it, itr is because of our lack of connections and not our lack of work)

Well...

I don't see my self with the Protestant work ethic, although there are several
points where my values and theirs touch. I was educated by Catholic priests, in the
strict, ascetic, self-denying and contemplative way Catholic students and even
priests used to be educated throughout the ages. If you look at the image of a
Middle Ages monk in his cell, surrounded by books and strange apparatus, that's an
image not far from that of Alberto in his den today.

> His is the tough love of Jaime Escalante (see the movie _Stand and Deliver_)
> who took kids from an LA slum just as bad as Oakland and got large
> percentages through AP calculus through hard work.

Yes. I don't know the guy, but I believe I know where he came from, and what he
tries to do. You know, this is something I still don't have an answer for: how come
so many of these kids did quite well down there, and do so badly up here ? Many of
them aren't that poor, nor that ignorant, not that problem-ridden either. Yet...

Alberto.

Alberto

unread,

Nov 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/15/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> I left high school (which I hated) in 1961 and went to work in a book
> bindery for $1.25 an hour. I felt fortunate to get the job. I worked
> there for 6 months, and, with the draft hanging over me, I enlisted in
> the Air Force. Among other things, the Air Force gave me training in
> computer programming, punched card machine wiring and basic statistics.
> In less than a year, I had the training for a lifetime of well-above
> average income and status. The Air Force didn't ask me what courses I
> took in high school (none of any particular relevance), or what college
> degree I had (I had none). What they saw in me was potential I didn't
> know I had. I was thirty years of age by the time I got around to
> getting a college degree.

You seem to confirm some of my points. Look back at your Air Force
experience, and tell me how they managed to make you into a professional in
one year. I believe I know the answer, because I graduated from a Military
College. If only we had more of that around, things would be a whole lot
different.

> Now, I know personal anecdotes don't mean much, but, I do know that
> over the last 35 years, I've worked with a lot of people that didn't
> have degrees, but you wouldn't know that unless they told you.
> Everywhere I worked, performance was what mattered, not your pedigree.
> Now, I hate to be the dog in the manger here, but, my experience has
> taught me that college degrees are vastly over-rated. I discovered that
> college wasn't nearly as difficult as the "real world" was. You read a
> few chapters, take a couple notes, write a few book reports, and wolah!
> You're an cultured, educated man. Look, they even give you a piece of
> paper that says so. Give me a break!

The point isn't the piece of paper, the point is the way of thinking. It
isn't enough to have the degree, in order to work on something that needs a
college degree one must think like a college level graduate. There's a whole
frame of mind to be acquired in those four years, and a process of
acculturation to pass through. Those books, reports and notes are in a sense
the least important events in the life of a college student. It isn't enough
that you know what a college grad does, you must think like one!

What does happen, however, is that a lot of people get college jobs and then
go work in activities that don't require that degree. But look for a moment
to things where the degree does make a difference: for example, Engineering,
Chemistry, Geology, Computer Science (no, not IT!). Can you get a job in the
Air Force and learn how to design an aircraft ? I sincerely doubt it. Would
there be an Air Force without those of us who can design aircrafts ? I don't
think so.

Alberto.

LinLu...@webtv.net

unread,

Nov 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/15/00

I did not mean to offend you in any way. I found your post quite
interesting. I guess the problem is having Attention Deficit Disorder I
found it hard to get through. I am also new at posting so bear with me
please! Now that I found this news group I will continue to read the
posts and hope to learn how to help my own kids get the most out of
their education.

m miller

unread,

Nov 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/15/00

Without question, some interesting and well-thought arguments are
presented here. Could we PLEASE have the Cliff's Notes version
instead??

Matt

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/16/00

Ok. try this:

Our schools systems won't change, because those who make policy are
themselves products of a failed system.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Nov 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/16/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >I'm not sure what it's like in the U.S. but I know that here in the
>> U.K. there are a number of reasons for the poor quality of our
>> education system.One of these reason is sim8ilar to that of the U.S.
>> schools in that teachers in both countries i believe are severly
>> underpaid in relation to the stress they undergo,the training they
>> recieve,the after school activities that theyare not paid for.
>> This seems to be a common flaw in most countries and until these
>> factors are taken into consideration when deciding on payment it will
>> continue.
>
>I used to think that too. Classroon teachers in Oakland earn up to
>$68,000 per year. I subscribe to the British magazine New Scientist. It
>has page after page of job postings for PHD's that don't earn nearly
>that much. Would any of them be interested in teaching high school in
>sunny California?

You are making a faulty comparison. That $68K is not a starting salary in
Oakland, but the pay for someone with 15 or 20 years experience. A PhD
working in his field with that many years experience would not be earning a
mere $68K. The starting salary is more likely in the $30K-$40K, and is
probably that high only because inner city schools have a reputation for
crime and violence that makes teachers shy away from working there.

>$540 million dollars to educate 54,000 for 9 months should be enough.

In 1997, there were 2781 classroom teachers and 1564 other employees. The
budget in 1995-6 was $292 million. If there has been a doubling in costs in
just 3 years then there is some missing information as to what this money is
budgeted for. Have you a better breakdown on this budget?

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Nov 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/16/00

And here is the key difference - the now professionalized military doesn't
want you with less than a high school diploma, and I've heard that the AF, of
the services, often expects some college if you want any choice of specialty.

The amount of education needed for entry level (anything higher than fast
food clerk, that is) has risen significantly for all career paths; the more
education people on average have, the worse off someone without that
education will be. The last 10 years, this has been somewhat invisible
because of the economic boom and very low unemployment, but the moment the
economy turns down again, the kids with less education will get nowhere at
all.

Oh, 35 years ago, you certainly did not need a degree for all these fields
(computer science degrees were a new idea that long ago). And people who
started then were grandfathered in by their experience as the education
demands started to rise. I would say that getting a computer job became
pretty much a college-or-equivalent-required thing in the 80s - there was one
top technical guy without a degree in my company in the mid-80s. But they
weren't hiring anyone new without the degree (8 years experience was
considered the equivalent of a degree then). The best non-degree path up was
for a secretary/administrator to take courses at night and after a few years
switch into being an entry level programmer. But the one I knew was being
paid secretarial wages for programming until she had done it for a few years,
and then she had to change companies to be hired as a "programmer" rather
than as a secretary.

>Everywhere I worked, performance was what mattered, not your pedigree.

That is fine, but nowadays no one will give you a chance to show performance.
The degree is your proof of sufficient competence to be given that chance.

>Now, I hate to be the dog in the manger here, but, my experience has
>taught me that college degrees are vastly over-rated. I discovered that
>college wasn't nearly as difficult as the "real world" was.

I agree. But personnel managers will still weed your resume out without that
degree. As long as there are more applicants than positions, college on the
resume is a weedout factor that will prevent you from even getting an
interview, much less the chance to show you could perform.

>You read a
>few chapters, take a couple notes, write a few book reports, and wolah!
>You're an cultured, educated man. Look, they even give you a piece of
>paper that says so. Give me a break!

Well, technical degrees are a bit more challenging than that.

>Well, the Army is not that much of an option for inner-city kids today.
>Many of them already have police records by the time they leave high
>school.

Yep. And companies will look at those police records too. So anyone with a
record has to have even better academic credentials in order to make up for
the record.

>Yes, I too have seen the census numbers on college graduation. Please
>consider this: in many middle - upper middle class suburban high
>schools, 90% of the class goes to college after graduation. Now look at
>Oakland's schools. 4000 kids leave the 8th grade to enter high school,
>of these 1,600 graduate! I'd be very, very surprised if 400 of these
>kids ever graduate from a four year college. Oakland's SAT9 test
>scores reach down into the single digit percentiles. And the SAT9
>test population includes hundreds of other failing inner-city schools,
>and does NOT include the top private schools (like Ms. Clinton went to,
>for example).

So what happens to the rest? In DC, a VERY high percentage of the inner city
males are behind bars.

You see, saying that Oakland kids are NOT going to college doesn't prove
much. They aren't even finishing high school as you point out. This makes a
weak case that adding a vo-tech option in high school would necessarily help
the kids out - would they stay in high school enough to take advantage of it?

>The other day I was talking to my 12 year old son about making rational
>choices. I told him that evaluating risk is an important element in
>making rational choices. Several comments have been made on this forum
>about the risk of depriving some of these inner-city children of a
>college education. I really believe that an objective analysis of the
>risks envolved would show that these children have a much better chance
>of dieing from a drug over-dose, gang-rape in some prison hell-hole, or
>being shot in some random act of violence, than they'll ever have a
>risk of missing out on their chance to go to a university.

I understand and agree. But no one is entitled to judge the risk factors for
an individual kid other than the kid himself and his parents, and seldom do
they know enough todo that risk assessment wisely.

>"Life is not fair, and you can't expect any breaks". Is that really
>where we are, as we begin our 21st century?

Yep. And that is where we will be as we start the 2nd century, It is one of
life's enduring truths.

>After all the great
>philosophical, technological, socialogical "progress" we have made
>since we pulled ourselves up out of the muck, it really comes down to
>that? As I said before, God help us all....

God helps those that help themselves, so even there you don't get a break %^)

The real problem is that our "style" of pulling ourselves out of the muck has
always depended on just that - pulling *ourselves*. Individual initiative
can go a long way in this country and sometimes can overcome an educational
handicap as well. But no one can do it for you, and even someone trying to
help may spoil the chance for you to be able to claim that you did it
yourself.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00

In article <3A1290EA...@moreira.mv.com>,
Alberto <alb...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:

>> I'm not Alberto, but I've argued with him enough to understand his argument
>> even when I disagree with it.

>It's good to see some understanding, even at the price of disagreement! Thanks,

>Bob, for putting it in less extreme terms than I did. I just want to further
>comment on a couple of points.

>> And Alberto would say that the fact that this number is so low means that we

>> Alberto doesn't "look like us" and came from his country not speaking our

>> language very well, and he still doesn't exactly share the typical American
>> values (he has what used to be called the "American Protestant work ethic",
>> though he is not of that religion or culture in background - relatively few
>> Americans have that work ethic anymore - we are too rich a people and expect
>> wealth to come to us without the hard work, and figure that if we don't get
>> it, itr is because of our lack of connections and not our lack of work)

>Well...

>I don't see my self with the Protestant work ethic, although there are several
>points where my values and theirs touch. I was educated by Catholic priests, in the
>strict, ascetic, self-denying and contemplative way Catholic students and even
>priests used to be educated throughout the ages. If you look at the image of a
>Middle Ages monk in his cell, surrounded by books and strange apparatus, that's an
>image not far from that of Alberto in his den today.

I suppose it was called the Protestant work ethic because
many of the branches believed that it was demanded by God,
and that one was not to be given anything not earned. This
work ethic was present in many other groups as well. It
could be that not too many of the Catholics of the time
were perceived to have it.

You are right about the attitude of most Americans to it
now; what is the problem is that these believers in pollyana
wish to deny to those with the work ethic the fruit of their
labors, insisting that it is not that, but connections.

Along with the work ethic was the learning ethic. Again,
those who do not have it wish to deny more learning to
those who have it and wish to use it. They take the
attitude that education is given, not that learning is
mainly through the efforts of the learner. Those who come
from disadvantaged backgrounds by any reasonable definition
are denied scholarships for the disadvantaged for the sole
reason that they have the ability and have managed to learn
despite the disadvantages.

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00

In article <0g591tso9soeg0omp...@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

> jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >I'm not sure what it's like in the U.S. but I know that here in
the
> >> U.K. there are a number of reasons for the poor quality of our
> >> education system.One of these reason is sim8ilar to that of the
U.S.
> >> schools in that teachers in both countries i believe are severly
> >> underpaid in relation to the stress they undergo,the training they
> >> recieve,the after school activities that theyare not paid for.
> >> This seems to be a common flaw in most countries and until these
> >> factors are taken into consideration when deciding on payment it
will
> >> continue.
> >
> >I used to think that too. Classroon teachers in Oakland earn up to
> >$68,000 per year. I subscribe to the British magazine New Scientist.
It
> >has page after page of job postings for PHD's that don't earn nearly
> >that much. Would any of them be interested in teaching high school in
> >sunny California?
>

> You are making a faulty comparison. That $68K is not a starting
salary in
> Oakland, but the pay for someone with 15 or 20 years experience. A
PhD
> working in his field with that many years experience would not be
earning a
> mere $68K. The starting salary is more likely in the $30K-$40K, and
is
> probably that high only because inner city schools have a reputation
for
> crime and violence that makes teachers shy away from working there.
>

> >$540 million dollars to educate 54,000 for 9 months should be enough.
>

> lojbab
> --
> lojbab loj...@lojban.org
> Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
> 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-
0273
> Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
http://www.lojban.org
>

Respectfully, I must say that, no, I'm not making a false comparison.
As, I stated, Oakland teachers "earn up to $68,000 per year". Their
starting salary is $38,000. Even at $68,000, you will find very few
PHD's in Oakland's classsrooms.

I have made an effort to educate myself on Oakland Unified School
District's (OUSD) budget, but they don't make it easy. I attend School
Board meetings, OUSD Budget Committee meetings, Citizens Budget
Advisory Committee meetings; I read every news article I can find and
talk with OUSD headquarters staff. And you know what, I still can't
figure the damn budget out!

Per your figures: the 2000-2001 Budget Overview docmument shows OUSD
with 6,620 employees, among them, 3,249 teachers. Note how these
numbers compare with the 1995-1996 numbers you quote. The
under "certificated staff" the Budget Overview also lists 228
administrators and 103 "public services" employees. All told, the
numbers that the detail don't add up to nearly 6,600 employees.

It's been stated by board members that 85% of the budget "goes into the
classoom", what ever that means. I do see major bucks going into
contracted service agreements ("curriculum development", "internet web
page design", and studies, studies and more studies).

Of course teachers shy away from teaching in Oakland! And the "WHY" of
the situation is my whole point! Typical high school teachers have not
the training, experience or inclination to address the real needs of
inner-city kids, AND THE KIDS KNOW IT!!! Anyone who attempts to break
the downward spiral of educational bankruptcy is marginalized,
ostrasized and ridiculed. Oakland spends tens of millions on the very
latest technologies, instructional programs, curriculum evaluation
systems, teacher performance and accountability programs, etc., etc.,
etc. Every one of them has an acronym and a PHD behind it. But you know
what. The kids still fail by the tens of thousands. Once again, the
operation was a success, but the patient died!!!

I've been falted already for going on to long, so I'll leave it at that.

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00

In article <0g591tso9soeg0omp...@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> >> >I'm not sure what it's like in the U.S. but I know that here in
the
> >> U.K. there are a number of reasons for the poor quality of our
> >> education system.One of these reason is sim8ilar to that of the
U.S.
> >> schools in that teachers in both countries i believe are severly
> >> underpaid in relation to the stress they undergo,the training they
> >> recieve,the after school activities that theyare not paid for.
> >> This seems to be a common flaw in most countries and until these
> >> factors are taken into consideration when deciding on payment it
will
> >> continue.
> >
> >I used to think that too. Classroon teachers in Oakland earn up to
> >$68,000 per year. I subscribe to the British magazine New Scientist.
It
> >has page after page of job postings for PHD's that don't earn nearly
> >that much. Would any of them be interested in teaching high school in
> >sunny California?
>

> >$540 million dollars to educate 54,000 for 9 months should be enough.
>

> In 1997, there were 2781 classroom teachers and 1564 other
employees. The
> budget in 1995-6 was $292 million. If there has been a doubling in
costs in
> just 3 years then there is some missing information as to what this
money is
> budgeted for. Have you a better breakdown on this budget?
>
> lojbab
> --
> lojbab loj...@lojban.org
> Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
> 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-
0273
> Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
http://www.lojban.org
>
Respectfully, I must say that, no, I'm not making a false comparison.
As, I stated, Oakland teachers "earn up to $68,000 per year". Their
starting salary is $38,000. Even at $68,000, you will find very few

PHD's in Oakland's classrooms. On page 114 of the November 4 New
Scientist, the University of Ulster advertises for a PHD in statistics,
salary range 17,755 to 30,967 pounds.

Per your figures: the 2000-2001 Budget Overview docmument shows OUSD
with 6,620 employees, among them, 3,249 teachers. Note how these
numbers compare with the 1995-1996 numbers you quote.

Under "certificated staff" the Budget Overview also lists 228

administrators and 103 "public services" employees. All told, the

numbers that they detail don't add up to nearly 6,600 employees.

It's been stated by School Board members that 85% of the budget "goes

into the classoom", what ever that means. I do see major bucks going
into contracted service agreements ("curriculum development", "internet
web page design", and studies, studies and more studies).

what? The kids still fail by the tens of thousands. Once again, the

operation was a success, but the patient died!!!

I've been falted already for going on to long, so I'll leave it at that.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Nov 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/19/00

In article <8v3s4c$sqn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <0g591tso9soeg0omp...@4ax.com>,
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

.................

>Of course teachers shy away from teaching in Oakland! And the "WHY" of
>the situation is my whole point! Typical high school teachers have not
>the training, experience or inclination to address the real needs of
>inner-city kids, AND THE KIDS KNOW IT!!!

Anyone who does not teach them at the same level as the
children in Beverly Hills or whatever other district you
name is the source of the problem. There is no "real
needs of inner-city kids", other than to be taught the
most they, as individuals, can learn.

Anyone who attempts to break
>the downward spiral of educational bankruptcy is marginalized,
>ostrasized and ridiculed. Oakland spends tens of millions on the very
>latest technologies, instructional programs, curriculum evaluation
>systems, teacher performance and accountability programs, etc., etc.,
>etc. Every one of them has an acronym and a PHD behind it. But you know
>what? The kids still fail by the tens of thousands.

Possibly not all have the ability or the drive to succeed?
By teaching all of a given age in the same manner, the ones
who can do better are deprived of their chance. Until the
schools become strictly educational, and do not attempt to
make all equally dumb, nothing more will happen.

Once again, the
>operation was a success, but the patient died!!!

The operation was NOT a success. What do you expect with
the hyperegalitarian witch doctors doing the operating?

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/19/00

> Anyone who does not teach them at the same level as the
> children in Beverly Hills or whatever other district you
> name is the source of the problem. There is no "real
> needs of inner-city kids", other than to be taught the
> most they, as individuals, can learn.

***********************************************
I don't think so. You could take any 30 kids who are failing in Oakland
high schools, and put them into Beverly Hills high schools, and do you
know what you'd get? Twenty empty seats and 10 graduates with no job or
educational prospects. These kids DO have unique needs, that's my whole
point! You can put them into every AP English class, honors chemistry
class, and independent study art class that Beverly Hills offers, and
it won't mean a thing to 90 percent of these kids. I don't know what
your life experience has been, but I'll bet it didn't include living in
a stinking, filthy inner-city ghetto, surrounded by noise, ignorance,
vilolence, drugs and crime. These kids are not empty vessels, to be
filled with "knowledge". Prescribing an educational curriculum that has
no consideration of application is at best irresponsible, and, I worst,
criminally neglegent! Look at OUT-COMES! Go to any American inner city
and LOOK AROUND YOU!! What you see is the product of our educational
system! Inner city kids are not genetically pre-disposed to failure.
They are programmed to fail!! Please re-read the original message in
this thread. Please! These kids lives are at stake!

***********************************************

> The operation was NOT a success. What do you expect with
> the hyperegalitarian witch doctors doing the operating?
> --

***************************************************
"hyperegalitarian" is it now?? Well, I guess some of thse kids are just
going to have to fail aren't they? It's just part of the "natural"
selection process. An apllication of social Darwinism, perhaps. Just a
kind of, well, "weeding out" process? Maybe we should be more up front
about this. I suggest that on the first day of the 9th grade, the
teacher make an announcement:

"We know that half of you will drop out before graduation, half of the
remainder will have to attend another 2-4 years of school to have any
usable career skill, and the rest will leave high school wondering
exactly what the hell the practical value was of 98% of what you were
taught. Children, what you don't under stand is, the real purpose of
public education is to instill a since of helplessness and guilt in the
minds of those who we have not programmed to succeed; while at the same
time instilling a well balanced since of social superiority and
insecurity among those who we have chosen to be this generations worker-
bees. Those of you who are not programmed to succeed are requested to
stay in your own part of town, and to most directly confine your
criminal activities to your own neighborhood. You are now excused.".

**************************************************

Herman Rubin

unread,

Nov 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/19/00

In article <8v9dv5$slv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>> Anyone who does not teach them at the same level as the
>> children in Beverly Hills or whatever other district you
>> name is the source of the problem. There is no "real
>> needs of inner-city kids", other than to be taught the
>> most they, as individuals, can learn.
>***********************************************
>I don't think so. You could take any 30 kids who are failing in Oakland
>high schools, and put them into Beverly Hills high schools, and do you
>know what you'd get?

Education does not start in high school. Those who are
willing and able to learn are greatly harmed if they are
kept from doing what they can from the beginning. The
others need different types of education; putting children
of different abilities and backgrounds in the same class,
because of age or where they live, is anti-educational.

..............

Go to any American inner city
>and LOOK AROUND YOU!! What you see is the product of our educational
>system! Inner city kids are not genetically pre-disposed to failure.
>They are programmed to fail!! Please re-read the original message in
>this thread. Please! These kids lives are at stake!

If you use the approach you suggest, NONE of them will get
a decent education; the system does not care.

>***********************************************

>> The operation was NOT a success. What do you expect with
>> the hyperegalitarian witch doctors doing the operating?
>> --
>***************************************************

>"hyperegalitarian" is it now?? Well, I guess some of thse kids are just
>going to have to fail aren't they?

They are not all capable of achieving the same, and trying
to do this destroys ability.

It's just part of the "natural"
>selection process.

Nature does not make all equal.

This has to start in preschool, not in high school. Those
without the ability cannot achieve as much. Even in the
inner city, probably 10% or more should be in high school
by age 10. And even in the best community, 20% should not
be in any program intended for those who can consider
college.

Any "school" which attempts to the genius and the jackass
the same is run by jackasses. Try to get out of them what
they, AS INDIVIDUALS, can do. Desocialize the schools to
minimize the effect of the neighborhood. If you treat them
as if they belong in the ghetto, it will be much harder for
those who can do more to do so.

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/20/00

> It's just part of the "natural"
> >selection process.
>
> Nature does not make all equal.
>
> This has to start in preschool, not in high school. Those
> without the ability cannot achieve as much. Even in the
> inner city, probably 10% or more should be in high school
> by age 10. And even in the best community, 20% should not
> be in any program intended for those who can consider
> college.

**********************************************************
Your thesis sounds very familiar to me. I took several Black Studies
courses at San Francisco State in the 1970's. W.E.B.Debois was in vogue
back then. As nearly as I could tell, he was popular principly because
of his concept of the "talented tenth", in which the "top" 10% of
African Americans would lead the rest. As looked around the class, I
used to wonder if anyone in the room considered themselves as not being
among the "talented tenth". I guessed not. Higher education may
occasionally inspire critical thinking, but it also re-inforces the
natural human tendency toward hubris and vanity. Booker T. Washington,
on the otherhand, was held in contempt because of his emphasis on
individual responsibility, economic progress and practical skills. Not
the kind of program that appeals to either college-trained teachers,
or, students who judge themselves "leaders" of the great unwashed
masses. But then, the concept that buying a diploma assures the
significance of our lives is quite seductive, quite beyond the bounds
of race, or gender or national origin.

In the context of this discussion, would someone please
define "achievement" or "decent education" more clearly? Does a "decent
education" teach contempt for those who don't have a "decent"
education? Does in teach contempt for those who work in the trades,
crafts or other endeavors that don't require "higher" education, (even
though many crafts pay much better than careers generally available to
Liberal Arts college graduates)?

And speaking of pay, is that the universal yardstick to measure a human
beings worth? How about kindness, patience, generosity, fidelity or
integrity? Is the man who comes home to be with his child after a day
of work in a factory a less valued human being than the college-trained
computer technician who has no life but his career, has no real
interest in his family or his community, and whose only real motivation
in life is to work and consume?

When I talk to my son about "decent" education, I tell him that
education may give him options in life. It may give him greater control
over hisr life, and it may allow him to someday give his family some
degree of comfort and security. But I also tell him to never forget
that it's "family" that really matters, not all the crap that they're
constantly trying to sell him on TV. But then, that discussion properly
belongs in another forum...

gabor

unread,

Nov 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/21/00

In article <8vbrr1$p3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

If, as a foreign visitor to this discussion, I can be permitted to
answer your question, I say NO, no level of education should entitle a
person to show contempt for farmers, factory workers, electricians,
or plumbers. Not only do most of these people work hard for an honest
living, we in white-collar occupations also depend on them for producing
the goods and services we enjoy while engaged in our desk-bound tasks.

I will go further and say that many highly paid, glamorous and socially
"desirable" jobs add far less value to civilization than what is
contributed by manual workers. If you live in California, you don't have
far to look for one of the worst offenders against this view: Hollywood.
The hero or heroine in a Hollywood movie is more likely than not to
belong to one of these highly "productive" professions: lawyer,
politician, advertising executive, stockbroker, or simply a businessman
(without any indication as to what they actually do all day to deserve
their high incomes). Of course, our complex civilization does need these
professions, but doesn't it also need truck drivers, construction
workers and car mechanics? Don't they deserve as much respect?

All this is highly relevant to what you have so eloquently said with
respect to education as it is offered in today's world, particularly in
the US. Not only do current educational trends insult those who wish to
pursue perfectly respectable manual trades (which today require a lot of
high-tech know-how in any case), they also insult those with a more
intellectual persuasion (such as myself). When I see the overblown,
cliché-driven prose produced by many a college graduate, when I receive
half-literate communications from my children's school teachers or
administration (ex-school, I should say - I have moved them to a better
one), I feel that my university degree has been devalued, its
intellectual worth plunging like the monetary value of any inflated
currency.

Although no country or education system is perfect, you may wish to look
at countries such as Germany and Switzerland, which have consistently
promoted good vocational training as part of their education system. In
these countries, and in some other European countries as well, it is
still possible to find workmen (and -women) proud of their jobs, and
receiving due respect from those around them. You will find idiotic
snobs anywhere, but try to tell a Swiss watchmaker, intent on making a
fine-quality (and very expensive) watch that some young BA with a
sociology degree is in any way better than he is.

>
> And speaking of pay, is that the universal yardstick to measure a
human
> beings worth? How about kindness, patience, generosity, fidelity or
> integrity? Is the man who comes home to be with his child after a day
> of work in a factory a less valued human being than the
college-trained
> computer technician who has no life but his career, has no real
> interest in his family or his community, and whose only real
motivation
> in life is to work and consume?

Very good points, especially as it brings in the question of money as
the only worthy point of reference. Of course, money is always nice to
have (the more the better), but other standards have existed throughout
history, and in my view it is evil to dismiss an idea or an action just
because they do not make you richer. Students should be encouraged to
grow up and be able to earn a decent living, but they should not be
taught that getting rich is the only acceptable aim. A good trade-off is
what parents (and schools) should encourage them to achieve: earn enough
to maintain yourself and your family in comfort, but develop interests
outside your work (unless you are a monomaniac) so that you can actually
enjoy life.

>
> When I talk to my son about "decent" education, I tell him that
> education may give him options in life. It may give him greater
control
> over hisr life, and it may allow him to someday give his family some
> degree of comfort and security. But I also tell him to never forget
> that it's "family" that really matters, not all the crap that they're
> constantly trying to sell him on TV. But then, that discussion
properly
> belongs in another forum...
>

And may you keep up the good work with your own family,

Gabor

Herman Rubin

unread,

Nov 21, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/21/00

In article <8vbrr1$p3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

<> It's just part of the "natural"
<> >selection process.

<> Nature does not make all equal.

<> This has to start in preschool, not in high school. Those
<> without the ability cannot achieve as much. Even in the
<> inner city, probably 10% or more should be in high school
<> by age 10. And even in the best community, 20% should not
<> be in any program intended for those who can consider
<> college.
>**********************************************************
>Your thesis sounds very familiar to me. I took several Black Studies
>courses at San Francisco State in the 1970's. W.E.B.Debois was in vogue
>back then. As nearly as I could tell, he was popular principly because
>of his concept of the "talented tenth", in which the "top" 10% of
>African Americans would lead the rest.

In any group, the few will lead. But this is not what I was
discussing.

As looked around the class, I
>used to wonder if anyone in the room considered themselves as not being
>among the "talented tenth". I guessed not. Higher education may
>occasionally inspire critical thinking, but it also re-inforces the
>natural human tendency toward hubris and vanity. Booker T. Washington,
>on the otherhand, was held in contempt because of his emphasis on
>individual responsibility, economic progress and practical skills. Not
>the kind of program that appeals to either college-trained teachers,
>or, students who judge themselves "leaders" of the great unwashed
>masses. But then, the concept that buying a diploma assures the
>significance of our lives is quite seductive, quite beyond the bounds
>of race, or gender or national origin.

>In the context of this discussion, would someone please
>define "achievement" or "decent education" more clearly? Does a "decent
>education" teach contempt for those who don't have a "decent"
>education?

No. A decent education for a particular person is a reasonable
approximation of what that person can attain. It does not depend
on what others can attain. Someone might not have a decent
education because the system did not provide the opportunity.

Does in teach contempt for those who work in the trades,
>crafts or other endeavors that don't require "higher" education, (even
>though many crafts pay much better than careers generally available to
>Liberal Arts college graduates)?

Definitely not. We do not need college graduates who should not
even have graduated elementary school.

>And speaking of pay, is that the universal yardstick to measure a human
>beings worth? How about kindness, patience, generosity, fidelity or
>integrity? Is the man who comes home to be with his child after a day
>of work in a factory a less valued human being than the college-trained
>computer technician who has no life but his career, has no real
>interest in his family or his community, and whose only real motivation
>in life is to work and consume?

Nobody should try to dictate what is valued by others. But
nobody should try to reduce the education that some get because
others cannot do it.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Nov 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/22/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Anyone who does not teach them at the same level as the
>> children in Beverly Hills or whatever other district you
>> name is the source of the problem. There is no "real
>> needs of inner-city kids", other than to be taught the
>> most they, as individuals, can learn.
>***********************************************
>I don't think so. You could take any 30 kids who are failing in Oakland
>high schools, and put them into Beverly Hills high schools, and do you

>know what you'd get? Twenty empty seats and 10 graduates with no job or
>educational prospects. These kids DO have unique needs, that's my whole
>point! You can put them into every AP English class, honors chemistry
>class, and independent study art class that Beverly Hills offers, and
>it won't mean a thing to 90 percent of these kids. I don't know what
>your life experience has been, but I'll bet it didn't include living in
>a stinking, filthy inner-city ghetto, surrounded by noise, ignorance,
>vilolence, drugs and crime. These kids are not empty vessels, to be
>filled with "knowledge". Prescribing an educational curriculum that has
>no consideration of application is at best irresponsible, and, I worst,

>criminally neglegent! Look at OUT-COMES! Go to any American inner city

>and LOOK AROUND YOU!! What you see is the product of our educational
>system! Inner city kids are not genetically pre-disposed to failure.
>They are programmed to fail!!

Much as I disagree with Herman on almost everything, his point seems to be in
part that in Beverly Hills schools kids are NOT programmed for failure, but
rather for success. They are expected to succeed, and they are taught as if
they WILL succeed, and thus to some extent, the expectation becomes the
reality. If you sent inner city kids to such a school, perhaps they would
NOT end up programmed for failure.

>***********************************************
>> The operation was NOT a success. What do you expect with
>> the hyperegalitarian witch doctors doing the operating?

>***************************************************

>"hyperegalitarian" is it now?? Well, I guess some of thse kids are just

>going to have to fail aren't they? It's just part of the "natural"
>selection process. An apllication of social Darwinism, perhaps. Just a
>kind of, well, "weeding out" process? Maybe we should be more up front
>about this. I suggest that on the first day of the 9th grade, the
>teacher make an announcement:
>
>"We know that half of you will drop out before graduation, half of the
>remainder will have to attend another 2-4 years of school to have any
>usable career skill, and the rest will leave high school wondering
>exactly what the hell the practical value was of 98% of what you were
>taught. Children, what you don't under stand is, the real purpose of
>public education is to instill a since of helplessness and guilt in the
>minds of those who we have not programmed to succeed; while at the same
>time instilling a well balanced since of social superiority and
>insecurity among those who we have chosen to be this generations worker-
>bees. Those of you who are not programmed to succeed are requested to
>stay in your own part of town, and to most directly confine your
>criminal activities to your own neighborhood. You are now excused.".

How about amending this:

"We know that more than half of you will be inclined to drop out before
graduation, but those who actually do so would be making a mistake that they
will regret for the rest of their lives (which are likely to be shorter and
less happy). MOST of the remainder will have to attend another 2-4 years of
school to have any usable career skill, because the purpose of high school is
not to teach you career skills, but to prepare you educationally for
adulthood, which these days usually requires more than high school for
success. MOST will leave high school wondering exactly what the hell the
practical value was of 98% of what you were taught, but will come to
understand by the time your own kids are in school that one never knows how
important the things we learn are going to be later in life until we actually
need to know them. Children, what you don't understand is, the real purpose
of public education is to program you to succeed. You have lived in the
inner city, where success is not common, and what you need in order to
succeed is seldom taught outside of school. We have to overcome this, and
instill a sense of "can-do", and indeed "WILL-do", that will allow you as
adults to rise far beyond the helplessness that many in the inner city feel.
Those who are not frm the inner city already are taught this sense of
"can-do" from birth", but you are in no way inferior to them. You CAN
succeed, and you WILL succeed, but only if you decide that you WANT to
succeed. We are NOT going to accept that some of you will choose to fail; we
will fight to encourage you to change your mind and to choose to succeed. We
will support your choice to succeed, and it will happen.

And if in spite of our efforts, you follow through and drop out, we'll
continue to offer you a chance to change your mind until as criminals stuck
in a dead end, you end up dead or in prison. And we won't be happy about
that, but will work even harder so that the next kids that come along don't
follow that path.

You are NOT 'dismissed'. You may go to class and start your success in
learning and in life."

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Nov 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/22/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
[rearranging your post to answer one point at a time]

>In article <0g591tso9soeg0omp...@4ax.com>,
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

>> >> >I'm not sure what it's like in the U.S. but I know that here in the
>> >> U.K. there are a number of reasons for the poor quality of our
>> >> education system.One of these reason is sim8ilar to that of the U.S.
>> >> schools in that teachers in both countries i believe are severly
>> >> underpaid in relation to the stress they undergo,the training they
>> >> recieve,the after school activities that theyare not paid for.
>> >> This seems to be a common flaw in most countries and until these
>> >> factors are taken into consideration when deciding on payment it will
>> >> continue.
>> >
>> >I used to think that too. Classroon teachers in Oakland earn up to
>> >$68,000 per year. I subscribe to the British magazine New Scientist. It
>> >has page after page of job postings for PHD's that don't earn nearly
>> >that much. Would any of them be interested in teaching high school in
>> >sunny California?
>>

>> You are making a faulty comparison. That $68K is not a starting salary in
>> Oakland, but the pay for someone with 15 or 20 years experience. A PhD
>> working in his field with that many years experience would not be earning a
>> mere $68K.

>Respectfully, I must say that, no, I'm not making a false comparison.

>As, I stated, Oakland teachers "earn up to $68,000 per year". Their
>starting salary is $38,000. Even at $68,000, you will find very few
>PHD's in Oakland's classrooms.

Probably true, but you WILL find a teacher with 20+ years experience, which
in most careers is worth more money than any degree. I am not sure what
value a PHD would be to a classroom teacher in any event.

>On page 114 of the November 4 New
>Scientist, the University of Ulster advertises for a PHD in statistics,
>salary range 17,755 to 30,967 pounds.

To make any proper comparison, you would have to compare salaries in the same
locale. Salaries in Ulster are lower than in California - all of them. You
would need to compare an Ulster PhD salary with an Ulster teacher salary to
compare the pay relative to degree and/or experience. Likewise, you would
need to compare the salary of a PhD in Oakland with that of an Oakland
teacher (Berkeley PhD salaries ought to be close enough).

>> >$540 million dollars to educate 54,000 for 9 months should be enough.
>>

>> In 1997, there were 2781 classroom teachers and 1564 other employees. The
>> budget in 1995-6 was $292 million. If there has been a doubling in costs in
>> just 3 years then there is some missing information as to what this money is
>> budgeted for. Have you a better breakdown on this budget?
>>

>I have made an effort to educate myself on Oakland Unified School
>District's (OUSD) budget, but they don't make it easy. I attend School
>Board meetings, OUSD Budget Committee meetings, Citizens Budget
>Advisory Committee meetings; I read every news article I can find and
>talk with OUSD headquarters staff. And you know what, I still can't
>figure the damn budget out!
>
>Per your figures: the 2000-2001 Budget Overview docmument shows OUSD
>with 6,620 employees, among them, 3,249 teachers. Note how these
>numbers compare with the 1995-1996 numbers you quote.
>Under "certificated staff" the Budget Overview also lists 228
>administrators and 103 "public services" employees. All told, the
>numbers that they detail don't add up to nearly 6,600 employees.

I suspect that the problem is that some numbers reflect actual numbers of
employess, and others represent full-time-equivalents, and what you are
reading is not making clear which are which; this is the primary confusion I
find in budget numbers. Bus drivers and many cafeteria workers are generally
not full-time, but are employees, and in fact a substantial portion of the
total number of employees of the schools, but since they are low paid and
part timers, their share of the budget is quite a bit less than their numbers
would suggest.

But the bottom line is still uncertain. Even an increase from 4300 to 6600
employees (around a 50% increase, with most of the increase apparently in the
non-teaching categories that are lower paid), if it had really happened
between 1995 and 2000, should not lead to an increase in budget from $292
million to $540 million (almost a 90% increase). Inflation cannot account
for 40% in those 5 years. Thus I think something is wrong with the number,
but I don't know what it is.

One possibility is that the $540 million includes the capital budget and bond
debt and non-K/12 education costs (like adult school and Head Start) where
the money is not being spent on the kids enrolled in school and hence should
not be figured into a cost-per-student. Instead, the budget per student is
usually figured on the "current expenditures" number which excludes those
other costs.

>It's been stated by School Board members that 85% of the budget "goes
>into the classoom", what ever that means.

Good analysis: "whatever that means". Pretty much across the US, 2/3 of
current expenditures are for salaries, 50% of current expenditures being
teacher salaries.

>I do see major bucks going
>into contracted service agreements ("curriculum development", "internet
>web page design", and studies, studies and more studies).

But that may or may not be considered "into the classroom".

A good place to learn about comparing numbers is to get the latest year
"Digest of Educational Statistics" from the Department of Education web site.
This PDF document will tell you more than you are likely to want to know
about education budgets around the country. The numbers I gave you came from
the 1999 edition (the 2000 edition may be out by now), and you can find
individual district numbers and budgets in Table 93 and 94 (or thereabouts in
other editions). Tables 160-172 give state totals (not district ones) broken
down quite finely in various ways as to where the money is being spent.

There we find that CA statewide spends 70% of expenditures on salaries, adn
just under 20% on employee benefits. Contracted services as you mention
below got only around 3% of the budget, though that 3% still is a half
billion dollars. In another table, we see that of 27.3 billion is current
expenditures in CA, 16.3 billion went for "instruction", and 9.8 billion went
for student support services including .2 billion for general administration
and 2.1 billion for school administration and 1.45 billion for
non-instructional student support. Probably "into the classroom" means "not
administration or non-instrcuctional support", and thus statewide tracks well
with the 85% number. 3.7 billion out of 27.3 billion is around 14%.

>>The starting salary is more likely in the $30K-$40K, and is
>> probably that high only because inner city schools have a reputation for
>> crime and violence that makes teachers shy away from working there.

>Of course teachers shy away from teaching in Oakland! And the "WHY" of

>the situation is my whole point! Typical high school teachers have not
>the training, experience or inclination to address the real needs of
>inner-city kids, AND THE KIDS KNOW IT!!!

But that is not "why" the teachers shy away from working there. There is a
perception of danger, and the likelihood that the students need more than
"teaching" in order to be successful. It is a bit much for teachers to be
expected to also be parents and social workers and policemen for their
students at the same time, and the perception is that inner city teachers
have to perform all these roles while also facing physical danger and being
compared career-wise with the teachers in the rich suburbs with high academic
achievement numbers.

>Anyone who attempts to break
>the downward spiral of educational bankruptcy is marginalized,
>ostrasized and ridiculed.

... by the public, among others. Think "Ebonics", which was a short name for
a concept that has been and is successful in other locations but has not
elsewhere suffered from a public relations fiasco.

>Oakland spends tens of millions on the very
>latest technologies, instructional programs, curriculum evaluation
>systems, teacher performance and accountability programs, etc., etc.,
>etc. Every one of them has an acronym and a PHD behind it. But you know

>what? The kids still fail by the tens of thousands. Once again, the

>operation was a success, but the patient died!!!

The bottom line is that K/12 education is a 13 year process. A reform
adopted this year for primary grade students will take 10 years to bear
fruit, before you COULD know that the operation was a success (and probably a
few years more before those "studies" can be completed to DETERMINE that the
operation was a success). The public seldom waits that long and thus
programs are replaced before we have any idea whether they might have worked.

The real mark for the inner city will not come from fixing the high schools.
It will come when they can get ALL kids, regardless of linguistic and
socio-economic background, to be reading fluently with comprehension by 3rd
or 4th grade, no matter WHAT it takes in terms of extra services, holding
kids aside from grade progression for special support until they are ready
for 4th grade academics (the first year when reading a textbook starts to be
important). If any inner city school system (or any other school system)
managed that one feat, I'll bet that many of the other problems would
dwindle. And all of the actions take place at the ages where we aren't yuet
worried about whether the kid is college material or not.

>I've been falted already for going on to long, so I'll leave it at that.

A good intelligent discussion is worth going on, even if it takes length.
Never let the opinions of a Web TV reader who cannot deal with text longer
than one screen in length determine how much you are willing to post. It is
precisely the catering to those who don't care to learn when it takes more
effort than reading a single screen/page that leads to the problems in the
schools. Even the non-college bound, in order to be successful, will have to
read technical manuals and other materials that are several pages in length
and filled with technical terminology. Unwillingness to do so is, barring a
disability, the mark of a self-decreed failure. And the schools cannot help
such by catering to them.

Down with sound-bite discussions.

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 2:00:40 AM11/23/00

> To make any proper comparison, you would have to compare salaries in
the same
> locale. Salaries in Ulster are lower than in California - all of
them. You
> would need to compare an Ulster PhD salary with an Ulster teacher
salary to
> compare the pay relative to degree and/or experience. Likewise, you
would
> need to compare the salary of a PhD in Oakland with that of an Oakland
> teacher (Berkeley PhD salaries ought to be close enough).

*******************************************
Actually I did consider locale. I also considered the fact that several
hundred thousand highly educated people from India have been staffing
the various "Silicon Vallies" across the country. For the price of a
plane ticket, highly educated people can pick up a "ghreen card" in
very short order. Maybe Oakland Unified School District doesn't need
PHD's, but I do note that all of the expensive private high schools
have them on teaching staff. At any rate, I'm not really concerned with
that end of the educational spectrum anyway. How about hiring some
electricians, carpenters or plumbers as teachers?
****************************************************************

> But the bottom line is still uncertain. Even an increase from 4300
to 6600
> employees (around a 50% increase, with most of the increase
apparently in the
> non-teaching categories that are lower paid), if it had really
happened
> between 1995 and 2000, should not lead to an increase in budget from
$292
> million to $540 million (almost a 90% increase). Inflation cannot
account
> for 40% in those 5 years. Thus I think something is wrong with the
number,
> but I don't know what it is.

**************************************************
I have found my recent visits to local high schools to be quite
instructive. It's hard to attach a number or a grade to what I see,
but, it sure seems to me, that this whole education thing is not really
taken THAT seriously. I mean, when I observe the general body language
of the students; the snippets of instruction that I overhear; the lack
of real focus in the curriculum discussions that I observe.. Well, my
point is, there is no, nil, nada sense of URGENCY or gravity involved
anywhere in the process. The kids are a reluctant, uninvolved captive
audience, for bored teachers, sleep walking their way to the end of
another day. More speecifically, I looked at my childs 7th grade math
text. He's in the "accelerated" group, so, this is supposed to be 8th
grade material. After looking through the whole damn book, there was
nothing in there that he couldn't learned in less than 3 weeks of
focused effort! It's like, we give them our children for 13 years, and
by God, they're going to take 13 years to give them the elements of
math, science, language and social studies, even if it could be done as
well in 10 years or 8 years. It's kind of like the kids are being baby-
sat through adolescence, and are incidentally being exposed to a
liberal arts education along the way. Naturally it costs more
to "educate" a kid for 13 years than it would for 8 or 10. My point is,
if these schools have our kids for all this time, why do so many kids
come out the other end uneducated, untrained, unskilled, and with bad
attitudes? They don't sem to have these problems in other countries.
Are our children genetically inferior in some way? Do our parents love
their children less? Do we spend all that much less on education
compared to other countries?
********************************************************

> But that is not "why" the teachers shy away from working there.
There is a
> perception of danger, and the likelihood that the students need more
than
> "teaching" in order to be successful. It is a bit much for teachers
to be
> expected to also be parents and social workers and policemen for their
> students at the same time, and the perception is that inner city
teachers
> have to perform all these roles while also facing physical danger and
being
> compared career-wise with the teachers in the rich suburbs with high
academic
> achievement numbers.

*****************************************************************
I didn't make my point very well. What I'm saying is that these kids
have different needs than the white middle class kids that these
teachers would prefer to deal with. You can force-feed all the algebra-
chemisty-calculus-Latin stuff down a suburban kid's thoat, and he'll
choke and gag and swallow it, and ask for more, because he knows he has
to get all the right punches in his ticket so he can get into that
college that mom and dad and tacher are always harping about. I mean,
these kids are a push-over. But, try that on some street hardened inner-
city kid and his reaction is, "this is bull shit"! He knows he's not
going to college; the teacher knows he's not going to college, everyone
knows he's not going to college, but, hey, "tuff shit", "it's our way
or the highway", and thousands of them choose the "highway" every year
in Oakland. Sure Oakland's going to have to pay a premium, especially
if the teachers are required to deliver a curriculum that any 15 year-
old intuitively knows is boring, irrelevant and inappropriate.
************************************************************

> ... by the public, among others. Think "Ebonics", which was a short
name for
> a concept that has been and is successful in other locations but has
not
> elsewhere suffered from a public relations fiasco.

******************************************************
Your defense of Ebonics caught be off guard. Oakland is still being
laughed at over that one. Do you really believe it was a "public
relations" issue? If you're correct, why didn't the educational
establishment come to its defense; fight for it tooth and nail? If one
really has a conviction, doesn't one fight for it? So, either Ebonics
was a really bad idea from a group of highly educated people who should
have known better,or, it was a great idea, and the educational
establishment didn't have the character or the credibility to keep it
afloat.
********************************************************

> The bottom line is that K/12 education is a 13 year process. A reform
> adopted this year for primary grade students will take 10 years to
bear
> fruit, before you COULD know that the operation was a success (and
probably a
> few years more before those "studies" can be completed to DETERMINE
that the
> operation was a success).

********************************************************
I must say, it was a real downer to read that last sentence. Maybe, you
can wait 10 years to find out, but there are some of us (not enough I'm
afraid) who that think that's totally ridiculous and totally
unacceptable!!!! This goes to my original point in this posting.
Doesn't anyone have ANY sense of urgency when it comes to educating our
kids?? Ten years???? Give me a break!! All you need to do is come up
with 3 bad ideas, and you're ready for your pension!!! The fact that
you've screwed up the lives of several thousand children along the way
does not seem to be an issue!! Doesn't this border on child abuse, or
something??? It wouldn't be so bad if the educational establishment
learned something from their mistakes. No, all failures are do
to "insufficient resources","improper implementation", "personnel
changes", "public relations failures", whatever. So after much time and
effort, nothing is learned and nothing changes! Really, if anyone
REALLY CARED, it sure as hell wouldn't take 10 years to determine that
these hair-brained schemes were abject failures! Let's make a deal,
anyone who comes up with "the next big thing" in education, has to have
THEIR child subjected to it! On second thought, that's not fair to the
kid....

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 2:43:55 AM11/23/00

> Much as I disagree with Herman on almost everything, his point seems
to be in
> part that in Beverly Hills schools kids are NOT programmed for
failure, but
> rather for success. They are expected to succeed, and they are
taught as if
> they WILL succeed, and thus to some extent, the expectation becomes
the
> reality. If you sent inner city kids to such a school, perhaps they
would
> NOT end up programmed for failure.

***********************************************************
Let me get this straight: Oakland public school teachers are
programming our children for failure. They expect our children to fail,
so the children do... Hummm, shouldn't the Oakland Tribune be on top
of this? Shouldn't there be a civil rights commission, or, Department
of Education SWAT team swooping into Oakland? It's there SOME civic
mined citizen or group that will come to Oakland and rescue our
children from this system of abuse and exploitation??? I mean, if it's
really just expectations, I guess we finally know "what the problem
is". I really don't like to receive sarcasm, so I generally resist
dishing it out, but, I really don't think the "expectations" silver
bullet is going to do the job either. Anyone who knows of a teacher who
has demonstrably low expectations of his/her students has a moral
obligation to work every day to get that teacher out of the classroom!!!
**************************

>
> >***********************************************
> >> The operation was NOT a success. What do you expect with
> >> the hyperegalitarian witch doctors doing the operating?
> >***************************************************

> practical value was of 98% of what you were taught, but will come to

> understand by the time your own kids are in school that one never
knows how
> important the things we learn are going to be later in life until we
actually
> need to know them.

********************************************************
I hate to seem like a contrarian on everything, but I also disagree
with that too (and I know for a fact that I'm not alone). I took the
academic "college prep" curriculum in high school (1957-1961). I took
chemistry (being color blind was a real handicap on those borax bead
tests), Latin, 2 years of algebra, geometry, trig, etc., etc.. You know
what? 98% of it was a total waste of time! I have used the Pathagorian
Theorem a couple of times (it takes ten minutes for a slow learner to
pick that one up); I never have found a use for 99% of the geometry
(how often do non-engineers have to calculate the volume of anything??);
chemistry was a total waste; Latin's only saving grace was getting
clues as to the meaning of unknown words from their Romance language
roots (it would have been more direct to memorize vocabulary word
lists, or participate in a spelling bee); studing the works of the
great wetsern authors and philosophers is about as appealing as going
to the dentist for most kids. I would suggest that there is much value
to all of this, but it would be much more efficient for the application
of the knowledge to more closely follow the acquisition of it. I
realize I sound like a real know-nothing, but the point I'm trying to
make is one of priorities. If a man is drowning, you don't throw him a
treatise on hydrodynamics!
******************************************************

> And if in spite of our efforts, you follow through and drop out, we'll
> continue to offer you a chance to change your mind until as criminals
stuck
> in a dead end, you end up dead or in prison. And we won't be happy
about
> that, but will work even harder so that the next kids that come along
don't
> follow that path.

*******************************************************
Right, educators, like surgeons, bury their mistakes. Unfortunately,
it's much easier for teachers to rationalize their failures, than it is
for surgeons. A surgeon will often give a patient a risk analysis
before the patient agrees to the procedure. Unfortuately, the victims
of our system of public education don't receive the same consideration.
Maybe we need a few "educational malpractice" cases to focus the
attention of the educational establishment. Really folks, we have to
keep the lawyers out of this, or it'll REALLY get screwed up!!

Nanners13

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

>>I used to think that too. Classroon teachers in Oakland earn up to
$68,000 per year. <<

Oh....well....that proves it!! Teachers are not underpaid!
geeeeeeeeeesssssssssssshhhhhhh

<jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ut4cn$cm5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

In article <Xf6T5.57003$vc3.11...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,

"Nanners13" <mrsj...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >>I used to think that too. Classroon teachers in Oakland earn up to
> $68,000 per year. <<
>

> Oh....well....that proves it!! Teachers are not underpaid!
> geeeeeeeeeesssssssssssshhhhhhh
>

I assume that you're teacher. If so, if a student turned in your
response to a proposition intended to elicit reasoned and thoughful
analysis, what grade would you give her? I'm afraid it may be
symptomatic that out of my entire thesis, you would focus on this
particular aspect.

Effective teachers are worth more than $68,000! But, to re-iterate the
core of my thesis, it not so much bad teachers that screw up our kids,
as it is a curriculum that is irrelevant and inappropriate to their
needs. I'd much rather spend $100,000 a year to teach kids drafting,
computer network installation and office machine repair, than 10 cents
to teach them binomial equations, finger painting and pop sociology.
I'll continue to resist paying for a system that produces drop-outs by
the milllion, and graduates who can pass multiple choice standardized
state tests, but don't have a clue about how to support themselves.
Actually, it might help if prospective high school teachers were
required to have worked at real world jobs for 5 or 10 years before
they are allowed to teacher. As it is, the typical teacher goes from
being a college student one semester, to high school teacher the next.
What you get is predictable: teachers who continue to dispense the
received wisdom that a life without a college degree is wasted; manual
work is synonymous with low intelligence; the ethereal liberal arts
are they pinnacle of human endevour; your worth is measured by your
income.

Is there any hope......

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Your thesis sounds very familiar to me. I took several Black Studies
>courses at San Francisco State in the 1970's. W.E.B.Debois was in vogue
>back then. As nearly as I could tell, he was popular principly because
>of his concept of the "talented tenth", in which the "top" 10% of

>African Americans would lead the rest. As looked around the class, I

>used to wonder if anyone in the room considered themselves as not being
>among the "talented tenth". I guessed not. Higher education may
>occasionally inspire critical thinking, but it also re-inforces the
>natural human tendency toward hubris and vanity. Booker T. Washington,
>on the otherhand, was held in contempt because of his emphasis on
>individual responsibility, economic progress and practical skills. Not
>the kind of program that appeals to either college-trained teachers,
>or, students who judge themselves "leaders" of the great unwashed
>masses. But then, the concept that buying a diploma assures the
>significance of our lives is quite seductive, quite beyond the bounds
>of race, or gender or national origin.

I don't think that that "seductive" concept is all that widely felt. What is
felt however is that NOT having a diploma makes it likely that one will find
oneself in a dead end. Our society has an image of the less-educated trades
that they are dead-end jobs with no upward career path - no way to "get rich"
or to "get ahead" - as well as no way to "be significant". Plumbers may make
a fair amount of money, but few plumbers ever become multimillionaires, and
we tend to think that a plumber can do nothing else but be a plumber for the
rest of his life - so while it may pay good, it is a life of dirty, smelly,
and difficult work.

>In the context of this discussion, would someone please
>define "achievement" or "decent education" more clearly?

Different people would have different definitions. I disagree with Alan L.'s
definition, for example.

>Does a "decent
>education" teach contempt for those who don't have a "decent"
>education?

Education does not teach that, but our *culture* tends to teach contempt for
people who choose a "different" path from the expected norm UNLESS that
different path leads to fame and/or fortune.

>Does in teach contempt for those who work in the trades,
>crafts or other endeavors that don't require "higher" education, (even
>though many crafts pay much better than careers generally available to
>Liberal Arts college graduates)?

I think that educated people have a lot of respect for individual craftsmen
who show a mastery of their craft, but look down on those in the crafts who
are mere workers. This is not what anyone is taught, but it reflects the
basic truth that someone with education can learn enough about a trade to
work in it fairly easily, but someone without education rarely can work in
the "educated" professions.

There is also a remnant of European classism, whereby blue collar workers,
who get dirt under their fingernails, are "lower" than the professions.

>And speaking of pay, is that the universal yardstick to measure a human
>beings worth?

No. But in Y2K America, having a lot of money gets you respect whether you
otherwise deserve it or not, whereas not having money means that people have
to look closely to evaluate your respctability, and our society likes being
able to judge people in a few seconds without getting to know them.

>How about kindness, patience, generosity, fidelity or integrity?

All can gain you respect, but it is hard to build a reputation on those
bases. It takes a long time of consistent behavior to gain that reputation,
and most people won't know you long enough to decide. The college degree,
whether it means anything else, is a quick piece of paper by a fairly
objective third party that tells whether someone has earned a presumption of
respectability. There are few similar measures of the above traits.

>Is the man who comes home to be with his child after a day
>of work in a factory a less valued human being than the college-trained
>computer technician who has no life but his career, has no real
>interest in his family or his community, and whose only real motivation
>in life is to work and consume?

Unfortunately yes. Think of the housewives who are looked down on by working
women as being little more than "common drudges".

>When I talk to my son about "decent" education, I tell him that
>education may give him options in life.

That may be a good definition.

>It may give him greater control
>over hisr life, and it may allow him to someday give his family some
>degree of comfort and security. But I also tell him to never forget
>that it's "family" that really matters, not all the crap that they're
>constantly trying to sell him on TV. But then, that discussion properly
>belongs in another forum...

You can teach your kid this, but all his life he will be surrounded by
influences that will be trying to teach the opposite. It can be hard not to
succumb. And when family life goes downhill (as it often does these days
with divorce so common), many people choose not to value family as much as
other things.

Alberto Moreira

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Much as I disagree with Herman on almost everything, his point seems to be in
> part that in Beverly Hills schools kids are NOT programmed for failure, but
> rather for success. They are expected to succeed, and they are taught as if
> they WILL succeed, and thus to some extent, the expectation becomes the
> reality. If you sent inner city kids to such a school, perhaps they would
> NOT end up programmed for failure.

Actually it's probably more like people in Beverly Hills just
take for granted the kids will succeed, the deep and troubling
issue of failure and dropping out just doesn't exist but as a
truly exceptional case that is outside a range worth many
standard deviations. And that is because of tradition - the
system is well oiled, and has been working for a while, teachers
have a track and are used to it, administrators expect a minimum
from the student body, and so on. It's a question of
intellectual attitude.

Alberto.

Beth Clarkson

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> I have found my recent visits to local high schools to be quite
> instructive. It's hard to attach a number or a grade to what I see,
> but, it sure seems to me, that this whole education thing is not really
> taken THAT seriously. I mean, when I observe the general body language
> of the students; the snippets of instruction that I overhear; the lack
> of real focus in the curriculum discussions that I observe.. Well, my
> point is, there is no, nil, nada sense of URGENCY or gravity involved
> anywhere in the process. The kids are a reluctant, uninvolved captive
> audience, for bored teachers, sleep walking their way to the end of
> another day.

I think that you have hit upon the core of the problem here. In the
corporate world, it's sometimes referred to as the 'gotta wanna' factor.
You can 'spray and pray' the masses with your ideas, but if they aren't
interested, you've only wasted your money and their time for them to sit
through the classes. Motivation is more than just a key factor, it's
essential to success.

> More speecifically, I looked at my childs 7th grade math
> text. He's in the "accelerated" group, so, this is supposed to be 8th
> grade material. After looking through the whole damn book, there was
> nothing in there that he couldn't learned in less than 3 weeks of
> focused effort!

And how many of kids in his class were interested in putting in 3 weeks of
focused effort to learn the stuff? And if they did, what would happen to
them? Would they be rewarded for their efforts? Or unintentionally
punished?

> It's like, we give them our children for 13 years, and
> by God, they're going to take 13 years to give them the elements of
> math, science, language and social studies, even if it could be done as
> well in 10 years or 8 years. It's kind of like the kids are being baby-
> sat through adolescence, and are incidentally being exposed to a
> liberal arts education along the way. Naturally it costs more
> to "educate" a kid for 13 years than it would for 8 or 10.

Naturally. Who benefits from this arrangement and who pays the price? The
school system? The parents? The students?

> My point is,
> if these schools have our kids for all this time, why do so many kids
> come out the other end uneducated, untrained, unskilled, and with bad
> attitudes?

Good question. I would suspect that it relates back to your point "The kids

are a reluctant, uninvolved captive audience, for bored teachers, sleep

walking their way to the end of another day." Put that way, what becomes
amazing is that some children do manage to graduate with a good education
and a good attitude - and it's almost always directly attributable to good
parenting.

> They don't sem to have these problems in other countries.
> Are our children genetically inferior in some way?

I doubt it.

> Do our parents love their children less?

I doubt it.

> Do we spend all that much less on education compared to other countries?

I don't know, but again, I doubt it.

Since I doubt that any of those are the heart of the problem, I conclude
that the problem must lie within our educational process - how we typically
educate our children.

> I didn't make my point very well. What I'm saying is that these kids
> have different needs than the white middle class kids that these
> teachers would prefer to deal with. You can force-feed all the algebra-
> chemisty-calculus-Latin stuff down a suburban kid's thoat, and he'll
> choke and gag and swallow it, and ask for more, because he knows he has
> to get all the right punches in his ticket so he can get into that
> college that mom and dad and tacher are always harping about. I mean,
> these kids are a push-over. But, try that on some street hardened inner-
> city kid and his reaction is, "this is bull shit"! He knows he's not
> going to college; the teacher knows he's not going to college, everyone
> knows he's not going to college, but, hey, "tuff shit", "it's our way
> or the highway", and thousands of them choose the "highway" every year
> in Oakland. Sure Oakland's going to have to pay a premium, especially
> if the teachers are required to deliver a curriculum that any 15 year-
> old intuitively knows is boring, irrelevant and inappropriate.

It seems to me that we should strive to deliver a curriculum that is
interesting, relevant and appropriate for a 15 year old. What that might
be, I don't know. I don't know the problems of the inner-city youth or how
best to solve them. It's not an environment I'm familiar with. What I do
know is that what we are doing doesn't seem to be working. It's one reason
I tend to support vouchers. I may not know how best to solve the problem of
educating innercity youth, but perhaps their parents do. At any rate, at
this point, I am as willing to trust parents with the tax-dollars earmarked
for educating their children as I am the traditional educational
establishment.

> Maybe, you
> can wait 10 years to find out, but there are some of us (not enough I'm
> afraid) who that think that's totally ridiculous and totally
> unacceptable!!!! This goes to my original point in this posting.
> Doesn't anyone have ANY sense of urgency when it comes to educating our
> kids?? Ten years???? Give me a break!! All you need to do is come up
> with 3 bad ideas, and you're ready for your pension!!! The fact that
> you've screwed up the lives of several thousand children along the way
> does not seem to be an issue!! Doesn't this border on child abuse, or
> something??? It wouldn't be so bad if the educational establishment
> learned something from their mistakes. No, all failures are do
> to "insufficient resources","improper implementation", "personnel
> changes", "public relations failures", whatever. So after much time and
> effort, nothing is learned and nothing changes! Really, if anyone
> REALLY CARED, it sure as hell wouldn't take 10 years to determine that
> these hair-brained schemes were abject failures! Let's make a deal,
> anyone who comes up with "the next big thing" in education, has to have
> THEIR child subjected to it! On second thought, that's not fair to the
> kid....

The problem is not that no one cares. Plenty of people care. Plenty of
people are working hard to solve the problems. They aren't succeeding.
What prevents them from making the changes necessary to be successful?
Again, I don't know the answer to this question either, but I do know that
generally, what is needed is to restructure the control system, moving
control down the heirarchy from administrators and planners to teachers,
parents and students. How to do that? It's difficult. Shifting power is a
risky business and rarely does any one group give up power voluntarily to
another. I don't have the answers, but our family chooses to homeschool.

Beth Clarkson

Alberto Moreira

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> I hate to seem like a contrarian on everything, but I also disagree
> with that too (and I know for a fact that I'm not alone). I took the
> academic "college prep" curriculum in high school (1957-1961). I took
> chemistry (being color blind was a real handicap on those borax bead
> tests), Latin, 2 years of algebra, geometry, trig, etc., etc.. You know
> what? 98% of it was a total waste of time! I have used the Pathagorian
> Theorem a couple of times (it takes ten minutes for a slow learner to
> pick that one up); I never have found a use for 99% of the geometry
> (how often do non-engineers have to calculate the volume of anything??);
> chemistry was a total waste; Latin's only saving grace was getting
> clues as to the meaning of unknown words from their Romance language
> roots (it would have been more direct to memorize vocabulary word
> lists, or participate in a spelling bee); studing the works of the
> great wetsern authors and philosophers is about as appealing as going
> to the dentist for most kids. I would suggest that there is much value
> to all of this, but it would be much more efficient for the application
> of the knowledge to more closely follow the acquisition of it. I
> realize I sound like a real know-nothing, but the point I'm trying to
> make is one of priorities. If a man is drowning, you don't throw him a
> treatise on hydrodynamics!

It's you who'll shape how what you learn play in your life.

I had Chemistry, Latin, 6 years of math, etc. etc. in high
school, and it hardly has been a waste of time. My Chemistry
still helps me today, if nothing else I can hold intelligent
conversations with my daughters who's almost a Ph.D. in
chemistry. My Latin - and my Ancient Greek - allows me to move
from language to language with ease. My math has given me my
professional career and has fed me and my family for over 30
years now. My geometry background has been a gate into much new
knowledge, my exposure to Western and World Literature has
enabled me to intelligently interact with people well more
knowledgeable than I am, and all to my best interest.

So, what do you make out of life ? You see, it isn't up to the
subjects to help you, it's up to you to help yourself and make
the best out of the subjects. If Latin didn't help you, don't
blame Latin, blame your attitude towards learning it and using
Latin. If math didn't help you, don't blame math, blame your
attitude towards learning and using math.

But if all you want is to do things that don't need schooling,
why go to school to begin with ?

And you know what, if a man is drowning, knowledge of
hydrodynamics may make a whole lot of difference to the eventual
outcome. More, if that man's rescuers ignore hydrodynamics,
that's probably as good a doom as a nail in his coffin.

> Right, educators, like surgeons, bury their mistakes. Unfortunately,
> it's much easier for teachers to rationalize their failures, than it is
> for surgeons. A surgeon will often give a patient a risk analysis
> before the patient agrees to the procedure. Unfortuately, the victims
> of our system of public education don't receive the same consideration.
> Maybe we need a few "educational malpractice" cases to focus the
> attention of the educational establishment. Really folks, we have to
> keep the lawyers out of this, or it'll REALLY get screwed up!!

Before we deal with educational malpractice, we must deal with
student malpractice. That is, I'm afraid, way more pervasive.
But teachers don't teach - we learn. If a student doesn't learn,
the last blame should be on the teacher: most students don't do
what's needed and are, as you yourself point out, unwilling to
assume responsibility for their own education.

And you blame the teachers ? The establishment ? Nah, blame the
students first, and their families, by the time you fix that
there's probably no need to fix anything else.

Alberto.

Alberto Moreira

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> I think that educated people have a lot of respect for individual craftsmen
> who show a mastery of their craft, but look down on those in the crafts who
> are mere workers. This is not what anyone is taught, but it reflects the
> basic truth that someone with education can learn enough about a trade to
> work in it fairly easily, but someone without education rarely can work in
> the "educated" professions.
>
> There is also a remnant of European classism, whereby blue collar workers,
> who get dirt under their fingernails, are "lower" than the professions.

It goes more or less like this. We spend years and years
studying something complex. We grow up in a profession, to be in
one of the forefronts of science and technology. We get used to
cherish those who contribute to the advance of the profession
and those who define the way this country and the rest of the
world is going to live during the next century. We are on a
constant quest for more, for better, for higher.

Then we look at something like plumbing or carpentry. Can we do
it ? Sure we can, if only we want to. Some very sophisticated
tech people I know do woodworking and carpentry for a hobby, and
their work is at least as good as that of any professional
carpenter. So, we look at these trades more or less the same way
we look at anything we can easily do - maybe we don't denigrate
them, but we certainly don't place the same value in being able
to do them as we place in being able to do the things we are
still trying to learn so that we can do our own professions
better and make more money to our families and to ourselves.

More, we, like many other people, look to our betters for
inspiration, further learning, and personal growth. Because we
are in the forefront of the trenches, our betters are often very
good indeed, and few and far between. So, it's going to be rare
that someone like me looks up to someone and says, hey, I
respect that one. And the chances of that one being a plumber or
a carpenter is slim to nil.

So, it isn't disrespect, you see, it's just that as we evolve
through life we see other things, we see things different, and
we can't hold the same set of values we would hold if we weren't
educated. So, what's the worth of a plumber or a carpenter to me
? Not any more than anyone else. What's the worth, to me, of
those who advance science and technology on a daily basis, and
from whose work my own livelihood depends ? You bet, a whole
lot. Gates speaks, I listen; many others speak, and I dismiss,
even if they sometimes know a whole lot more than plumbers or
carpenters.

That, in a nutshell, is the issue as I see it. You want my
respect ? You must earn it, and you may have to do a whole lot
more than just plumbing or carpentry to be even visible in my
radar screen. The opposite of respect isn't disrespect, it's
just that things we don't really cherish may not mean that much
to us. Nothing personal, you see, just the facts of life.

Alberto.

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

> >This is not what anyone is taught, but it reflects the
> > basic truth that someone with education can learn enough about a
trade to
> > work in it fairly easily, but someone without education rarely can
work in
> > the "educated" professions.

+ + + + + + + + + +

> Then we look at something like plumbing or carpentry. Can we do
> it ? Sure we can, if only we want to. Some very sophisticated
> tech people I know do woodworking and carpentry for a hobby, and
> their work is at least as good as that of any professional
> carpenter.

Really! How about sending some of your high tech Renaissance men over
to my place? I need a new 220 volt circuit put in for my dryer (I sure
hope your man knows which wire goes where). I'll also need a furnace
installed that will heat the house and not asphyxiate me with carbon
monoxide in the middle of the night. How about some nice kitchen
cabinets with recessed panel doors that have to be fit into a corner
that's not plumb (he gets one chance to do it right, them it'll cost
him BIG BUCKS to patch it up)? How about a nice ceramic tile job on my
kitchen floor and walls that some real estate agent won't raise an
eyebrow at when it comes time to sell the house? How about installing a
sky light that won't leak rain onto my new furniture in the middle of
some cold and dark night? How about painting a couple rooms, walls and
ceiling, that have $10,000 worth of carpeting on the floor (don't make
a mess bucky)? How about poaring a concrete patio for a $900,000 home,
that better look great, and better not set up while your standing in
the middle of it!? And how about putting in a foundation for my $70,000
room addition, and I don't want the damn thing to sag 2 years from now,
and I sure don't want it to crack in 6 months, and it better pass city
building inspection the first time, 'cause I'm only gonna pay you to do
it once!

Well, I could go on, but I think you get the point. Life has taught me
that it's immutable fact that the work of our "inferiors" is always a
snap! We know not one of them could successfully sit through a 6 hour
presentation on "Clerical Resource Scheduling", or 2 hours of "Current
Trends in Paperwork Management"; or 2 days of "Successful Delegation
for the Human Resouces Professional", or what the hell ever it is that
your associates do all day. My experience has been that success in the
professions to a large extent requires a great tolerance for boredom
and uncontrolable stress, telephone skills, charm, and the ability to
avoid responsibility when a project turns sour.

When a plumber puts his pipes behind a $50,000 wall, they better drain
right! Your professional buddies can always plead, "I wasn't told about
that modification", or, "it's marketing's responsibilty, not ours",
or, "gee, it tested OK, guess we'll have to back that out", or, "I'm
pretty sure I gave the client the proper specs, do they have them in
writing...?",or, "yes I know our graduates are unemployable, but I'm
only a teacher...".

I know nothing I can say will change your attitude, but frankly, I
don't consider that a problem...

Alberto Moreira

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Really! How about sending some of your high tech Renaissance men over
> to my place? I need a new 220 volt circuit put in for my dryer (I sure
> hope your man knows which wire goes where). I'll also need a furnace
> installed that will heat the house and not asphyxiate me with carbon
> monoxide in the middle of the night. How about some nice kitchen
> cabinets with recessed panel doors that have to be fit into a corner
> that's not plumb (he gets one chance to do it right, them it'll cost
> him BIG BUCKS to patch it up)? How about a nice ceramic tile job on my
> kitchen floor and walls that some real estate agent won't raise an
> eyebrow at when it comes time to sell the house? How about installing a
> sky light that won't leak rain onto my new furniture in the middle of
> some cold and dark night? How about painting a couple rooms, walls and
> ceiling, that have $10,000 worth of carpeting on the floor (don't make
> a mess bucky)? How about poaring a concrete patio for a $900,000 home,
> that better look great, and better not set up while your standing in
> the middle of it!? And how about putting in a foundation for my $70,000
> room addition, and I don't want the damn thing to sag 2 years from now,
> and I sure don't want it to crack in 6 months, and it better pass city
> building inspection the first time, 'cause I'm only gonna pay you to do
> it once!

FWIW, I'm an electrical engineer. Electrical, yes, and Engineer,
yes. None of what you mentioned is foreign to people like me.
And I guarantee you that if I want I can do all of that, and
more. I have done many of those here at my own home, often
enough. But the point is, if I want I can go out and survive
doing that kind of stuff, but the converse is not feasible: it's
going to take anyone as long as it took me to get to the same
professional point I am in the profession I chose, that is,
computer research and development.

> Well, I could go on, but I think you get the point. Life has
taught me
> that it's immutable fact that the work of our "inferiors" is always a
> snap! We know not one of them could successfully sit through a 6 hour
> presentation on "Clerical Resource Scheduling", or 2 hours of "Current
> Trends in Paperwork Management"; or 2 days of "Successful Delegation
> for the Human Resouces Professional", or what the hell ever it is that
> your associates do all day. My experience has been that success in the
> professions to a large extent requires a great tolerance for boredom
> and uncontrolable stress, telephone skills, charm, and the ability to
> avoid responsibility when a project turns sour.

I don't do any of that stuff, although there are people who
handle that and more, and who need brains and experience to do
it right. In my profession, success requires a lot of knowledge,
a lot of hours, a continuous learning attitude, and the capacity
of doing what it takes and facing what comes: from the lowest
level electrical or electronic technician's job to the highest
level math.

>
> When a plumber puts his pipes behind a $50,000 wall, they better drain
> right! Your professional buddies can always plead, "I wasn't told about
> that modification", or, "it's marketing's responsibilty, not ours",
> or, "gee, it tested OK, guess we'll have to back that out", or, "I'm
> pretty sure I gave the client the proper specs, do they have them in
> writing...?",or, "yes I know our graduates are unemployable, but I'm
> only a teacher...".

When a house is built, it is built according to building codes
created by engineers, on blueprints set by engineers, with
materials established by engineers, on specs written by
engineers, based on computations done by engineers, with
computer programs written by engineers, on computers designed by
engineers, with chips created by engineers. A plumber is just an
executer of things that were designed by people with knowledge
well beyond that of a technician. No engineers, no walls, no
pipes, no running water, and consequently no plumbers.

Reminds me of what I heard is plastered often enough at the
walls of Boeing factories:

NO NERDS NO BIRDS

Clear enough, eh ? We're the locomotive.

> I know nothing I can say will change your attitude, but frankly, I
> don't consider that a problem...

I know you don't know, that's for sure. And you don't seem to be
aware that there's a whole world beyond those things you take
for granted. Who produces the tools the plumber uses, the metals
that make the tools, the pipes, the PVC, the mechanical
standards that allow interconnection, the hydraulic engineering
that puts the water into homes, the distribution systems that
send water around, the dams that pool together the water, the
equipment that builds the dams, the engineering that keeps them
sound and in working order ?

The answer is, madam, we do. WE, the engineers, who go to those
college courses and learn the math and the physics and the
chemistry and the computer stuff and slave away the hours in
classrooms, reading, solving problems, experimenting in labs,
and separating what works from what doesn't.

Plumbers, carpenters, and those others, they're doing what we
tell them to. No more.

Alberto.

toto

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/23/00

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:19:46 -0500, Alberto Moreira
<alb...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:

>The answer is, madam, we do. WE, the engineers, who go to those
>college courses and learn the math and the physics and the
>chemistry and the computer stuff and slave away the hours in
>classrooms, reading, solving problems, experimenting in labs,
>and separating what works from what doesn't.
>
>Plumbers, carpenters, and those others, they're doing what we
>tell them to. No more.

Alberto, I am surprised at you for this statement. While it is true
that plumbers and carpenters sometimes work from specifications that
are given to them by engineers, it is by no means certain that those
specifications actually are not modified by those who build with
practical working models in mind.

And then, engineers work from specifications from designers so where
would that place them in this hierarchy of yours. Each piece is
valuable and no piece can actually survive without the others.

And, if you actually think that *most* educated engineers can go out
and build things for a living, you are sadly mistaken on that score
also. I have seen plenty of engineers who would need many years of
training to get the building of a machine or done at the level of
any good craftsman.

My daughter *does* the work after someone designs it. She has to
actually know whether or not the *thing* designed can be built from
a practical standpoint. Designers live in a world of imagination
where all things are possible and engineers often bring those things
into a practical working form, but the workman is the one who knows
whether or not the material will work and who can *use* his hands as
well as his brain to bring the *form* into being. All are equally
necessary or nothing gets done at all.

Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
source unknown

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 9:53:07 PM11/23/00

Alberto, the engineers all have to learn their "trade" from someone
else, and few of them work alone. Maybe it takes more time to learn how
to make the calculations, the learn best practices, the required
materials, etc., etc., but no one of them does in completely on their
own. Everyone contributes their part to the process. But are the lives
of any one of them to be valued more than the others? I didn't believe
so.

Engineering requires somewhat more training, but then they are
compensated somewhat more as well. The responsibilities of a plumbing
contractor may often have more immediate and individualized effect on
the health and safety of the public then an engineer who is part of a
corporation of hundreds of engineers. Engineers design aircraft, their
work determines what a pilot can and cannot do. Does that make any
given engineer in the Boeing headquarters more critical to the public's
flying safety than every pilot? Yes, I know plumbers aren't pilots, but
don't you see the analogy?

If you're an engineer, maybe you're a damn good one. But you aren't the
best man to do every job that has to be done in society. Please, give
these people some slack. Not every human being was blessed with the
ability to be an engineer, or a physician, or a rabbi, or a teacher.
But I really believe our society will work better for everyone if each
of us is vaulued for contributing what he can. If you're not willing to
consider that, then we really have no common ground at all...

jwgr...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 10:15:16 PM11/23/00

Beth, thank you for your comments.

>It's one reason
> I tend to support vouchers. I may not know how best to solve the
problem of
> educating innercity youth, but perhaps their parents do.

***************************************
I used to support vouchers too, but then I thought, what are these kids
going to be taught in the voucher-supported schools? My 12 year old son
attends a school supported by the Lutheran Church. There is a greater
emphasis on morality and good conduct than I see in the public school,
but I'm not sure that would be true in every voucher-supported school.
And based on my original thesis, I'm far from convinced that a
conventional academic-liberal arts education is really appropriate for
many of these kids, whether it's in a public or voucher-supported
setting.
*******************************************************

> The problem is not that no one cares. Plenty of people care. Plenty
of
> people are working hard to solve the problems. They aren't
succeeding.
> What prevents them from making the changes necessary to be successful?
> Again, I don't know the answer to this question either, but I do know
that
> generally, what is needed is to restructure the control system, moving
> control down the heirarchy from administrators and planners to
teachers,
> parents and students. How to do that? It's difficult. Shifting power
is a
> risky business and rarely does any one group give up power
voluntarily to
> another. I don't have the answers, but our family chooses to
homeschool.

****************************************
You know Beth, I'm in frequent contact with families who are
homeschooling their children, and the kids seem to be exceptionally
happy. I wish more parents could try homeschooling. It's not really
practical for every family, but it does seem to work. I hope you can
stick with it. I know you appreciate the extra time you've been able to
spend with your children, and I'm sure they will always be grateful for
for what you are giving them.

John

Beth Clarkson

unread,

Nov 23, 2000, 11:24:04 PM11/23/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Beth, thank you for your comments.
> >It's one reason
> > I tend to support vouchers. I may not know how best to solve the
> problem of
> > educating innercity youth, but perhaps their parents do.
> ***************************************
> I used to support vouchers too, but then I thought, what are these kids
> going to be taught in the voucher-supported schools? My 12 year old son
> attends a school supported by the Lutheran Church. There is a greater
> emphasis on morality and good conduct than I see in the public school,
> but I'm not sure that would be true in every voucher-supported school.

Almost certainly not, but I doubt that's what would be needed for every kid
either.

> And based on my original thesis, I'm far from convinced that a
> conventional academic-liberal arts education is really appropriate for
> many of these kids, whether it's in a public or voucher-supported
> setting.

I don't disagree, but which setting is more likely to provide what they do
need? I don't know that vouchers will be better - certainly it is not the
only path to improvement - but I do think we need to try something rather
drastically different. What that should be, I don't know, but I think that
the people most closely connected to those kids are the ones best able to
make that call. Therefore, I tend to support any change in the status quo
that will provide them with more decision making power than they have now.
It certainly doesn't have to be vouchers, but I have seen few other reform
schemes that facilitate that shift of power from school officials to
parents.

> > another. I don't have the answers, but our family chooses to
> homeschool.
> ****************************************
> You know Beth, I'm in frequent contact with families who are
> homeschooling their children, and the kids seem to be exceptionally
> happy. I wish more parents could try homeschooling.

I do too. I realize that it won't work for every family, but the individual
attention and parental involvement that it generates can more than
compensate for other deficiencies. I have come to feel it promotes a
positive feedback cycle - homeschooling requires involvement which then
generates positive results which encourage further involvment generating
more positive results encouraging more involvement etc. etc. It's not just
that involved parents homeschool; it's that homeschooling builds more
parental involvement - the single most crucial factor in a child's
educational success.

> It's not really
> practical for every family, but it does seem to work. I hope you can
> stick with it. I know you appreciate the extra time you've been able to
> spend with your children, and I'm sure they will always be grateful for
> for what you are giving them.

While it's not perfect (is anything?) we are pleased with the results so
far. We have no intention of stopping until our child requests something
different. Our oldest is 12 and is starting to talk about taking college
classes. While still in the future, I don't think it's as far in the future
as it would be in a more traditional K-12 educational setting.

Beth

Alberto Moreira

unread,

Nov 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/24/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Alberto, the engineers all have to learn their "trade" from someone
> else, and few of them work alone. Maybe it takes more time to learn how
> to make the calculations, the learn best practices, the required
> materials, etc., etc., but no one of them does in completely on their
> own. Everyone contributes their part to the process. But are the lives
> of any one of them to be valued more than the others? I didn't believe
> so.

We're not talking about lives. This isn't an existencial debate,
this is a debate about education. We are talking about values
placed on people's education, on the level of people's culture,
and on the intellectual contribution of people to society. As
far as lives stand, your plumber's life isn't worth any more
than the life of a totally mentally impaired individual in an
asylum, or of that of a drug pusher. So, the point is moot and
irrelevant, unless, of course, you want to shift the debate away
from education and culture so that you can hide the unwilling
and the incompetent behind this fake "value" thing.

But when education and culture come into play, it boils down,
yes, to contribution. At that level, in my reckoning at least,
respect is all about how much one contributes.

> Engineering requires somewhat more training, but then they are
> compensated somewhat more as well. The responsibilities of a plumbing
> contractor may often have more immediate and individualized effect on
> the health and safety of the public then an engineer who is part of a
> corporation of hundreds of engineers. Engineers design aircraft, their
> work determines what a pilot can and cannot do. Does that make any
> given engineer in the Boeing headquarters more critical to the public's
> flying safety than every pilot? Yes, I know plumbers aren't pilots, but
> don't you see the analogy?

A lot of people are compensated well more than engineers, yet
they don't have a fraction of the knowledge. And the analogy
helps shed light: no engineers, no planes and no pilots - and no
pilot can compensate for an intrinsically unsafe aircraft. Only
after you take for granted everything there is to be taken for
granted, including the aircraft, the airport, the control
towers, the FAA, Air Traffic Control, all those old computers
running Jovial, the weather people and their supercomputers, and
much more, then the pilot kicks in. Of all the links, the pilot
is the weakest, but not the most critical. And pilots are just
the tip of a huge iceberg, most of it out of sight and hence out
of mind.

> If you're an engineer, maybe you're a damn good one. But you aren't the
> best man to do every job that has to be done in society. Please, give
> these people some slack. Not every human being was blessed with the
> ability to be an engineer, or a physician, or a rabbi, or a teacher.
> But I really believe our society will work better for everyone if each
> of us is vaulued for contributing what he can. If you're not willing to
> consider that, then we really have no common ground at all...

This is not the point. The point is respect, and respect must be
earned. And being an engineer, or a physician, or a rabbi, or a
teacher, does not depend on ability, it depends on work and
dedication. Precisely the opposite of what you depict in those
Oakland students. And then, you come here asking us to support
your proposition that we should coddle boredom, that we should
stop the world and adopt a self-centered approach that places
everything within the confines of the decision making of a
basically ignorant and so far incompetent individual, and that
it's them who matter, more than all the rest of us who
contribute to the shape of the world you, and I, and they too,
depend on to live.

See the point ? What you want isn't respect, it's coddling.
Respect tells me to make sure I get my students out of school at
a stage where they're capable to fend by themselves, respect
tells me to give them competence and culture, respect tells me
to force them to challenge themselves out of their self-pity and
isolationism, and into society and its demands.

That, in my way of seeing it, is respect. Coddling unwillingness
and weakness isn't respect to me, I call it failure.

Alberto.

Alberto Moreira

unread,

Nov 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/24/00

toto wrote:

> Alberto, I am surprised at you for this statement. While it is true
> that plumbers and carpenters sometimes work from specifications that
> are given to them by engineers, it is by no means certain that those
> specifications actually are not modified by those who build with
> practical working models in mind.

Why are you surprised ? Plumbing is the far end of a very long
chain of events, most of them totally out of the reality of a
plumber.

> And then, engineers work from specifications from designers so where
> would that place them in this hierarchy of yours. Each piece is
> valuable and no piece can actually survive without the others.

Upstream will live independent of the downstream, and the more
upstream something is, the more critical it is in the global
picture. Take away the ability of the country to produce pipes,
and see how many plumbers will have jobs.

> And, if you actually think that *most* educated engineers can go out
> and build things for a living, you are sadly mistaken on that score
> also. I have seen plenty of engineers who would need many years of
> training to get the building of a machine or done at the level of
> any good craftsman.

I live among engineers, and I don't know any who can't do a
technician's job if need be. You shouldn't confuse unwillingness
with incompetence.

> My daughter *does* the work after someone designs it. She has to
> actually know whether or not the *thing* designed can be built from
> a practical standpoint. Designers live in a world of imagination
> where all things are possible and engineers often bring those things
> into a practical working form, but the workman is the one who knows
> whether or not the material will work and who can *use* his hands as
> well as his brain to bring the *form* into being. All are equally
> necessary or nothing gets done at all.

Engineering *is* about designing things that can be built.
That's the difference between technology and science, by the
way, and engineers are technologists and not scientists. We are
trained from the very beginning to see the difference, and
workmen cannot work at that level because they don't know the
mathematics and the physics that's needed for a sound decision
making. Furthermore, hands are more and more being replaced by
machines, and weren't for trade unionism and other social ills
of our time, a whole lot more production would be automated
today. Sure enough, all are necessary, but not equally.

Alberto.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Nov 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/24/00

In article <3A1D7961...@kscable.com>,
Beth Clarkson <Be...@kscable.com> wrote:

>jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:

...............

>> More speecifically, I looked at my childs 7th grade math
>> text. He's in the "accelerated" group, so, this is supposed to be 8th
>> grade material. After looking through the whole damn book, there was
>> nothing in there that he couldn't learned in less than 3 weeks of
>> focused effort!

I am not even sure that the effort needs to be that
focused. The educational system needs to take the tack of
learn and progress, and anyone who holds someone back for
other reasons is the criminal.

>And how many of kids in his class were interested in putting in 3 weeks of
>focused effort to learn the stuff? And if they did, what would happen to
>them? Would they be rewarded for their efforts? Or unintentionally
>punished?

THIS is the problem. They should be allowed, and even
encouraged, to learn it, and when they did, move on to
more. You are seeing the tragedy of the system, that
those who can do more are DENIED the opportunity.

>> It's like, we give them our children for 13 years, and
>> by God, they're going to take 13 years to give them the elements of
>> math, science, language and social studies, even if it could be done as
>> well in 10 years or 8 years.

This is exactly the attitude of the educationists I have
been decrying for all these years. One modification is
needed; for some it may be 5 years, and some may have
difficulty in 13 years. For the average one, my guess
is roughly 10.

It's kind of like the kids are being baby-
>> sat through adolescence, and are incidentally being exposed to a
>> liberal arts education along the way. Naturally it costs more
>> to "educate" a kid for 13 years than it would for 8 or 10.

>Naturally. Who benefits from this arrangement and who pays the price? The
>school system? The parents? The students?

The school system benefits. SOME parents want the baby-sitting.
Those who want to learn suffer more than just the time delay.

>> My point is,
>> if these schools have our kids for all this time, why do so many kids
>> come out the other end uneducated, untrained, unskilled, and with bad
>> attitudes?

>Good question. I would suspect that it relates back to your point "The kids
>are a reluctant, uninvolved captive audience, for bored teachers, sleep
>walking their way to the end of another day." Put that way, what becomes
>amazing is that some children do manage to graduate with a good education
>and a good attitude - and it's almost always directly attributable to good
>parenting.

Good parenting can possibly achieve the attitude. However,
unless the parents teach subject matter, the good education
cannot be achieved, as the schools deliberately slow the
ones willing and able to learn.

>> They don't sem to have these problems in other countries.
>> Are our children genetically inferior in some way?

>I doubt it.

>> Do our parents love their children less?

>I doubt it.

>> Do we spend all that much less on education compared to other countries?

>I don't know, but again, I doubt it.

>Since I doubt that any of those are the heart of the problem, I conclude
>that the problem must lie within our educational process - how we typically
>educate our children.

Until the schools recognize that it is the individual who
is being educated and not the class, these problems will
remain. And the educationists fail to consider that these
students should come out understanding MORE than they did
at the same stage, and possibly more than they do now.

If they take this attitude, students and their parents will be
less likely to ask what it is good for. If one only learns
what seems to be relevant now, one is not going to learn
very efficiently, as the basic concepts are unlikely to be
clearly relevant.

Alan Lichtenstein

unread,

Nov 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/26/00

( previous post snipped for brevity-followthread )

> > Your thesis sounds very familiar to me. I took several Black Studies
> > courses at San Francisco State in the 1970's. W.E.B.Debois was in
> vogue
> > back then. As nearly as I could tell, he was popular principly because
> > of his concept of the "talented tenth", in which the "top" 10% of
> > African Americans would lead the rest. As looked around the class, I
> > used to wonder if anyone in the room considered themselves as not
> being
> > among the "talented tenth". I guessed not. Higher education may
> > occasionally inspire critical thinking, but it also re-inforces the
> > natural human tendency toward hubris and vanity. Booker T. Washington,
> > on the otherhand, was held in contempt because of his emphasis on
> > individual responsibility, economic progress and practical skills.

I believe that Booker T. Washington was held in contempt( especially by
Du Bois ) because he advocated the status quo for Blacks. This stems,
in part from Washington's address in 1895 at The Cotton States and
International Exposition in Atlanta. His remarks( directed to Southern
Whites ), reassured them that Blacks intended to work hard and downplay
their legitimate grievances, acknowledging that "there is as much
dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem." Washington went on to
say that "it is at the bottom of life we must begin, not at the top.."It
was documented that may Blacks in the audience werecrying, less from the
fact that the great man had spoken than from what his words meant for
Black folks futures. Is it any wonder that Du Bois took umbrage with
them?

Not
> > the kind of program that appeals to either college-trained teachers,
> > or, students who judge themselves "leaders" of the great unwashed
> > masses. But then, the concept that buying a diploma assures the
> > significance of our lives is quite seductive, quite beyond the bounds
> > of race, or gender or national origin.

Du Bois believed that education was necessary, even for those whose
chosen vocation was other than academic. He wrote: "The object of a
school system is to carry the child as far as possible in his knowledge
of the accumulated wisdom of the world." When this was no longer
possible, for whatever reason, then and only then did Du Bois believe
that vocational training should follow. He believed that the great
heritage of human thought ought not to be displaced simply due to
teaching methodology of modern thought( prevalent of the reformers then,
and still now ). Furthermore, he suggested that anyone who suggests by
sneering at books and literary courses...is more wrong than the man who
would sacrifice the heritage of ancient thought in favor of modern
current methodology and philosophy.

Sound like many of those posters who decry the literary works of "dead
white men," in favor of the current tripe? Wonder what the Black man
and scholar Du Bois would have to say to them?

I'll bet those cafe liberals of today would probably not like his
answer. And Du Bois was the consummate liberal of his time, and even
under today's criteria.

>
> > In the context of this discussion, would someone please
> > define "achievement" or "decent education" more clearly?

Speaking only for myself, I define achievement as a measured quantity
based on some quantifiable standard. Thus, a child whose achievement is
measured against a stated curriculum can easily becompared against all
others subject to the same standards.

The term decent education is far harder. Du Bois( and myself and likely
Herman ) would define a decent education as indicated by Du Bois'
statements above. The study of the wisdom of the ages, not only in
literature, but in mathematics, foreign language, science and history.
IOW, the study of subject matter. Those who follow the more recent
interpretations would define that at being relevant( whatever that means
) decrying the study of subject matter in favor of relevance at the
expense of subject matter, crying that subject matter is not relevant(
after all, it's the subject matter of dead white men ). It is
interesting to note that those who follow the modern thought would
object strenuously to Du Bois as not being decent, thus dooming and
prejudging each individual to whatever the system thought relevant to
his needs. Du Bois, OTOH, stated that give the individual the best you
got and let him set his own place accordingly.

Does a
> "decent
> > education" teach contempt for those who don't have a "decent"
> > education? Does in teach contempt for those who work in the trades,
> > crafts or other endeavors that don't require "higher" education, (even
> > though many crafts pay much better than careers generally available to
> > Liberal Arts college graduates)?

No in the context of Du Bois words, or in my belief.

> If, as a foreign visitor to this discussion, I can be permitted to
> answer your question, I say NO, no level of education should entitle a
> person to show contempt for farmers, factory workers, electricians,
> or plumbers. Not only do most of these people work hard for an honest
> living, we in white-collar occupations also depend on them for producing
> the goods and services we enjoy while engaged in our desk-bound tasks.

Agreed.

> I will go further and say that many highly paid, glamorous and socially
> "desirable" jobs add far less value to civilization than what is
> contributed by manual workers. If you live in California, you don't have
> far to look for one of the worst offenders against this view: Hollywood.
> The hero or heroine in a Hollywood movie is more likely than not to
> belong to one of these highly "productive" professions: lawyer,
> politician, advertising executive, stockbroker, or simply a businessman
> (without any indication as to what they actually do all day to deserve
> their high incomes). Of course, our complex civilization does need these
> professions, but doesn't it also need truck drivers, construction
> workers and car mechanics? Don't they deserve as much respect?

Unfortunately, you demonstrate the same prejudice towards different
methods of eraning one's livlihood that you remonstrate others against.
I personally agree that marketplace values are misplaced, but they are
the values established by supply and demand.
If we are not to disrespect honest skilled tradesmen in favor of those
academic skills, then we similarly must offer the same measure of
respect to those actors and other hucksters who do indeedfill a market
need.

> All this is highly relevant to what you have so eloquently said with
> respect to education as it is offered in today's world, particularly in
> the US. Not only do current educational trends insult those who wish to
> pursue perfectly respectable manual trades (which today require a lot of
> high-tech know-how in any case), they also insult those with a more
> intellectual persuasion (such as myself). When I see the overblown,
> cliché-driven prose produced by many a college graduate, when I receive
> half-literate communications from my children's school teachers or
> administration (ex-school, I should say - I have moved them to a better
> one), I feel that my university degree has been devalued, its
> intellectual worth plunging like the monetary value of any inflated
> currency.

Only because the University has to take in the results of over 40 years
of relevant education at the expense of subject matter.

> Although no country or education system is perfect, you may wish to look
> at countries such as Germany and Switzerland, which have consistently
> promoted good vocational training as part of their education system. In
> these countries, and in some other European countries as well, it is
> still possible to find workmen (and -women) proud of their jobs, and
> receiving due respect from those around them. You will find idiotic
> snobs anywhere, but try to tell a Swiss watchmaker, intent on making a
> fine-quality (and very expensive) watch that some young BA with a
> sociology degree is in any way better than he is.
>
> >
> > And speaking of pay, is that the universal yardstick to measure a
> human
> > beings worth? How about kindness, patience, generosity, fidelity or
> > integrity? Is the man who comes home to be with his child after a day
> > of work in a factory a less valued human being than the
> college-trained
> > computer technician who has no life but his career, has no real
> > interest in his family or his community, and whose only real
> motivation
> > in life is to work and consume?

Unfortunately, in a market society, it is. You can't put integrity,
patience and generosity on the table to feed your family.

> Very good points, especially as it brings in the question of money as
> the only worthy point of reference. Of course, money is always nice to
> have (the more the better), but other standards have existed throughout
> history, and in my view it is evil to dismiss an idea or an action just
> because they do not make you richer. Students should be encouraged to
> grow up and be able to earn a decent living, but they should not be
> taught that getting rich is the only acceptable aim. A good trade-off is
> what parents (and schools) should encourage them to achieve: earn enough
> to maintain yourself and your family in comfort, but develop interests
> outside your work (unless you are a monomaniac) so that you can actually
> enjoy life.
>
> >
> > When I talk to my son about "decent" education, I tell him that
> > education may give him options in life. It may give him greater
> control
> > over hisr life, and it may allow him to someday give his family some
> > degree of comfort and security. But I also tell him to never forget
> > that it's "family" that really matters, not all the crap that they're
> > constantly trying to sell him on TV. But then, that discussion
> properly
> > belongs in another forum...
> >
>
> And may you keep up the good work with your own family,

You sir, apparently value education for the sake of education, a view
that many of those who currently post to this NG do not share. An
educated citizen is crucial to the continuance of the social structure,
and most certainly to democracy as an institution. Those who would
substitute training and processing for education in the name of
relevance, are indeed leading us down the path to societal destruction.
You are to be commended for making those points and inculcating those
values in your children.

Pity that more of the supposed "educated" individuals who post to this
NG do not understand that.

Alan

Donna Metler

unread,

Nov 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/26/00

This sounds a lot like "I'm important-you aren't".

Alberto Moreira wrote:

Most engineers I know are quite good with their hands-my husband being one of
them, and have an intuitive grasp of spacial relations which makes this
feasible. However, most engineers have nowhere near the hands on experience
which makes these jobs an everyday thing, with no extra stress involved,
instread of a major production. While you can do it if needed, chances are
good that it would take you quite some time to develop the professional
competence and efficency needed to make doing so a professional career. The
fact is, it takes time and practice to become competent in any professional
area-and carpentry is as much a professional area as engineering.

>
> > Well, I could go on, but I think you get the point. Life has
> taught me
> > that it's immutable fact that the work of our "inferiors" is always a
> > snap! We know not one of them could successfully sit through a 6 hour
> > presentation on "Clerical Resource Scheduling", or 2 hours of "Current
> > Trends in Paperwork Management"; or 2 days of "Successful Delegation
> > for the Human Resouces Professional", or what the hell ever it is that
> > your associates do all day. My experience has been that success in the
> > professions to a large extent requires a great tolerance for boredom
> > and uncontrolable stress, telephone skills, charm, and the ability to
> > avoid responsibility when a project turns sour.
>
> I don't do any of that stuff, although there are people who
> handle that and more, and who need brains and experience to do
> it right. In my profession, success requires a lot of knowledge,
> a lot of hours, a continuous learning attitude, and the capacity
> of doing what it takes and facing what comes: from the lowest
> level electrical or electronic technician's job to the highest
> level math.

And consciously or unconsciously, you seem to feel that your career is of
higher value. But, most engineering projects wouldn't get off the ground
without the people with the skills to get the funds, sell the project, and
market the product.

In the company where my DH works, there is definitely a division here.
Michael (my DH) is extremely competent at the computer and at the design
end-but is not good at working with people who don't have as much of a
knowledge base-He can listen to a customer's requirements, convert this to a
specification, make sure the programmer does his/her job, and find problems
the quality assurance people missed-but has real problems when it comes to
dealing with a clueless end-user or in trying to market the product.

His co-worker/nominal supervisor is not nearly as good at the development
end-but is much better at getting financial support out of the powers that
be, getting material through marketing, and dealing with end-users.

Between the two of them, with the assistance of people with general delphi
skills, who can work from the spec, and people who have the knowlege of the
requirements who test (neither category of which could do the design or
management end), they can produce good product and get it on the shelves and
into the hands of users. Either working alone for more than a few days runs
into problems.

These are two people with similar backgrounds, training, job titles, and
salaries. Neither is dumb or incompetent-and neither can produce the desired
result with near the efficency alone.

>
> >
> > When a plumber puts his pipes behind a $50,000 wall, they better drain
> > right! Your professional buddies can always plead, "I wasn't told about
> > that modification", or, "it's marketing's responsibilty, not ours",
> > or, "gee, it tested OK, guess we'll have to back that out", or, "I'm
> > pretty sure I gave the client the proper specs, do they have them in
> > writing...?",or, "yes I know our graduates are unemployable, but I'm
> > only a teacher...".
>
> When a house is built, it is built according to building codes
> created by engineers, on blueprints set by engineers, with
> materials established by engineers, on specs written by
> engineers, based on computations done by engineers, with
> computer programs written by engineers, on computers designed by
> engineers, with chips created by engineers. A plumber is just an
> executer of things that were designed by people with knowledge
> well beyond that of a technician. No engineers, no walls, no
> pipes, no running water, and consequently no plumbers.

But, if the running water breaks in the middle of the night, the person who
can come out, trouble shoot, and get the system running most efficently is
not the engineer, but the plumber.

>
>
> Reminds me of what I heard is plastered often enough at the
> walls of Boeing factories:
>
> NO NERDS NO BIRDS
>
> Clear enough, eh ? We're the locomotive.

And, the best engineered Boeing 757 will not build itself, fly itself,
maintain itself, or even clean itself. One of my husbands' college classmates
is an aerospace engineer for NASA-but can't even get his private pilot's
licence (much less commercial) because of not meeting the vision
requirements.

>
>
> > I know nothing I can say will change your attitude, but frankly, I
> > don't consider that a problem...
>
> I know you don't know, that's for sure. And you don't seem to be
> aware that there's a whole world beyond those things you take
> for granted. Who produces the tools the plumber uses, the metals
> that make the tools, the pipes, the PVC, the mechanical
> standards that allow interconnection, the hydraulic engineering
> that puts the water into homes, the distribution systems that
> send water around, the dams that pool together the water, the
> equipment that builds the dams, the engineering that keeps them
> sound and in working order ?
>
> The answer is, madam, we do. WE, the engineers, who go to those
> college courses and learn the math and the physics and the
> chemistry and the computer stuff and slave away the hours in
> classrooms, reading, solving problems, experimenting in labs,
> and separating what works from what doesn't.
>
> Plumbers, carpenters, and those others, they're doing what we
> tell them to. No more.
>
> Alberto.

And who makes the tools that you use? Could you go out, locate the raw metal
and silicon, refine, and build a computer from a mass of rocks? For that
matter, could you build the pencil you use to take notes without the
computer? Could you go out, locate, drill, and refine the petroleum needed to
make that PVC plumbing pipe?

While I understand what you are saying, I think you're losing the whole idea
somewhere. No person throughout written history has ever been self
sufficient. While it is true that there are jobs which a higher level of
intelligence, training, and skill are required in than others, this doesn't
mean that those other jobs are inherently useless, or that a child who lacks
the ability to become an engineer is of less value.

I think that's what JMGrace's general thesis is saying-we have traditionally
tried to educate children for a few, rather specialized professions. In the
past, there were other routes of education available for other areas of
specialization. This is really not the case any more. Since the traditional
hands-on training has been limited (very few people are able to learn about
auto mechanics in their backyard, because of the changes in systems from
purely mechanical to computerized, and computer programming, which even 20
years ago was something a reasonably intelligent person could learn from
scratch on their own now is a field which really requires the college
computer science background-much of what was "programming" when I learned now
is included in the object libraries, and if a student's skills do not go
beyond the manipulation of the standard libraries to the underlying layers,
he/she will be unable to program effectively for anything more than making a
simple web page.) the schools need to consider the needs of the student who
is going to build the planes or maintain them-not design them.

One disadvantage of being in the upper 10% of the bell curve (as most of the
people on this group are) is that it is easy to lose sight of the 90%-or even
the next 50%.

--
Donna Devore Metler
dmme...@bellsouth.net
www.math.ttu.edu/~dmettler
www.funfelt.com/donna
Asst. Director, Educational Programming, Peabody Place Museum
Faculty, Academy of the Performing Arts, early childhood and applied music
Children's educational advocate

smar...@my-deja.com

unread,

Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00

In article <tcfo1t00oo9d1oqh5...@4ax.com>,

Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >Your thesis sounds very familiar to me. I took several Black Studies
> >courses at San Francisco State in the 1970's. W.E.B.Debois was in
vogue
> >back then. As nearly as I could tell, he was popular principly
because
> >of his concept of the "talented tenth", in which the "top" 10% of
> >African Americans would lead the rest. As looked around the class, I
> >used to wonder if anyone in the room considered themselves as not
being
> >among the "talented tenth". I guessed not

Don't forget, the top 10% of Afros only barely score above 100 on an IQ
scale. So the top 10% of blacks really says squat, sorry to say.

Alberto Moreira

unread,

Nov 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/27/00

to dmme...@bellsouth.net

Donna Metler wrote:
>
> This sounds a lot like "I'm important-you aren't".

I intended it to sound more like "there are some professions
that are more important than others". In a country that lives
off its scientific and technological achievement, one would
expect people'd know better. But hey, bragging on one's own
while taking for granted everything that put one in that place
is not new to human nature.

Alberto.

Radical1

unread,

Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00

Kindly keep your comments out of any discussion which I initiate.

Radical1

unread,

Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00

> I intended it to sound more like "there are some professions
> that are more important than others". In a country that lives
> off its scientific and technological achievement, one would
> expect people'd know better. But hey, bragging on one's own

> while taking for granted everything that put one in that place
> is not new to human nature.

There are many unattractive things that are "not new to human nature".

Maybe Donna should have said it sounds like "people like me are
important, and people like you aren't". Is that a little closer?

I don't imagine every engineer or computer technician gets a chance to
make a truely significant impact on the quality of life of the average
American citizen. Maybe you could us tell more about your
accomplishments?

jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist

unread,

Nov 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/28/00

In article <90170l$egh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

Radical1 <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I don't imagine every engineer or computer technician gets a chance to
>make a truely significant impact on the quality of life of the average
>American citizen. Maybe you could us tell more about your
>accomplishments?

You go first.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.

Radical1

unread,

Nov 29, 2000, 2:16:05 AM11/29/00

> >I don't imagine every engineer or computer technician gets a chance
to
> >make a truely significant impact on the quality of life of the
average
> >American citizen. Maybe you could us tell more about your
> >accomplishments?
>
> You go first.
> --

I'm afraid I'm too modest, a failing you don't appear to suffer. Based
on your previous comments, I thought you would be happy to enlighten
us.

Gee Dorothy, looks like there's no Wizard behind this curtain either.
Boo!!!

Alberto Moreira

unread,

Nov 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/29/00

Radical1 wrote:
>
> > I intended it to sound more like "there are some professions
> > that are more important than others". In a country that lives
> > off its scientific and technological achievement, one would
> > expect people'd know better. But hey, bragging on one's own
> > while taking for granted everything that put one in that place
> > is not new to human nature.
>
> There are many unattractive things that are "not new to human nature".
>
> Maybe Donna should have said it sounds like "people like me are
> important, and people like you aren't". Is that a little closer?
>

> I don't imagine every engineer or computer technician gets a chance to
> make a truely significant impact on the quality of life of the average
> American citizen. Maybe you could us tell more about your
> accomplishments?

Read my past posts or go to my web site and you'll find out
about me.

But that's not my point. I'm talking about the profession, not
about the individual. Think of the world without engineering,
and then tell me if that profession didn't make a decisive
impact on the way we live.

Now, is it positive ? You have your take, I have mine. More,
nobody can say.

Alberto.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Dec 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/2/00

jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>I have found my recent visits to local high schools to be quite
>instructive. It's hard to attach a number or a grade to what I see,
>but, it sure seems to me, that this whole education thing is not really
>taken THAT seriously. I mean, when I observe the general body language
>of the students; the snippets of instruction that I overhear; the lack
>of real focus in the curriculum discussions that I observe.. Well, my
>point is, there is no, nil, nada sense of URGENCY or gravity involved

>anywhere in the process. The kids are a reluctant, uninvolved captive

>audience, for bored teachers, sleep walking their way to the end of
>another day.

Believe it or not, it is like that in the suburbs as well.

>More speecifically, I looked at my childs 7th grade math
>text. He's in the "accelerated" group, so, this is supposed to be 8th
>grade material.

There have been plenty of complaints about the content of 7th and 8th grade
math courses, which seem to be ever more repetition of what has gone before.
Yet most of the kids seem to need it.

>After looking through the whole damn book, there was
>nothing in there that he couldn't learned in less than 3 weeks of
>focused effort!

If the kids would focus, perhaps, but you are talking middle schoolers here,
and the only thing that they are focussed on at that age is the opposite
gender.

>It's like, we give them our children for 13 years, and
>by God, they're going to take 13 years to give them the elements of
>math, science, language and social studies, even if it could be done as

>well in 10 years or 8 years. It's kind of like the kids are being baby-

>sat through adolescence, and are incidentally being exposed to a
>liberal arts education along the way.

Well, by the time they reach adolescense, they pretty much have to have some
internal motivation to go beyond babysitting. But again, this is not a
problem confined to the inner city. My daughter fully expects to go to
college, but apparently thinks that the time she spends with her boyfriend
(as in every walking moment that she is not forced to be away from him), or
passing notes about boys to her girlfriends, is part of the process.

As for doing it in 8 or 10 years, even if it were possible, it would not be
permissible. School is established to keep the kids in school until
adulthood. Society cannot afford to have kids (who do not have families to
support and who hence can afford to work cheaper) competing with
family-supporting adults. Compulsory education started in part as a way to
keep the kids out of the work force as long as possible. There has been
nibbling around the edges as many if not most high school kids get part time
jobs, and high school dropouts get sub-entry-level full time jobs, but if the
bulk of teens could be working full time entry level jobs, we would have an
unemployment problem that would provoke rioting, because there simply aren't
enough low level jobs to support teens and unskilled adults.

>Naturally it costs more to "educate" a kid for 13 years than it would for 8 or 10.

It costs more in the schools. But what is the cost to society when the kids
are NOT in school. The great riots of history have generally taken place in
summer, and it wasn't just the heat, it was the idle teenagers.

>My point is,
>if these schools have our kids for all this time, why do so many kids
>come out the other end uneducated, untrained, unskilled, and with bad
>attitudes?

The teachers cannot do anything if the kids are not willing to do their
share.

>They don't sem to have these problems in other countries.

That is because the concepts of "individual freedom" are not so deep, showing
"attitude" to your elders in most countries would get you beaten with a cane
- none of the baloney about "parental rights" would stop a teacher from
enforcing discipline with harsh physical force. Or perhaps corporate
punishment like they sometimes use in the military - one kid acts up and the
whole class gets a week of policing the school; do that a couple of times and
no kid would dare act up because the other kids would beat him to a pulp.

Similarly, parents tolerate no "dissing" from their kids, so the kids never
learn to have a bad attitude.

>Are our children genetically inferior in some way?

Nope.

>Do our parents love their children less?

It is not about love for children. It is about priorities. Our country
places importance on other things above respect and discipline, especially on
personal freedom.

>Do we spend all that much less on education compared to other countries?

No, we spend more. But we need to spend more since we individualize
education more than other countries do, even if we do not do so enough to
please parents.

>********************************************************
>> But that is not "why" the teachers shy away from working there. There is a
>> perception of danger, and the likelihood that the students need more than
>> "teaching" in order to be successful. It is a bit much for teachers to be
>> expected to also be parents and social workers and policemen for their
>> students at the same time, and the perception is that inner city teachers
>> have to perform all these roles while also facing physical danger and being
>> compared career-wise with the teachers in the rich suburbs with high academic
>> achievement numbers.
>*****************************************************************

>I didn't make my point very well. What I'm saying is that these kids
>have different needs than the white middle class kids that these
>teachers would prefer to deal with.

I don't think that such different needs or the perception thereof has much to
do with why teachers shy away from working in the inner city.

>You can force-feed all the algebra-
>chemisty-calculus-Latin stuff down a suburban kid's thoat, and he'll
>choke and gag and swallow it, and ask for more, because he knows he has
>to get all the right punches in his ticket so he can get into that
>college that mom and dad and tacher are always harping about. I mean,
>these kids are a push-over.

I wish. But I have two kids inm the suburbs that are hardly pushovers, and
many of their friends are not much better - they just expect to go to college
(as in "handed to them on a silver platter, maybe")

>But, try that on some street hardened inner-
>city kid and his reaction is, "this is bull shit"! He knows he's not
>going to college; the teacher knows he's not going to college, everyone
>knows he's not going to college, but, hey, "tuff shit", "it's our way
>or the highway", and thousands of them choose the "highway" every year
>in Oakland. Sure Oakland's going to have to pay a premium, especially
>if the teachers are required to deliver a curriculum that any 15 year-
>old intuitively knows is boring, irrelevant and inappropriate.

Right - 15 year olds in any environment "know" that what they are studying is
"boring irrelevant and inappropriate". That is part of the age. But what we
teach kids in school does not have to be what they think is interesting
relevant or appropriate. They hope to grow up to make money. You get money
by doing what other people want, and that is true whether you are a janitor,
a mechanic, or an engineer. You don't get to choose whether the work is
interesting - you do it because you have to or you don't get paid. Likewise
in school - but the payment is the piece of paper that will entitle you to a
somewhat better job, or will allow you to go to college for some more hoop
jumping in order to get an even better paying job. The sooner you choose the
"highway", the sooner your rubber will meet the road, and without all that
irrelevant education, you will find that the doors are slammed in your face.

>************************************************************
>
>> ... by the public, among others. Think "Ebonics", which was a short name for
>> a concept that has been and is successful in other locations but has not
>> elsewhere suffered from a public relations fiasco.
>******************************************************
>Your defense of Ebonics caught be off guard. Oakland is still being
>laughed at over that one. Do you really believe it was a "public
>relations" issue?

Entirely. The paper that used the term and got the word into the public eye
could not have been more poorly worded. Do a search on Ebonics on deja news
in the sci.lang newsgroup, and you will find some number of flames against
Ebonics, and also some very passionate defenses of the concept.

>If you're correct, why didn't the educational establishment come to its defense;

They did, which is why I know that the same thing is done in many other
school systems. But they don't use words like "ebonics" (the standard term
used in linguistics is "Black English Vernacular", or BEV for short). But
there is a point where you decide that it is better to shut up and let the
firestorm burn itself out (and then reintroduce the program more quietly and
with better internal wording)

>fight for it tooth and nail? If one
>really has a conviction, doesn't one fight for it?

No. Fighting a losing battle is not a virtue in educational politics.

>So, either Ebonics
>was a really bad idea from a group of highly educated people who should
>have known better,or,

The term and its use was a really bad idea, suggesting in the mere choice of
the word that the school system was going to be structured around BEV rather
than that the school system was going to be structured to overcome the
deficiencies that BEV speakers have in understanding standard English.

>it was a great idea, and the educational
>establishment didn't have the character or the credibility to keep it
>afloat.

It did not have the credibility to overcome the bad PR. There were attempts,
but they were drowned out by the public outrage.

>> The bottom line is that K/12 education is a 13 year process. A reform
>> adopted this year for primary grade students will take 10 years to bear
>> fruit, before you COULD know that the operation was a success (and probably a
>> few years more before those "studies" can be completed to DETERMINE that the
>> operation was a success).
>********************************************************
>I must say, it was a real downer to read that last sentence.

Yes it is, but it is reality nonetheless.

Historically, in the last few decades we've tried experiments in teaching
kindergarten or first grade that seemed to offer some great advantage at the
time, but when SAT time came in 11th or 12th grade, the scores had dropped.
The effects of choosing one education option over another may not be visible
until after a few years of follow-on effects, and then once a difference is
noted, it may take a little longer for people to realize it was that change
back in first grade that was responsible.

As an example, Head Start is considered to be a very good program for
disadvantaged kids. They seem to do a lot better in the first few years of
school. But sometime later, the score differences between kids in Head Start
programs and those who did not get the opportunities disappears. It suddenly
becomes a lot harder to prove that Head Start is having a positive effect.

>Maybe, you
>can wait 10 years to find out, but there are some of us (not enough I'm
>afraid) who that think that's totally ridiculous and totally
>unacceptable!!!!

It may be unacceptable, but any answer before the 10 years is premature and
could be wrong.

I point out the thalidomide disaster of the 50s, when pregnant women were
given this drug which early tests seemed to show caused enormous improvement
in some problems of pregnancy. Unfortunately after a few years they found
out that a significant number of kids were being born with totally disabling
birth defects - thousands of kids were born before they realized that the
drug was causing the problem, and banned it.

Or take DDT, the miracle insecticide that enormously improved crop yields in
farms by wiping out crop-eating insects. Until they found that DDT was
building up in mother's milk to levels that were toxic to kids. It took
maybe 20 years to even recognize the problem, and by that time the farming
industry of the world was so committed to DDT use that it took several more
years before they could effectively ban the insecticide.

The same is true for teaching methods. The idea behind "whole language" is
quite sound, and in early tests showed great improvement in student learning.
But it was introduced into CA schools without properly training the teachers,
and it was dichotomized againt other reading methods like phonics (which is
supposed to be incorporated into whole language, not replaced by it). Until
test scores dropped at higher grade levels, no one knew there was a problem,
and it took several years before the source of the problem was identified.
The solution that was adopted, to go 180 degrees the other way, is probably
just as bad.

California has been at the forefront of educational innovation. ESL programs
and "new math" are twio other areas where CA innovated, but the innovations
were poorly implemented too quickly and without proper training, so they
failed, but the failures were not recognized before a full generation had
suffered the ill effects of the innovation.

>This goes to my original point in this posting.
>Doesn't anyone have ANY sense of urgency when it comes to educating our
>kids?? Ten years???? Give me a break!! All you need to do is come up
>with 3 bad ideas, and you're ready for your pension!!! The fact that
>you've screwed up the lives of several thousand children along the way
>does not seem to be an issue!!

Of course it is an issue.

>Doesn't this border on child abuse, or something???

Or something. The problem is that every educational reform, no matter how
minor, is a form of human experimentation, and human experimentation is
dangerous. You only get third grade once, and if the experiment conducted in
your third grade causes some kind of lasting damage to your education, you
are screwed up. This makes school systems extremely conservative against any
sort of reform - better the known level of damage or benefit to kids than the
risk of messing them up even worse with some reform.

This applies to your ideas for vocational ed. They could try them out, but a
decent vocational ed program would cost millions of dollars that would come
from other programs. And it is unlikely that the results of such a program
will have sufficient data to tell if there has been an improvement for the
kids in the program, until 5 or 10 years after the first kids took the
classes. After 4 years, you might find out whether the kids are employable
at the entry level in the vocations they have studied. But it might take 5
or 6 more years to find out if they are MORE employable than the kids who did
not take vocational ed, and whether they survive in the trade in competition
with the kids who maybe had less vocational training but who had more general
education.

>It wouldn't be so bad if the educational establishment
>learned something from their mistakes.

They do. But having several thousand school districts in this country, all
conducting their own independent experiments, it is incorrect to even say
that there is an "educational establishment".

>o, all failures are do
>to "insufficient resources","improper implementation", "personnel
>changes", "public relations failures", whatever.

Yep, probably most of them are.

>So after much time and effort, nothing is learned and nothing changes!

This is what happens when a profession is so closely micromanaged by the lay
public that really has no knowledge of the profession. Everyone thinks they
know more about how to teach their kid than their kids' teacher does. But
the problem is that the teacer is not teaching individual kids, but rather is
teaching a class, and that changes the resources and the workload.

And of course the public reacts politically to pull the plug on a prgram the
minute it produced a negative result, forgetting that 3/4 of all businesses
fail within the first 3 years, and of the ones that succeed, almost all of
them will lose money for the first 3 years. So if you put in a reform and
test scores drop, it might be because the transition to the new program
caused the reduction and staying the course will lead to long term
improvement. But most of the public thinks like you did above, and is not
willing to wait 10 years to tell what the program has accomplished. TRhey
want instant gratification, and education is a field where instant
gratification almost NEVER produces the desired long term result.

>Really, if anyone
>REALLY CARED, it sure as hell wouldn't take 10 years to determine that
>these hair-brained schemes were abject failures!

If they really were "hair-brained", you might be right. But most of the
programs that are implemented don't make such a significant difference that
the results are that much greater than nose level until they have been
underway for several years. They aren't "hair-brained" at all, but usually
programs that were implemented too quickly and not in accordance with the
procedures that were recommend by the develoiper of the idea.

>Let's make a deal,
>anyone who comes up with "the next big thing" in education, has to have
>THEIR child subjected to it! On second thought, that's not fair to the
>kid....

Right. And yet you want just such an experiment - introducing vocational
education into Oakland schools in a big way. Is the idea good or is it
hair-brained? Would you want to risk your career on the question of whether
parents in a few years would be happy with whatever voc-ed program you came
up with, especially knowing that they will probably end up due to shortage of
money or specialists in a vocation with kids gettng something somewhat
different than you intended.

Radical1

unread,

Dec 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/4/00

Bob, I have been following your work, and I must say that you make the
best damn postings on this forum. I'm sincere! I appreciate your
incisive comments, and while we may disagree, I feel there is real
communication there. That said...
********************

> As for doing it in 8 or 10 years, even if it were possible, it would
not be
> permissible. School is established to keep the kids in school until
> adulthood. Society cannot afford to have kids (who do not have
families to
> support and who hence can afford to work cheaper) competing with
> family-supporting adults.

************************
Once again I have mangled my own point! No, my intent is not that they
get thrown out on the street at age 15. What I mean is, there is plenty
of time (and probably resources) to give our children the basic
education that they need to be citizens of our democracy. Once they
have that foundation, there's still enough time before adulthood that
the 25 percent who need college prep will get it; and the 75 percent
who need real world job skills can get them too. The kids will still
stay in school until their 18-19, but they will be much better prepared
for adult responsibilities than they are now.
*******************************

>But what is the cost to society when the kids
> are NOT in school.

*****************************
Consider a cost that no one talks about: Because our high schools don't
give our kids usable vocational training, the kids have to attend the
local Community Colleges to get it (maybe working or taking out a
substantial loan to do it). What's wrong with this picture???
***************************************

> The teachers cannot do anything if the kids are not willing to do
their
> share.

**************************************
These reluctant scholars are the product of our present educational
system. When an incompetent mechanic damages your car, do you blame the
car?..... I which I could come up with a better analogy... :>\
**************************************************

> >They don't sem to have these problems in other countries.
>
> That is because the concepts of "individual freedom" are not so deep,
showing
> "attitude" to your elders in most countries would get you beaten with
a cane
> - none of the baloney about "parental rights" would stop a teacher
from
> enforcing discipline with harsh physical force.

*************************
I also see stories on the tube about German high school students who
work part time in the local Mercedes plant. The rejection of
things "Not Invented Here" can be a problem in education as well as
industry.
*************************

> Right - 15 year olds in any environment "know" that what they are
studying is
> "boring irrelevant and inappropriate". That is part of the age. But
what we
> teach kids in school does not have to be what they think is
interesting
> relevant or appropriate. They hope to grow up to make money.

***************************
Yes! That's my point! At the very least kids hope to grow up to make
money! But is school helping the non-college track kids toward that
goal? Absolutely not! Sure, a diploma helps, but once you have that,
then what?? Can the kid DO anything???
***************************************

> But they don't use words like "ebonics" (the standard term
> used in linguistics is "Black English Vernacular", or BEV for
short).

********************************
Black English is a cultural/group membership mechanism used by young
African Americans. Employing it in school reforces their belief that
the educational establishment is clueless! These kids know that the
dominant culure doesn't use or respect their dialect. That fact re-
enforces its use! Immitation is also the sincerest form of
patronization.
*********************************

> >Doesn't this border on child abuse, or something???
>
> Or something. The problem is that every educational reform, no
matter how
> minor, is a form of human experimentation, and human experimentation
is
> dangerous.

**********************************
Some of what you say about educational reform may be true. But you know
what bugs me? My school district (and I believe most others) makes NO
effort to measure the success or failure of their high school program.
Absolutely no attempt is made to track what happens to their students
once they leave high school!! 10 years you say. Give me a list of names
and phone numbers, and I'll tell you in 3 weeks exactly how well these
kids were prepared for life by their high schools! Does any one even
send out post cards? Are employers surveyed for their comments on our
high schools? You know the answer as well as I do!

John

panther

unread,

Dec 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/6/00

In article <d3ei2tgml6vc8l6g2...@4ax.com>,

Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> jwgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>

MK. Discussion deleted (wretched inner-city schools)...

>
> > The kids are a reluctant, uninvolved captive audience, for bored
> > teachers, sleep walking their way to the end of another day.
>
> Believe it or not, it is like that in the suburbs as well.
>

MK. So the failure is larger than described.

>
> >More speecifically, I looked at my childs 7th grade math
> >text. He's in the "accelerated" group, so, this is supposed to be 8th
> >grade material.
>
> There have been plenty of complaints about the content of 7th and 8th
grade
> math courses, which seem to be ever more repetition of what has gone
before.
> Yet most of the kids seem to need it.
>

MK. I doubt that most students need that slow a pacew and that much
repetition. If the curriculum made sense (the math textbooks I've seen
don't), and if students could advance at their own pace, and if we gave
students incentives (e.g., early release from bondage), most students
would definitely -not- need the tedious repetition and snail's pace.
The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's dues revenue is directly related to the
number of kids in school. That far better explains the structure of the
system.

>
> >After looking through the whole damn book, there was
> >nothing in there that he couldn't learned in less than 3 weeks of
> >focused effort!
>
> If the kids would focus, perhaps, but you are talking middle
> schoolers here, and the only thing that they are focussed on at that
> age is the opposite gender.
>

MK. I have taught middle-school math. That's not my experience, and
it's not the experience of countries that outperform the US. Does
LeChevalier suppose that Singaporeans reproduce by budding, like
hydra?
>
MK. Discussion deleted (motivation. Schools kill motivation)...
>
> ...School is established to keep the kids in school until
> adulthood.
>
MK. Says who? I have two problems here. a) The passive voice. Some
people established schools. We might infer their motives. Where we find
written expressions of intent in the earliest compulsory attendance
laws, religious indoctrination is the reason given (see, e.g., "the Old
Deceiver Satan" act.) b) The tense. This institution evolved. The
reasons people support it today could differ much from the reasons
people supprted the establishment of compulsory attendance laws, and
State financing.
>
>...Society cannot afford to have kids (who do not have families to

> support and who hence can afford to work cheaper) competing with
> family-supporting adults. Compulsory education started in part as a

> way to keep the kids out of the work force as long as possible...
>
MK. Several problems here also. 1) Since average GDP per capita is
total GDP/population, extra productive labor would raise the overall
standard of living (absent other considerations like returns to
education). 2) Who says a child's contribution to family icome is
insignificant? How can anyone say with certainty that children don't
have families to support? 3) Again, this is anti-historical. It's more
like, compulsory attendance at school initially thrived where child
labor wasn't as valuable as elsewhere. Cities versus farms.

>
> There has been nibbling around the edges as many if not most high
school kids get part time
> jobs, and high school dropouts get sub-entry-level full time jobs,
but if the
> bulk of teens could be working full time entry level jobs, we would
have an
> unemployment problem that would provoke rioting, because there simply
aren't
> enough low level jobs to support teens and unskilled adults.
>

MK. Switzerland seems to manage putting students into apprentice
programs after 6th grade. Take the $6,000/year per student we currently
waste and subsidize employment over a 240 day x 8 hrs/day work year,
and you might find numerous new jobs develop, and new ways to train
students for traditional jobs. OJT, for example.

>
> >Naturally it costs more to "educate" a kid for 13 years than it
would for 8 or 10.
>
> It costs more in the schools. But what is the cost to society when
the kids
> are NOT in school. The great riots of history have generally taken
place in
> summer, and it wasn't just the heat, it was the idle teenagers.
>

MK. In Hawaii, juvenile arrests fall in summer. Reported burglaries
fall in summer. Juvenile hospitalizations for total injury, MVA, and
sttempted suicide fall in summer.

>
> >My point is,
> >if these schools have our kids for all this time, why do so many kids
> >come out the other end uneducated, untrained, unskilled, and with bad
> >attitudes?
>
> The teachers cannot do anything if the kids are not willing to do
> their share.
>

MK. Blame the victim. Schools kill motivation. Einstein opposed
compulsory schooling for this reason. Compulsory, unpaid labor is
slavery. School is RUDE! Monopoly power exacerbates the psychological
abuse school inflict.

>
> >They don't sem to have these problems in other countries.
>
> That is because the concepts of "individual freedom" are not so deep,
showing
> "attitude" to your elders in most countries would get you beaten with
a cane
> - none of the baloney about "parental rights" would stop a teacher
from
> enforcing discipline with harsh physical force. Or perhaps corporate
> punishment like they sometimes use in the military - one kid acts up
and the
> whole class gets a week of policing the school; do that a couple of
times and
> no kid would dare act up because the other kids would beat him to a
pulp.
>

MK. Netherlands is one of the top (TIMSS) countries, and does not
resemble the authoritarian horror LeChevalier has constructed here.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...

>
> Our country places importance on other things above respect and
> discipline, especially on personal freedom.
>

MK. So we compel attendance at school, and limit parents' options for
the use of the State K-12 education subsidsy to schools operated by the
NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel? This is Orwellian doublespeak.

>
> >Do we spend all that much less on education compared to other
> >countries?
>
> No, we spend more. But we need to spend more since we individualize
> education more than other countries do, even if we do not do so
enough to
> please parents.
>

MK. False. Compare Ireland, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium. See
OECD "Education at a Glance".
>
MK. Discussion deleted (question of motivation)...
>
MK. jwgrace99 was correct. As a broad generality, schools supply middle-
class white kids with more incentives than they give poor minorities,
for several reasons.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...

>
> >Maybe, you
> >can wait 10 years to find out, but there are some of us (not enough
I'm
> >afraid) who that think that's totally ridiculous and totally
> >unacceptable!!!!
>
> It may be unacceptable, but any answer before the 10 years is
> premature and could be wrong.
>

MK. The answer with the guns behind it wins.

>
> The same is true for teaching methods. The idea behind "whole
language" is
> quite sound, and in early tests showed great improvement in student
learning.
>

MK. That's not at all what I read. Whole language is based on no
accepted theory of language acquisition and brain function. It was a
sham and a fraud from the start. Intellectually stimulating to dimwit
professors of education because it is counter-intuitive.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
>...Until test scores dropped at higher grade levels, no one knew there

> was a problem, and it took several years before the source of the
> problem was identified. The solution that was adopted, to go 180
> degrees the other way, is probably just as bad.
>

MK. Anti-historical, again. Whole language met opposition from the
first.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...

>
> >Really, if anyone REALLY CARED, it sure as hell wouldn't take 10
> > years to determine that these hair-brained schemes were abject
> > failures!
>
> If they really were "hair-brained", you might be right. But most of
the
> programs that are implemented don't make such a significant
difference that
> the results are that much greater than nose level until they have been
> underway for several years. They aren't "hair-brained" at all, but
usually
> programs that were implemented too quickly and not in accordance with
the
> procedures that were recommend by the develoiper of the idea.
>

MK. It's "hare-brained". And, yes, many educational fads are patently
loony. Bureaucracies do this all the time. Making subordinates jump
through hoops is one way supervisors assess the loyalty of
subordinates.
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.

Donna Metler

unread,

Dec 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/6/00

panther wrote:

No, but IIRC, schools at this level are single-gender in Singapore-and many
other countries. I will say that as low as age 11-12, many children are,
indeed, focused on their own blooming hormones. American culture seems to
lead to early sexual awareness, and more in depth exploration and
experimentation, without any tempering maturity.

Look on the media, before you blame the educational system. The educational
system didn't create Britney Spears, the Spice Girls, Brandi, or Lil Kim.

>
> >

--
Donna Devore Metler
dmme...@bellsouth.net
www.math.ttu.edu/~dmettler

www.funfelt.com/donnae

Radical1

unread,

Dec 6, 2000, 9:50:29 PM12/6/00

> > MK. I have taught middle-school math. That's not my experience, and
> > it's not the experience of countries that outperform the US. Does
> > LeChevalier suppose that Singaporeans reproduce by budding, like
> > hydra?

>American culture seems to

> lead to early sexual awareness, and more in depth exploration and
> experimentation, without any tempering maturity.
>
> Look on the media, before you blame the educational system. The
educational
> system didn't create Britney Spears, the Spice Girls, Brandi, or Lil
Kim.
>

Donna, I'm sure you don't want to imply that academic performance is
inversely related to hormonal activity. Ouch!

Kids who fail and kids who succeed are exposed to pretty much the same
media influences. Speaking from personal experience, I would agree that
there is a certain hormonal energy that becomes a factor at 12-13, and
if it is not directed toward anything else, it will naturally gravitate
to a sexual interest in the opposite gender. But then that's nothing
new! Educational systems have had to deal with such issues for a number
of generations now (ie. "uncounted"), so I don't think we're going to
accept that as the root cause of our current crisis!

I vaguely recall that Officer Kopkee, in the 1950's "West Side Story"
was trying to deal with similar issues. I don't believe that "deep down
inside them they're no good!". I am a father of 12 year old son, who
appears to be quite normal in every way. I have found that he can do
amazing things, if only he focuses his attention and energy. It takes a
certain amount of effort on my part to motivate him, but I invest it,
and he does not disappoint me. I expect some degree of the same effort
from his teachers. It the recent past, I removed him from a school that
was not motivating him to do his best. It's amazing what a difference
the right teacher can make! And working against the very same hormones
at that!

No, I don't think we're going to accept the "raging hormones" excuse.

Baz está fresco em Vermont.

unread,

Dec 6, 2000, 10:05:16 PM12/6/00

Donna Metler wrote:

>
> No, but IIRC, schools at this level are single-gender in Singapore-and many
> other countries. I will say that as low as age 11-12, many children are,

> indeed, focused on their own blooming hormones. American culture seems to

> lead to early sexual awareness, and more in depth exploration and
> experimentation, without any tempering maturity.
>
> Look on the media, before you blame the educational system. The educational
> system didn't create Britney Spears, the Spice Girls, Brandi, or Lil Kim.
>

The notion of a gender neutral environment is entirely bogus. One has to
have a risk management program in place before it can realistically be
undertaken after puberty. For example all the known sexual assaults
carried out by LAPD officers over the last decade involved male actors.
The rapist in the dark in the park is a man.

This is what the science would lead us to expect and thus it is
seemingly. Whether one is taking about Churches or Schools or Prisons
or the Police, male sole supervision of females is always a disaster, it
has never worked and never can work.

It has implications for dual gender activities of virtually any kind.
Risk management and a systems approach is the key.

If the Catholic Church in the USA had 1,200 sex offenders preying on
victims, then one has to look for a realistic number of offenders in
other professions or constituencies. A sex criminal can work in a shoe
shop one week and be a jail guard the next or a school janitor.

In fact one can be a rapist one minute in a county jail and a school
janitor the next week. We (humanitas fellowship) are advocating higher
standards for school employees, the US has a huge number of sex
criminals who escaped punishment because of their military or law
enforcement links.

They can work anywhere they want. Schools need to be aware of that as we
are talking about very big numbers. The USA is a candy store for the
smart sex predator who wants to work the system, he will get one chance
after another after another.

The male sexual biology is without ethics or morals it is reflexive. It
is very rich in fantasy and that starts very early. For example how many
men fantasy about coercive or violent sex? Is it the majority or is it
nearly all?

Take your average listserv, one will have a 'stamp collecting' or 'model
ship' listserv with say 50 members, the same server is unlikely not to
have 'communities' dedicated to the sexual abuse of children or women
and the membership is more likely to be 500 or a 1,000 and there will be
several such communities.

Pornography focused on the sexual abuse of female prisoners might give
us 23,000 titles and the rape of school children might give us 50 or
60,000. The notion of gender neutral environments has no scientific
basis and has never been achieved anywhere on this planet at any point
in the history of our species. The male sexual biology is what it is.

Baz está fresco em Vermont.

unread,

Dec 6, 2000, 10:16:32 PM12/6/00

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

>
> >After looking through the whole damn book, there was
> >nothing in there that he couldn't learned in less than 3 weeks of
> >focused effort!
>
> If the kids would focus, perhaps, but you are talking middle schoolers here,
> and the only thing that they are focussed on at that age is the opposite
> gender.

It will vary from one geo-political region to region. The only certain
factor is that as soon as the male autonomic thing kicks in then boys
will definitely be very interested in it. The male sexual biology by
way of arousal, can't be controlled as a autonomic event. It is like
asking male pupils to mentally control their heart rate or body
temperature. It is simply impossible.

If by reciprocating, a girl gets drenched in gasoline and set on fire
then it won't be reciprocated as a rule in those circumstances. We can
guess what countries we are talking about. In the USA I can't see that
happening too often. Most Islamic states actually have a fairly good
understanding of sexuality and gender subordination. As soon as puberty
kicks in, then you have a sexual dynamic in the classroom. Anybody who
tells you different is a liar or a fool.

panther

unread,

Dec 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/7/00

In article <3A2EE038...@bellsouth.net>,
dmme...@bellsouth.net wrote:

>
> panther wrote:
>
> > MK. Discussion deleted (wretched inner-city schools)...
>

> > > (Bob LeChevalier)... If the kids would focus, perhaps, but you

> > > are talking middle schoolers here, and the only thing that they
> > > are focussed on at that age is the opposite gender.
>
> > MK. I have taught middle-school math. That's not my experience, and
> > it's not the experience of countries that outperform the US. Does
> > LeChevalier suppose that Singaporeans reproduce by budding, like
> > hydra?
>

> No, but IIRC, schools at this level are single-gender in Singapore-
and many
> other countries. I will say that as low as age 11-12, many children
are,
> indeed, focused on their own blooming hormones. American culture
seems to
> lead to early sexual awareness, and more in depth exploration and
> experimentation, without any tempering maturity.
>
> Look on the media, before you blame the educational system. The
educational
> system didn't create Britney Spears, the Spice Girls, Brandi, or Lil
Kim.
>

MK. Perhaps Singapore schools are not segregated by sex (since
Singapore subsidizes atendance at independent schools, probably some
are, and some are not). You could say the same for Netherlands, which
subsidizes attendance at schools of the parents' choice. Been to
Amsterdam? Talk about a sex-saturated media environment! Prudish
Singapore and swingin' Holland both stomp US on TIMSS. No; it's not the
media. It's the State school monopoly in the US, and the more power the
NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel has over parents, the worse their children do in
school. Poor minority children suffer most.
>
MK. Further, the "sex-crazed teens" explanation for poor school
performance doesn't work as an explanation for the -difference- in
student performance between urban and suburban kids in the US,unless
you want to assert that the sex drive of poor minority kids is higher
than of middle-class whites. I'm a middle class white guy, so as
Groucho Marx would say: "I resemble that remark". Last, some
anthropologists claim that men develop culture to impress women.
Certainly womens' preference for successful men indicates that sex is
at least as likely to inspire and enhance academic performance as to
lower it.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Dec 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/7/00

Radical1 <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Bob, I have been following your work, and I must say that you make the
>best damn postings on this forum. I'm sincere! I appreciate your
>incisive comments, and while we may disagree, I feel there is real
>communication there.

Thanks! Would that Alan agreed.

>********************

>> As for doing it in 8 or 10 years, even if it were possible, it would not be
>> permissible. School is established to keep the kids in school until
>> adulthood. Society cannot afford to have kids (who do not have families to
>> support and who hence can afford to work cheaper) competing with
>> family-supporting adults.

>************************
>Once again I have mangled my own point! No, my intent is not that they
>get thrown out on the street at age 15. What I mean is, there is plenty
>of time (and probably resources) to give our children the basic
>education that they need to be citizens of our democracy. Once they
>have that foundation, there's still enough time before adulthood that
>the 25 percent who need college prep will get it; and the 75 percent
>who need real world job skills can get them too. The kids will still
>stay in school until their 18-19, but they will be much better prepared
>for adult responsibilities than they are now.

I am not opposed to such, but I don't think that the kids in question are
willing to stay in school for any purpose until 18-19. It is the fundamental
nature of teens that they rebel, and this subgroup rebels by dropping out.
I'm not sure there is any fix for this.

>***************************************

>> The teachers cannot do anything if the kids are not willing to do their
>> share.

>**************************************
>These reluctant scholars are the product of our present educational
>system.

No - they are product of their own culture and the biological imperatives of
adolescence.

>> >They don't sem to have these problems in other countries.
>>
>> That is because the concepts of "individual freedom" are not so deep, showing
>> "attitude" to your elders in most countries would get you beaten with a cane
>> - none of the baloney about "parental rights" would stop a teacher from
>> enforcing discipline with harsh physical force.

>*************************
>I also see stories on the tube about German high school students who
>work part time in the local Mercedes plant.

Germany has an employment problem, perhaps in part because of this.

>*************************

>> Right - 15 year olds in any environment "know" that what they are studying is
>> "boring irrelevant and inappropriate". That is part of the age. But what we
>> teach kids in school does not have to be what they think is interesting
>> relevant or appropriate. They hope to grow up to make money.

>***************************
>Yes! That's my point! At the very least kids hope to grow up to make
>money! But is school helping the non-college track kids toward that
>goal? Absolutely not! Sure, a diploma helps, but once you have that,
>then what?? Can the kid DO anything???

He can get a job which requires a diploma. The employers say they care about
"skills", but they care more about the piece of paper and the willingness to
jump through the hoops that higher authority sets for kids.

>***************************************

>> But they don't use words like "ebonics" (the standard term
>> used in linguistics is "Black English Vernacular", or BEV for
>short).

>********************************
>Black English is a cultural/group membership mechanism used by young
>African Americans. Employing it in school reforces their belief that
>the educational establishment is clueless! These kids know that the
>dominant culure doesn't use or respect their dialect. That fact re-
>enforces its use! Immitation is also the sincerest form of
>patronization.

I understand. But patronization of the dominant culture is exactly what they
need to do in order to become employed by that dominant culture. White teens
(who also have a different culture than the educationally dominant culture -
just ask Alan) have to learn this too. Ya gotta learn to kiss the man's ass
to rise in the world.

>*********************************

>> >Doesn't this border on child abuse, or something???
>>
>> Or something. The problem is that every educational reform, no matter how
>> minor, is a form of human experimentation, and human experimentation is
>> dangerous.

>**********************************
>Some of what you say about educational reform may be true. But you know
>what bugs me? My school district (and I believe most others) makes NO
>effort to measure the success or failure of their high school program.

That is in part because no reporting mechanism exists to enable this. Once a
kid graduates, the schools have no way to have that kid report back to them
on what they do in life, successful or unsuccessful, or even where they
choose to live. A small portion of the successful keep in touch through
alumni associations and reunions, but those are just the sort that would NOT
present a balanced view of what is working and what is not.

This sort of thing HAS been studied by university scholars that get the money
to track down most or all students of a particular institution, but it is
prohiobitively expensive. And CA is the last place I expect to see
initiatives that are expensive to implement, because of Proposition 13
aftereffects (I left CA in part because of Prop 13 - I am from Redwood City).

>Absolutely no attempt is made to track what happens to their students
>once they leave high school!! 10 years you say. Give me a list of names
>and phone numbers,

They don't have a list of names and phone numbers. Even per the alumni
groups I mentioned, I have heard about high school reunions only because
friends in the area told me about them (and they read it in the paper). My
old high school has no idea where I am.

>and I'll tell you in 3 weeks exactly how well these
>kids were prepared for life by their high schools! Does any one even
>send out post cards?

To where? What people are still living where they lived in high school 10
years later. In the inner city, I would expect it is worse - I don't know
Oakland, but inner city Washington DC has lots of families that move multiple
times per year (with associated impacts on their kids' educations), so it
would be ludicrous to pretend to know where any kid is living even 2 years
after they leave school.

>Are employers surveyed for their comments on our
>high schools? You know the answer as well as I do!

Yes they are. And what they say is two-faced. They want the kids to be able
to do a lot of stuff, much of which is specific to the trade. But they also
want them, even more, to respect authority, to show up for work on time and
every day, and to not goof off on the job, and to stay with the job after the
employer spends money on training them. I daresay that if the kids did the
latter things, the employers wouldn't mind doing the job-specific training as
much. But I have known employers of less-skilled labor to gripe constantly
about the young people who think it is perfectly OK to call in sick whenever
they would rather hang out with their friends (or even to not show up and NOT
call in). If we cannot get past this hurdle, changing the education system
will not solve many problems.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Dec 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/7/00

Radical1 <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Donna, I'm sure you don't want to imply that academic performance is
>inversely related to hormonal activity. Ouch!

Not absolutely inverse, but there is an inverse correlation.

>Kids who fail and kids who succeed are exposed to pretty much the same
>media influences.

The ones who succeed are the ones whose parents have managed to control the
media influences. The schools can't.

>Speaking from personal experience, I would agree that
>there is a certain hormonal energy that becomes a factor at 12-13, and
>if it is not directed toward anything else, it will naturally gravitate
>to a sexual interest in the opposite gender. But then that's nothing
>new! Educational systems have had to deal with such issues for a number
>of generations now (ie. "uncounted"), so I don't think we're going to
>accept that as the root cause of our current crisis!

In prior generations, sexual segregation was common (and most kids left
school at that age - remember that 6th and 8th grades were common terminals
of education until after WW I.

I am a father of 12 year old son, who
>appears to be quite normal in every way. I have found that he can do
>amazing things, if only he focuses his attention and energy. It takes a
>certain amount of effort on my part to motivate him, but I invest it,
>and he does not disappoint me.

Good!

>I expect some degree of the same effort from his teachers.

And that is the unfair expectation. You have one (or a small number) of kids
and many hours a week to manage him. The teachers have 30 kids at a time,
and in middle school maybe 150 kids or more in total. They cannot spend more
than a couple of minutes with each kid individually, and the kind of
motivation you provide for your son often takes since individual attention.

>It the recent past, I removed him from a school that
>was not motivating him to do his best. It's amazing what a difference
>the right teacher can make!

The right teacher may naturally have a style that is in tune with whatever
motivates your son, and there are indeed a few teachers who can manage to
motivate a variety of different kinds of kids. But that is a somewhat rare
talent that cannot be trained, and we cannot expect all of the 2-3 million
teachers in America to have that talent naturally.

toto

unread,

Dec 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/7/00

On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:00:24 GMT, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon
and tiring philalethist) wrote:

>In article <3A2EFE6C...@ntlworld.com>,
>Baz =?iso-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= fresco em Vermont.

>>The notion of a gender neutral environment is entirely bogus. One has to
>>have a risk management program in place before it can realistically be
>>undertaken after puberty. For example all the known sexual assaults
>>carried out by LAPD officers over the last decade involved male actors.
>>The rapist in the dark in the park is a man.
>

>Ahh, yes, more of that old "let us all hate men" stuff, then
>followed by "let's treat them like less than human because
>of their nature".
>
>
>Fact: The average man in the park is not a rapist.
>Fact: The average poice officer does not assult people.
>
>Concentrate on the real problem, please, that of
>identifying the PROBLEM, instead of posting utterly
>reprehensible and fundamentally dishonest anti-male
>propaganda.
>
>You owe 99.5% of the men in the world a written
>apology.

He owes that apology to both men and women, imho, JJ

Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
source unknown

jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist

unread,

Dec 7, 2000, 12:00:24 PM12/7/00

In article <3A2EFE6C...@ntlworld.com>,
Baz =?iso-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= fresco em Vermont.

>The notion of a gender neutral environment is entirely bogus. One has to
>have a risk management program in place before it can realistically be
>undertaken after puberty. For example all the known sexual assaults
>carried out by LAPD officers over the last decade involved male actors.
>The rapist in the dark in the park is a man.

Ahh, yes, more of that old "let us all hate men" stuff, then

followed by "let's treat them like less than human because
of their nature".

Fact: The average man in the park is not a rapist.
Fact: The average poice officer does not assult people.

Concentrate on the real problem, please, that of
identifying the PROBLEM, instead of posting utterly
reprehensible and fundamentally dishonest anti-male
propaganda.

You owe 99.5% of the men in the world a written
apology.

Baz está fresco em Vermont.

unread,

Dec 8, 2000, 8:29:43 AM12/8/00

toto wrote:

> >
> >You owe 99.5% of the men in the world a written
> >apology.
>

> He owes that apology to both men and women, imho, JJ
>
> Dorothy

Your honest opinion has no scientific basis in fact and my opinion
fortunately does.

Baz está fresco em Vermont.

unread,

Dec 8, 2000, 8:31:22 AM12/8/00

"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
>
> In article <3A2EFE6C...@ntlworld.com>,
> Baz =?iso-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= fresco em Vermont.

> >The notion of a gender neutral environment is entirely bogus. One has to
> >have a risk management program in place before it can realistically be
> >undertaken after puberty. For example all the known sexual assaults
> >carried out by LAPD officers over the last decade involved male actors.
> >The rapist in the dark in the park is a man.
>

> Ahh, yes, more of that old "let us all hate men" stuff, then
> followed by "let's treat them like less than human because
> of their nature".

The studies are in the public domain. Your quotation marks refer to a
premise that you yourself introduced. I see no reason why I should
therefore comment upon it or pretend to adopt it.

jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist

unread,

Dec 8, 2000, 9:24:57 AM12/8/00

In article <3A30E2AA...@ntlworld.com>,

Baz =?iso-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= fresco em Vermont.

<gregory....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>The studies are in the public domain. Your quotation marks refer to a
>premise that you yourself introduced. I see no reason why I should
>therefore comment upon it or pretend to adopt it.

I'm at least as aware of the studies as you are. Simply put,
you summarize them in a discrinatory and sexist fashion,
and repeat the lie that "all men are potential rapists",
of course not quite in those words.

I am, I will say, also aware of some rather peculiar
methods in some studies, too, as well as what I can only
call peculiar interpretation of results :-(

Baz está fresco em Vermont.

unread,

Dec 8, 2000, 5:48:37 PM12/8/00

"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
>

> In article <3A30E2AA...@ntlworld.com>,
> Baz =?iso-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= fresco em Vermont.
> <gregory....@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> >The studies are in the public domain. Your quotation marks refer to a
> >premise that you yourself introduced. I see no reason why I should
> >therefore comment upon it or pretend to adopt it.
>

> I'm at least as aware of the studies as you are. Simply put,
> you summarize them in a discrinatory and sexist fashion,
> and repeat the lie that "all men are potential rapists",
> of course not quite in those words.

I neither said it or repeated it. You must be talking about somebody
else. I've studiued organizational theory for three years and I'm
unlikely to be that silly. I neither said it or repeated it and your
quotation marks are highly misleading and contrived. I rather doubt
you're an expert on anything. Get back to me when you have a rebuttal
with four wheels.

toto

unread,

Dec 8, 2000, 8:35:47 PM12/8/00

Since you no nothing of my background, how do you know what my
opinion is based on?

Beth Clarkson

unread,

Dec 9, 2000, 12:44:53 PM12/9/00

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Radical1 <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Donna, I'm sure you don't want to imply that academic performance is
> >inversely related to hormonal activity. Ouch!
>

> Not absolutely inverse, but there is an inverse correlation.

So you are claiming that academic performance is indeed inversely related to
hormonal activity?

> >Kids who fail and kids who succeed are exposed to pretty much the same
> >media influences.
>

> The ones who succeed are the ones whose parents have managed to control the
> media influences. The schools can't.

Do you have some basis for this claim or is it simply your opinion? How is
"controlling media influences" defined and how are parents who manage to do so
distinguished from those who do not?

> >I am a father of 12 year old son, who
> >appears to be quite normal in every way. I have found that he can do
> >amazing things, if only he focuses his attention and energy. It takes a
> >certain amount of effort on my part to motivate him, but I invest it,
> >and he does not disappoint me.
>

> Good!

>
> >I expect some degree of the same effort from his teachers.
>

> And that is the unfair expectation. You have one (or a small number) of kids
> and many hours a week to manage him. The teachers have 30 kids at a time,
> and in middle school maybe 150 kids or more in total. They cannot spend more
> than a couple of minutes with each kid individually, and the kind of
> motivation you provide for your son often takes since individual attention.

If this is true, I would consider it justification for a massive restructuring of
our educational system. Perhaps that is his point.

> >It the recent past, I removed him from a school that
> >was not motivating him to do his best. It's amazing what a difference
> >the right teacher can make!

Interesting. Moving him to a different school was able to make a difference for
his son. Fortunate that he had that option available.

> The right teacher may naturally have a style that is in tune with whatever
> motivates your son, and there are indeed a few teachers who can manage to
> motivate a variety of different kinds of kids. But that is a somewhat rare
> talent that cannot be trained, and we cannot expect all of the 2-3 million
> teachers in America to have that talent naturally.
>

How do you know that such a 'talent' cannot be trained? While not everyone can
be considered to have musical 'talent', most are capable of being trained to play
any instrument they desire to learn. I think that most 'talents' are like this.
Sure, some few have a natural aptitude that makes it easy for them to master the
skill and advance to the highest level of proficiency, but the vast majority of
humans are capable of learning any skill they desire to an adequate level, given
a competent teacher and a willingness to do the work involved. As Michelangelo
is reputed to have said "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration."

Beth

Radical1

unread,

Dec 9, 2000, 9:16:31 PM12/9/00

*********************************************
Please, let's be a little bit resourceful: Most of these kids have
relatives who have addresses we could work through; most families keep
their old phone numbers if they change addresses; many people submit
change-of-address forms to the Postal Service; most families can be
tracked through credit rating services; we could ask for multiple
references when a child is first enrolled in school; prison and parole
administrators have the addresses of several hundred thousand of
our "educational" system's alumni; many of these kids stay in contact
with students still in school, or former students that we can locate;
etc., etc.. I'm sure I could come up with another dozen good ways to
find these kids, but my basic point is, it COULD be done, if anyone
REALLY CARED!

I mean really! These people are not abducted by aliens! They're not ALL
living in the back seats of 76' Malibu's! If somebody's livelihood
depended on finding these kids, you better believe they'd be found! But
it doesn't, and they aren't!

Joni J Rathbun

unread,

Dec 9, 2000, 10:38:59 PM12/9/00

Hmm. No, some are going to and from Mexico because some *are* aliens. Some
don't have *real* addresses because they don't want you to know their
address. Some live with other families and relatives until the welcome
wears out, then they move on to the next. A number of our students
live in multi-family set-ups. Many don't have credit ratings of
any kind or even bank accounts. Many are *highly* transient. Don't know
who they'd list as references. There are some that are pretty darned
hard to track down.

Humanitas Catholic Fellowship

unread,

Dec 10, 2000, 1:31:51 AM12/10/00

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

>
> California has been at the forefront of educational innovation.

Like drug companies and universities using children detained in juvenile
for trying out drug experiments? The United Nations was not very pleased
about that. It was *supposed* to be illegal in the USA. Sex abuse of
female children in juvenile is also more or less a mandatory feature.
Sex criminals flocked like a herd of cattle to join in the fun.

California recruited more child molesters for it's juvenile detention
facilities than I have neighbours. If you are in search of
educationally inept geographies at least pick one that is civilized. Try
somewhere at the top of the ethics table rather than corrupt
administrations at the bottom.

A Governor according to the Californian prison workers I've interviewed
costs two million bucks in California. In Texas you might influence one
a lot cheaper with a new video game, do not try and buy him a book, he
has already read one allegedly. The United States is a mess.

Donna Metler

unread,

Dec 10, 2000, 8:07:42 AM12/10/00

Have to agree here. Many of the schools in my district have mobility rates of
50% or higher-even my school, which has a fairly large percentage of school
choice slots has about a 33% mobility rate. Some of these kids move several
times a year. We have a hard time keeping up with school records even while
they're in attendance-by the time the paperwork gets to the central office,
the child has moved again.

We also have a fair number of moves where the parent honestly doesn't know
where they're going long-term (or isn't telling). Usually, these are families
which have just lost housing-either the parent got a job and was kicked out of
public housing, a landlord raised the rent, or similar things. Most move in
with friends or family-a few days here, a week there...We encourage the
parents to keep their kids enrolled while they look for housing, but many of
these kids simply vanish. Sometimes we find out where they went when their new
school requests the records.

These are elementary kids. I would hate to try to track down independently
mobile high school students. Expecting to be able to do so through relatives
and friends is a very suburban attitude, and not realistic for many schools.

Joni J Rathbun wrote:

Donna Devore Metler
dmme...@bellsouth.net
www.math.ttu.edu/~dmettler
www.funfelt.com/donna

Asst. Director, Educational Programming, Peabody Place Museum
Faculty, Academy of the Performing Arts, early childhood and applied music
Children's educational advocate

Radical1

unread,

Dec 10, 2000, 12:20:02 PM12/10/00

> Hmm. No, some are going to and from Mexico because some *are* aliens.
Some
> don't have *real* addresses because they don't want you to know their
> address. Some live with other families and relatives until the welcome
> wears out, then they move on to the next. A number of our students
> live in multi-family set-ups. Many don't have credit ratings of
> any kind or even bank accounts. Many are *highly* transient. Don't
know
> who they'd list as references. There are some that are pretty darned
> hard to track down.

How many kids are in inner-city highschools? One milion? Two million?
Whatever it is, it's a pretty large number, right? One percent of one
million is 10,000. Are you telling me we can't track down one percent
of these kids two years after they leave high school?? COME ON! If the
American educational establishment had been in charge of building the
Egyptian pyramids, today, no pyramids would exist anywhere in Egypt.
There would however, be a large number of planners and theoreticians
bemoaning the fact that "the blocks are too heavy", "we're not sure if
it will stay up", "what if the workers don't show up", "what if someone
should get hurt". Yes, and: "we'll have to study the plan further"...

Nothing personal, but I see a pattern among some of the respondents to
this forum dredging up the worst case anecdote and saying, "see, it's
impossible, we can't do anything". I'm discovering that the power of
rationalization is one of the strongest forces in human nature. Nothing
person.

Beth Clarkson

unread,

Dec 10, 2000, 2:50:09 PM12/10/00

I must disagree. Sure, there are difficulties with tracking these kids, but a
concerted effort to track them down and survey them a few years later would not be
fruitless. It would leave us with some degree of uncertainty, depending on what
percentage can be found, and I wouldn't extrapolate the results of those that can
be found to those who cannot. Even so, it would allow us to place confidence
bounds on the degree of success that those schools have in preparing the children
they serve for life as independent self-supporting adults. That no one even
attempts to do so, and that the mere suggestion of such a study garners the
responses posted here says much about our current system and tells us how much
those working within it are interested in finding out the long term results of
their efforts.

Beth

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Dec 13, 2000, 5:04:11 PM12/13/00

Beth Clarkson <Be...@kscable.com> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>> Radical1 <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >Donna, I'm sure you don't want to imply that academic performance is
>> >inversely related to hormonal activity. Ouch!
>>
>> Not absolutely inverse, but there is an inverse correlation.
>
>So you are claiming that academic performance is indeed inversely related to
>hormonal activity?

To some degree, yes. Not in every student, but statistically, I am sure that
trend would hold.

>> >Kids who fail and kids who succeed are exposed to pretty much the same
>> >media influences.
>>
>> The ones who succeed are the ones whose parents have managed to control the
>> media influences. The schools can't.
>
>Do you have some basis for this claim or is it simply your opinion?

Opinion based in part on the families I know whose kids are or are not
succeeding.

>How is
>"controlling media influences" defined and how are parents who manage to do so
>distinguished from those who do not?

If I knew the answer to the latter, I would be a much more successful parent.
The definition seems simple to me - managing to ensure somehow that your kids
maintain a higher priority on school and studies than on whatever the fad of
the month is in the media, a fad that generally stresses social and sexual
ideas rather than academic ones.

>> >I am a father of 12 year old son, who
>> >appears to be quite normal in every way. I have found that he can do
>> >amazing things, if only he focuses his attention and energy. It takes a
>> >certain amount of effort on my part to motivate him, but I invest it,
>> >and he does not disappoint me.
>>
>> Good!
>>
>> >I expect some degree of the same effort from his teachers.
>>
>> And that is the unfair expectation. You have one (or a small number) of kids
>> and many hours a week to manage him. The teachers have 30 kids at a time,
>> and in middle school maybe 150 kids or more in total. They cannot spend more
>> than a couple of minutes with each kid individually, and the kind of
>> motivation you provide for your son often takes since individual attention.
>
>If this is true, I would consider it justification for a massive restructuring of
>our educational system. Perhaps that is his point.

I think it is true, and I cannot imagine ANY restructuring of our education
system that could change it, other than having every parent mandatorily
homeschool. With student teacher ratios at their lowest level ever, it is
still 17 kids per teacher, and in 360 minutes a day, that means at optimum
there would still be only 20 minutes a day for each kid if every minute was
spent on individualized work.

>> >It the recent past, I removed him from a school that
>> >was not motivating him to do his best. It's amazing what a difference
>> >the right teacher can make!
>
>Interesting. Moving him to a different school was able to make a difference for
>his son. Fortunate that he had that option available.

Not everyone does. Even when it is legal, logistics for parents for anything
other than the neighborhood school can be very difficult (this from a parent
who has had his son in non-neighborhood schools WITH bussing provided for 5
of his 8 school years, and school choice usually does not include free
transportation).

>> The right teacher may naturally have a style that is in tune with whatever
>> motivates your son, and there are indeed a few teachers who can manage to
>> motivate a variety of different kinds of kids. But that is a somewhat rare
>> talent that cannot be trained, and we cannot expect all of the 2-3 million
>> teachers in America to have that talent naturally.
>
>How do you know that such a 'talent' cannot be trained?

If it could be trained then presumably we would have people who would be
doing so for a living - it is a very valuable skill in the private sector as
well.

>While not everyone can
>be considered to have musical 'talent', most are capable of being trained to play
>any instrument they desire to learn.

To some degree, but not to any level Alberto would call skillfully - not to a
professional level of competence, and that is what we are talking about for
school teachers (and instrument teaching takes YEARS to even accomplish what
it does, whereas teacher training is a maximum of 1-2 years in any state).

We are not talking about the most simple of teaching skills, but probably the
most esoteric one. We know the story of Jaime Escalante, and how he was able
to motivate inner city kids to the level needed to master AP Calculus; but
Escalante was apparently unable to transfer his skill to others.

>I think that most 'talents' are like this.
>Sure, some few have a natural aptitude that makes it easy for them to master the
>skill and advance to the highest level of proficiency, but the vast majority of
>humans are capable of learning any skill they desire to an adequate level, given
>a competent teacher and a willingness to do the work involved.

Define "adequate" for purposes of this discussion. I think we are talking
about a level of motivational skill that maybe one teacher in 100 among those
already trained in the profession has, given current training. That is rarer
than the ability to play an instrument, more on the level with the ability to
TEACH playing an instrument.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Dec 13, 2000, 5:04:02 PM12/13/00

Radical1 <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Please, let's be a little bit resourceful: Most of these kids have
>relatives who have addresses we could work through; most families keep
>their old phone numbers if they change addresses; many people submit
>change-of-address forms to the Postal Service; most families can be
>tracked through credit rating services; we could ask for multiple
>references when a child is first enrolled in school; prison and parole
>administrators have the addresses of several hundred thousand of
>our "educational" system's alumni; many of these kids stay in contact
>with students still in school, or former students that we can locate;
>etc., etc.. I'm sure I could come up with another dozen good ways to
>find these kids, but my basic point is, it COULD be done, if anyone
>REALLY CARED!

It COULD be done for many, but not necessarily all, and there would be a
likely skewing in the ones that were lost - likely the most transient and
often least successful of the students. It has been discussed in this
newsgroup that Texas cannot even give a credible dropout rate because they
cannot tell when a student leaves school whether he merely changed schools,
dropped out, or is with his family back in Mexico for several months or a
year.

But most of all, this kind of tracking, though it could be done, would be
expensive. It is not so simple as "mailing a postcard". And it would do
little good, since the typical response rate to mail surveys to known
addressees that are not backed with some kind of reward/punishment is well
under 20%.

>I mean really! These people are not abducted by aliens! They're not ALL
>living in the back seats of 76' Malibu's! If somebody's livelihood
>depended on finding these kids, you better believe they'd be found! But
>it doesn't, and they aren't!

Correct, it doesn't. I can think of no way to make someone's livelihood
depend on finding kids, either. (But look at the success rate for finding
fathers who don't pay child support, and people's livelihood DOES depend on
that, and there are national laws in place to aid the practice, and adults
have much more paper trail in public records than kids do.)

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Dec 13, 2000, 5:04:15 PM12/13/00

panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> No, but IIRC, schools at this level are single-gender in Singapore-and many

>> other countries. I will say that as low as age 11-12, many children are,
>> indeed, focused on their own blooming hormones. American culture seems to
>> lead to early sexual awareness, and more in depth exploration and
>> experimentation, without any tempering maturity.
>>
>> Look on the media, before you blame the educational system. The educational
>> system didn't create Britney Spears, the Spice Girls, Brandi, or Lil Kim.
>>
>MK. Perhaps Singapore schools are not segregated by sex (since
>Singapore subsidizes atendance at independent schools, probably some
>are, and some are not).

"Probably"? On what basis do you claim this probability. In a uniform
culture, all of the "choices" may be nearly identical.

>You could say the same for Netherlands, which
>subsidizes attendance at schools of the parents' choice. Been to
>Amsterdam? Talk about a sex-saturated media environment! Prudish
>Singapore and swingin' Holland both stomp US on TIMSS. No; it's not the
>media. It's the State school monopoly in the US, and the more power the
>NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel has over parents, the worse their children do in
>school. Poor minority children suffer most.
>>
>MK. Further, the "sex-crazed teens" explanation for poor school
>performance doesn't work as an explanation for the -difference- in
>student performance between urban and suburban kids in the US,

Neither does your explanation. Suburban schools are just as unionized as
urban schools, and the schools are probably more of a monopoly because
suburban families tend to be less transient (It is hard for a highly
transient family to be affected by a local monopoly - they don't necessarily
stay within the bounds of that monopoly in their transience).

>unless
>you want to assert that the sex drive of poor minority kids is higher
>than of middle-class whites.

Such an argument would have to assume that the kids start out at the same
place when entering middle school, but it is rare for inner city kids to
start out at the same level as suburban kids. So one cannot conclude
anything about relative impact of sexuality when the other variables are
uncontrolled.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Dec 13, 2000, 5:04:07 PM12/13/00

Radical1 <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> Hmm. No, some are going to and from Mexico because some *are* aliens.
>Some
>> don't have *real* addresses because they don't want you to know their
>> address. Some live with other families and relatives until the welcome
>> wears out, then they move on to the next. A number of our students
>> live in multi-family set-ups. Many don't have credit ratings of
>> any kind or even bank accounts. Many are *highly* transient. Don't
>know
>> who they'd list as references. There are some that are pretty darned
>> hard to track down.
>
>How many kids are in inner-city highschools? One milion? Two million?
>Whatever it is, it's a pretty large number, right? One percent of one
>million is 10,000. Are you telling me we can't track down one percent
>of these kids two years after they leave high school??

I'm sure we could track down 1% of them, but not necessarily a random 1%
(which would be a pretty small sample if you want to find out something about
individual school districts. Oakland's enrollment is around 50,000, so 1% is
only 500.) In a *random* sampling, 500 people has a high inaccuracy rate
(Gallup typically uses 3000 or more to get a 3% error rate.)

>COME ON! If the
>American educational establishment had been in charge of building the
>Egyptian pyramids, today, no pyramids would exist anywhere in Egypt.

Yep, Egyptian pharaohs had absolute power over their subjects and slavery,
and probably near-zero mobility. American educators have no power at all,
and we have enormous strictures to encourage freedom, privacy, and mobility.

>Nothing personal, but I see a pattern among some of the respondents to
>this forum dredging up the worst case anecdote and saying, "see, it's
>impossible, we can't do anything". I'm discovering that the power of
>rationalization is one of the strongest forces in human nature. Nothing
>person.

It is not that it is "impossible"; it is that it is "impractical" meaning
that there are obstacles that are significant and the cost of overcoming the
obstacles is far too high for the minimal benefit that might result (because
indeed, we might know something if we had such data, but that knowledge would
not necessarily lead to improved results, which would cost still more money).

panther

unread,

Dec 13, 2000, 7:43:25 PM12/13/00

In article <0kva3tsj3an6to6kv...@4ax.com>,

Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> panther <igon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, but IIRC, schools at this level are single-gender in

Singapore-and many other countries...
>
MK. Discussion deleted...

>
> >MK. Perhaps Singapore schools are not segregated by sex (since
> >Singapore subsidizes atendance at independent schools, probably some
> >are, and some are not).
>
> "Probably"? On what basis do you claim this probability. In a
uniform
> culture, all of the "choices" may be nearly identical.
>

MK. Singapore is hardly a "uniform culture". There are religious schools
of various denominations, and the State schools. Singapore is Chinese,
Malay, European, and Hindu.

>
> >You could say the same for Netherlands, which
> >subsidizes attendance at schools of the parents' choice. Been to
> >Amsterdam? Talk about a sex-saturated media environment! Prudish
> >Singapore and swingin' Holland both stomp US on TIMSS. No; it's not
the
> >media. It's the State school monopoly in the US, and the more power
the
> >NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel has over parents, the worse their children do
in
> >school. Poor minority children suffer most.
>
> >MK. Further, the "sex-crazed teens" explanation for poor school
> >performance doesn't work as an explanation for the -difference- in
> >student performance between urban and suburban kids in the US,
>
> Neither does your explanation. Suburban schools are just as unionized
as
> urban schools, and the schools are probably more of a monopoly because
> suburban families tend to be less transient (It is hard for a highly
> transient family to be affected by a local monopoly - they don't
necessarily
> stay within the bounds of that monopoly in their transience).
>

MK. Well, I guess that answers our question. Schools may be unionized
State-wide, and yet differ in their impact on poor versus middle class
kids. The bureaucracy knows better than to mess up a lawyer's kid.

>
> >unless
> >you want to assert that the sex drive of poor minority kids is higher
> >than of middle-class whites.
>
> Such an argument would have to assume that the kids start out at the
same
> place when entering middle school, but it is rare for inner city kids
to
> start out at the same level as suburban kids. So one cannot conclude
> anything about relative impact of sexuality when the other variables
are
> uncontrolled.
>

MK. Good. There goes sexuality as an explanation for poor academic
performance. Glad we agree.

>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.

Radical1

unread,

Dec 13, 2000, 8:41:05 PM12/13/00

OK, Bob, just for yucks, let's put an ad in the Oakland Tribune:

"The Oakland Unified School District will pay $100 to any 1995 graduate
of an Oakland High School. To collect this reward, the graduate must
complete an opinion survey. Call 555-1212 for more information".

Let's see, Oakland graduated about 1,400 seniors in 1995. Want to bet
on how much money we give away?

Or, how about:

"The Oakland Unified School District Lottery anounces a new, annual
lottery. $5,000 will be be given to the winner. To enter, you must be a
certifiable graduate of an Oakland High School, and complete an opinion
survey to be included with your entry."

Want to bet I could get a 20 percent response rate with an investment
of $5,000 dollars? Want to bet against me? The main expense would be
the processing of all the surveys that would flood in!

This is too easy... Give me a tougher problem :>)

Beth Clarkson

unread,

Dec 14, 2000, 11:59:37 AM12/14/00

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Radical1 <jwgr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> Hmm. No, some are going to and from Mexico because some *are* aliens.
> >Some
> >> don't have *real* addresses because they don't want you to know their
> >> address. Some live with other families and relatives until the welcome
> >> wears out, then they move on to the next. A number of our students
> >> live in multi-family set-ups. Many don't have credit ratings of
> >> any kind or even bank accounts. Many are *highly* transient. Don't
> >know
> >> who they'd list as references. There are some that are pretty darned
> >> hard to track down.
> >
> >How many kids are in inner-city highschools? One milion? Two million?
> >Whatever it is, it's a pretty large number, right? One percent of one
> >million is 10,000. Are you telling me we can't track down one percent
> >of these kids two years after they leave high school??
>
> I'm sure we could track down 1% of them, but not necessarily a random 1%
> (which would be a pretty small sample if you want to find out something about
> individual school districts. Oakland's enrollment is around 50,000, so 1% is
> only 500.) In a *random* sampling, 500 people has a high inaccuracy rate
> (Gallup typically uses 3000 or more to get a 3% error rate.)

How accurate a survey is really needed? Even if it has a 10 or 15% error rate,
wouldn't that provide more and better information that we have now? Wouldn't that
be an improvement? And wouldn't it be enough to let the people managing the
school and those supporting it have a better idea of the success rate and what
they are doing wrong and what they are doing right? I would seriously question
your assessement of how accurate the results must be in order to be useful. Even
surveys with wide margins of error can be useful if they provide insight that
isn't available without them.

> It is not that it is "impossible"; it is that it is "impractical" meaning
> that there are obstacles that are significant and the cost of overcoming the
> obstacles is far too high for the minimal benefit that might result (because
> indeed, we might know something if we had such data, but that knowledge would
> not necessarily lead to improved results, which would cost still more money).
>

First you claim that the information collected must meet some arbitrarily high
standard of accuracy, then you decide that it's just too expensive to collect
data that will meet with that high standard of accuracy. Conclusion - data
collection is an unnecessary and we need not bother with it. We can improve the
system without having a clear idea of how it is performing now.

The cost of collecting information on the current performance of the system is
part and parcel of the cost of improving a system. If you are unwilling to spend
what it takes to get the information needed (which isn't necessarily as expensive
as you fear), then you are basically declaring improvement to be too costly to
bother with. Do you really think it is? Does everyone else?

Beth

Beth Clarkson

unread,

Dec 14, 2000, 1:11:12 PM12/14/00

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Beth Clarkson <Be...@kscable.com> wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> >> >Kids who fail and kids who succeed are exposed to pretty much the same
> >> >media influences.
> >>
> >> The ones who succeed are the ones whose parents have managed to control the
> >> media influences. The schools can't.
> >
> >Do you have some basis for this claim or is it simply your opinion?
>
> Opinion based in part on the families I know whose kids are or are not
> succeeding.
>
> >How is
> >"controlling media influences" defined and how are parents who manage to do so
> >distinguished from those who do not?
>
> If I knew the answer to the latter, I would be a much more successful parent.
> The definition seems simple to me - managing to ensure somehow that your kids
> maintain a higher priority on school and studies than on whatever the fad of
> the month is in the media, a fad that generally stresses social and sexual
> ideas rather than academic ones.

I wasn't asking how they accomplished it, but rather how you distinguish between those
parents who do so successfully and those who do not. You state that it is your
opinion based in part on the families you know. How do you determine which parents do
and do not control media influence, thus helping their children to succeed in school?
It is possible that you simply observe that those children who do well in school also
seem to be less influenced by the media, indicating only a correlation, not causation?

> >> >I am a father of 12 year old son, who
> >> >appears to be quite normal in every way. I have found that he can do
> >> >amazing things, if only he focuses his attention and energy. It takes a
> >> >certain amount of effort on my part to motivate him, but I invest it,
> >> >and he does not disappoint me.
> >>
> >> Good!
> >>
> >> >I expect some degree of the same effort from his teachers.
> >>
> >> And that is the unfair expectation. You have one (or a small number) of kids
> >> and many hours a week to manage him. The teachers have 30 kids at a time,
> >> and in middle school maybe 150 kids or more in total. They cannot spend more
> >> than a couple of minutes with each kid individually, and the kind of
> >> motivation you provide for your son often takes since individual attention.
> >
> >If this is true, I would consider it justification for a massive restructuring of
> >our educational system. Perhaps that is his point.
>
> I think it is true, and I cannot imagine ANY restructuring of our education
> system that could change it, other than having every parent mandatorily
> homeschool.

And if you can't imagine it, there's no point in our society trying to accomplish such
a thing?

> With student teacher ratios at their lowest level ever, it is
> still 17 kids per teacher, and in 360 minutes a day, that means at optimum
> there would still be only 20 minutes a day for each kid if every minute was
> spent on individualized work.

In a week, that would be over an hour and half. Substantially less than that per
week, in combination with more traditional learning activities, might well be
sufficient.

> >> The right teacher may naturally have a style that is in tune with whatever
> >> motivates your son, and there are indeed a few teachers who can manage to
> >> motivate a variety of different kinds of kids. But that is a somewhat rare
> >> talent that cannot be trained, and we cannot expect all of the 2-3 million
> >> teachers in America to have that talent naturally.
> >
> >How do you know that such a 'talent' cannot be trained?
>
> If it could be trained then presumably we would have people who would be
> doing so for a living - it is a very valuable skill in the private sector as
> well.

Are you saying that skill set or talents required for motivating children are the same
as those need to motivate adults?

By the way, I have received such training as an educator in the private sector. I
found it quite valuable and still used the techniques and approaches I learned in that
3-day seminar years ago.

Sorry, out of time so I can't respond to the rest.

Beth

toto

unread,

Dec 17, 2000, 9:51:51 PM12/17/00

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:43:25 GMT, panther <igon...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>> >> No, but IIRC, schools at this level are single-gender in
>Singapore-and many other countries...
>>
>MK. Discussion deleted...
>>
>> >MK. Perhaps Singapore schools are not segregated by sex (since
>> >Singapore subsidizes atendance at independent schools, probably some
>> >are, and some are not).
>>
>> "Probably"? On what basis do you claim this probability. In a
>uniform
>> culture, all of the "choices" may be nearly identical.
>>
>MK. Singapore is hardly a "uniform culture". There are religious schools
>of various denominations, and the State schools. Singapore is Chinese,
>Malay, European, and Hindu.

Information for those interested in the Singapore Schools can be
found here at the site of the Ministry of Education. Interestingly,
it seems that school attendence is going to be compulsory as
recommended by the committee on compulsory attendence and accepted
by the government in the current year (2000).

Some interesting quotes from the report on the adoption of
compulsory attendence and national school systems:

:>8. The Government recognised from the start that education was the most
:>effective long-term solution to achieve growth and stability for the nation, in
:>addition to preparing young Singaporeans to participate in a modern economy.
:>In the late 1950s and early 1960s, many private schools were offered
:>government grant-in-aid in order to improve their conditions and standards, and
:>to bring these schools under the regulation of MOE using the model of the
:>government-aided school. More information on government-aided schools is
:>given in Annex 3.

:>9. In the 1960s and 1970s, a series of educational reforms were
:>undertaken to ensure comparable standards and parity across all the English
:>stream schools and the three vernacular streams - Malay, Chinese and Tamil.
:>This was part of the Government's effort to try to bring the different
:>communities together while allowing them to practise and promote their culture
:>and customs - not by coercion or by making all the same, but by enlarging the
:>common elements. A common syllabus and common examinations were
:>instituted at primary, secondary and pre-university levels. Integrated schools
:>were created, where two or more language streams were accommodated in the
:>same premises headed by the same principal, to increase interaction and
:>promote understanding among students of different language streams.
:>Activities that instilled national identity and enhanced social cohesion, for
:>example, flag-raising and pledge-taking ceremonies, were introduced in all
:>schools.

:>Success of the National School System
:>10. Over the years, because of the increased popularity of English-medium
:>schools, Malay, Tamil and most Chinese vernacular schools had to close
:>because of falling enrolment. The last Malay medium and Tamil medium
:>secondary schools ceased to operate in 1979 and 1982 respectively. Most of
:>the remaining Chinese medium schools were converted to national stream
:>schools and adopted English as the medium of instruction. Only nine were
:>offered the status of Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools 1 . SAP schools
:>provide a curriculum which is identical to all other national schools and offer
:>Higher Chinese to most, if not all, of their students. By 1988, all government
:>and government-aided schools offered the same curriculum, adopting English
:>as the medium of instruction.

:>11. Today, the participation rate and achievement levels of our students are
:>very high. In 1980, only 20% of the age cohort had five or more ‘O’ level
:>passes. In 1999, this figure was about 59%. Opportunities for post-secondary
:>and tertiary education have also expanded significantly in Singapore. The
:>Singapore education system is turning out cohorts with higher level of
:>educational qualifications. Today, about 60% of each Primary 1 cohort enter
:>either the polytechnics or the universities. This is very high by international
:>standards.

:>12. The success of our National School System is also evident from a
:>number of recent international studies and comparisons. As announced in
:>November 1996, Singapore's 12- and 13-year old students came up top in
:>Mathematics and Science in the Third International Mathematics and Science
:>Study (TIMSS). This test was taken by more than half a million students from
:>41 countries and is considered the most stringent and comprehensive study
:>conducted so far. The Committee also notes that the Singapore education
:>system is highly regarded internationally and that the Times Education
:>Supplement had stated in one of its September 1997 issues that “Singapore is
:>currently seen as the most academically successful nation in the world”. In the
:>recent Second Information Technology in Education Study (SITES), an
:>international study involving 26 other participating countries and economies,
:>including Japan and Hong Kong, Singapore was ranked top in having a clearly
:>articulated policy on the use of information technology (IT), the provision of
:>some of the world's best computers and peripherals to schools, and IT training
:>for its teachers. In short, foreign education planners and practitioners hold
:>Singapore up as a model to emulate.

:>13. Even though the Singapore education system is a successful one, the
:>3% of each age cohort (or about 1,500 children) who are not enrolled in
:>national schools remains a cause for concern. Among this 3%, most of them
:>have migrated overseas, are not contactable or are enrolled in private schools,
:>like madrasahs and San Yu Adventist School. A very small number (less than
:>ten) receive education at home. The number of children who are not enrolled in
:>school because of family problems and financial difficulties is small. MOE and
:>MCDS render assistance to such known cases, and these children do
:>eventually enrol in national schools. (See Annex 4 for details of non-registration
:>in and dropout from national schools.)

So, MK, it looks like only 3 % of children in Singapore actually
attend schools that give a different curriculum than the National
one and that very very few are homeschooled. Interesting in the
light of your continual touting of Singapore as the bastion of some
kind of school choice. It would appear that such choice does not
exist in reality.

In addition,

:>1. In the 1960s, the Government inherited a diverse education system with
:>schools using different languages as their medium of instruction to teach vastly
:>different curricular contents. To unify standards and as part of nation building, it
:>brought schools under a national system, with a common curriculum, while
:>allowing them to retain different languages as their medium of instruction. The
:>objectives were:

:>a. To ensure that our children learn a common, basic core of
:>knowledge and skills that would prepare them for employment
:>and further training; and

:>b. To give our children a common educational experience which
:>would help build national identity and social cohesion, with multi-racialism
:>and meritocracy as the cornerstones of our nation.

:>PREPARING OUR YOUNG FOR THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY

:>2. These two objectives are still relevant today. Indeed, a common, basic
:>core of knowledge and skills is of even greater importance in today's context,
:>given that we need to provide our children with a strong foundation for further
:>education and training in a KBE. With globalisation, it is also critical to educate
:>our young to be global players without losing their sense of belonging to
:>Singapore.

:>3. National schools have done well in achieving the twin objectives of
:>imparting a common core of knowledge and skills, and providing a common
:>educational experience for social cohesion and nation building. They have the
:>necessary resources, and provide a total school environment that enriches
:>teaching and learning. In Singapore, the Government provides enough places
:>in national schools for all children of school-going age, and education, though
:>not entirely free, is heavily subsidised by the State. MOE has always worked to
:>bring, where possible, all children who can attend national schools into the
:>national school system.

:>ABILITY-DRIVEN EDUCATION

:>4. The strategic response of Singapore’s education system to the
:>challenges of globalisation and the KBE is embodied in the vision, “Thinking
:>Schools, Learning Nation”. Under this vision, MOE has put in place an ability-driven
:>education which aims to maximally develop and maximally harness the
:>abilities and potential of every child.

:>DESIRED OUTCOMES OF EDUCATION

:>5. In January 1998, MOE published the Desired Outcomes of Education,
:>which set out the end-objectives of education. These outcomes encapsulate
:>the skills and values which are important for our young to acquire through the
:>formal education system.

:>THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM
:>6. The national curriculum, which covers education from the primary to pre-university
:>levels, is a critical platform for the achievement of the Desired
:>Outcomes of Education. It is the medium through which structured teaching
:>and learning take place in national schools.

:>7. MOE has developed an overall curriculum framework which spells out
:>how the skills and values in the Desired Outcomes of Education can be taught
:>through the academic subjects and non-academic programmes delivered in
:>schools. From an early stage of their education, students learn self-management
:>skills, social and co-operative skills, literacy and numeracy skills,
:>communication skills, and information skills, all of which are fundamental skills
:>that will remain important throughout their lives. Students study English, the
:>language of commerce, science and technology, to gain access to the
:>knowledge of the world. Students also learn their Mother Tongue to appreciate
:>their cultural heritage. In addition, students learn Mathematics and Science to
:>prepare them for the challenge of rapid technological advancement, balanced
:>with the Humanities and Aesthetics for a well-rounded education. The
:>curriculum structure and instruction time allocated to the different subjects at
:>the various levels are shown in Annex 7.

:>8. Teaching and assessment methods have also been modified to nurture
:>thinking skills and creativity, and to encourage knowledge generation and
:>application. At the same time, citizenship education, character building, and
:>inculcation of moral values are re-emphasised. The changes are reflected in
:>the emphasis given to the following areas:

:>a. National Education;

:>b. Thinking Skills;

:>c. IT Masterplan;

:>d. Co-curricular activities; and

:>e. Moral Education.

The full report is in PDF format and is available at:
http://www1.moe.edu.sg/

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Jan 5, 2001, 7:25:39 PM1/5/01

Sorry for slow response.

Beth Clarkson <Be...@kscable.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure we could track down 1% of them, but not necessarily a random 1%
>> (which would be a pretty small sample if you want to find out something about
>> individual school districts. Oakland's enrollment is around 50,000, so 1% is
>> only 500.) In a *random* sampling, 500 people has a high inaccuracy rate
>> (Gallup typically uses 3000 or more to get a 3% error rate.)
>
>How accurate a survey is really needed? Even if it has a 10 or 15% error rate,
>wouldn't that provide more and better information that we have now? Wouldn't that
>be an improvement? And wouldn't it be enough to let the people managing the
>school and those supporting it have a better idea of the success rate and what
>they are doing wrong and what they are doing right? I would seriously question
>your assessement of how accurate the results must be in order to be useful. Even
>surveys with wide margins of error can be useful if they provide insight that
>isn't available without them.

It is not clear how useful such surveys would be. It IS clear that voluntary
surveys are often very skewed in their responses.

>> It is not that it is "impossible"; it is that it is "impractical" meaning
>> that there are obstacles that are significant and the cost of overcoming the
>> obstacles is far too high for the minimal benefit that might result (because
>> indeed, we might know something if we had such data, but that knowledge would
>> not necessarily lead to improved results, which would cost still more money).
>
>First you claim that the information collected must meet some arbitrarily high
>standard of accuracy, then you decide that it's just too expensive to collect
>data that will meet with that high standard of accuracy. Conclusion - data
>collection is an unnecessary and we need not bother with it. We can improve the
>system without having a clear idea of how it is performing now.

That is not what I said. I said that data collection should therefore be
limited to funded academic studies that may not study the result of every
school on a wholesale basis, but instead may give a solid piece of evidence
on a particular school, or a particular approach, or a particular
socio-economic group.

>The cost of collecting information on the current performance of the system is
>part and parcel of the cost of improving a system. If you are unwilling to spend
>what it takes to get the information needed (which isn't necessarily as expensive
>as you fear), then you are basically declaring improvement to be too costly to
>bother with. Do you really think it is? Does everyone else?

Wholesale data gathering is extremely expensive - just look at the cost of
the census, which is only done every 10 years. In between the decennial
census, the census bureau does far more limited and selective data gathering.

Public education is nearly as universal as the American population, so there
is no reason to believe that a complete census of education results would
have a cost corresponding to that of the decennial census. A selective data
gathering can be done more cheaply, but has to be done by professionals, not
merely by sending out a postcard.

0 new messages