S***Hole School In Queens: How Does This Happen?

[GG]

Imagine now, for a moment, that as a parent, you had no idea what kind of teacher your child had, and spent zero time helping your child(ren) navigate their way through homework assignments, time management, priorities...and instead, came home to find them playing Xbox with their friends, whose names you barely know...just glad they're out of your way and quiet so you can watch TV in peace after a long day of sitting on the stoop with the other deadbeat mothers and fathers.

 

Why, it's almost like you could wake one day and find out the principal of the school makes six figures plus overtime and randomly shows up to work wrapped in fur while driving a BMW.

 

The answer: tenure for teachers and more money for education.

 

Have seen both ends of this story, and know how it plays out in the end. The awfully sad part is how much of your caricature is true to life.

[Jauronimo]

not the responsibility, the prudent course of action to stem the further collapse in values, morals and education that's been occurring for the last several decades. as for the adults, the prudent course of action to avoid civil unrest (from a purely practical perspective).

You mean the answer to preventing the civil unrest caused by the disappointment of decades of false promises and failed policies is more of the !@#$ing same? Do go on.

 

You seem pretty fixated with the idea of civil unrest if the masses aren't placated. Are you a closet prepper?

Edited January 16, 2014 by Jauronimo

[birdog1960]

Utter horsecrap. I never looked at a teacher as a role model. I looked at a teacher as a teacher. I don't even remember the names of 95% of my teachers. Does that make them ineffective in their jobs? No, because I still learned what I needed to learn and got the grades that I needed to get. Because if I didn't, life with my parents would have been a bit more challenging.

 

Now that I have a kid in school, I see it from the other side. His teacher this year is awful, and I know there's little we can do to change that. So we don't piss and moan about it, and make sure that he picks up the needed knowledge on his own, and not be behind in the next grade.

 

That is the concept that people are trying to get through your head.

you had good parents. he has good parents. i had good parents. good for us. lots of kids don't. do we just write them off? if so, what will become of them? your kids will probably complain of them as takers later in life. and there will be many.

 

even with very supportive parents, i remember many teachers that influenced my development. many were role models. many introduced novel ideas that i never would have independently considered. most were instrumental in my development. i don't think it's desirable to produce carbon copies of parents even if they're great. a world of clones seems pretty unappealing. where would new ideas and innovations be produced? so, i fundamentally disagree.

[TakeYouToTasker]

you had good parents. he has good parents. i had good parents. good for us. lots of kids don't. do we just write them off? if so, what will become of them? your kids will probably complain of them as takers later in life. and there will be many.

 

even with very supportive parents, i remember many teachers that influenced my development. many were role models. many introduced novel ideas that i never would have independently considered. most were instrumental in my development. i don't think it's desirable to produce carbon copies of parents even if they're great. a world of clones seems pretty unappealing. where would new ideas and innovations be produced? so, i fundamentally disagree.

Granting your propositions, and also your earlier strawman, for the purposes of discussion, and ignoring the idea that even the best teachers can consistently replace parents in any meaningful way, please respond to post #76.

 

Thank you.

Edited January 17, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

Granting your propositions, and also your earlier strawman, for the purposes of discussion, and ignoring the idea that even the best teachers can consistently replace parents in any meaningful way, please respond to post #76.

 

Thank you.

you can ignore what ever you like. most of the time i ignore you. but the legal profession doesn't ignore the concept of schools replacing parents. it's called "in loco parentis".

 

ever heard of a boarding school? do some quick estimating between the amount of time a prep school student spends with parents versus teachers over the grades 1-12. yet many of the most recognizable figures in business, gov't and academics worldwide attended such schools and then continued on to universities and many even further to professional or graduate school. the correlation between lifetime earnings and educational level attained is robust and undeniable. yet, many here seem to argue against the importance of education and especially, good teachers. i suspect that argument really only holds when discussing education for people not like us - the others.

 

re post 76, i don't see what there is to refute. there are some bad teachers. i figure i've had over 100 formal teachers in my 20+ years of formal education. several were quite incompetent. several were inexperienced. yet many were fantastic and inspiring. on balance, the quality was excellent. just as it should be and could be for every student.

Edited January 17, 2014 by birdog1960

[GG]

you had good parents. he has good parents. i had good parents. good for us. lots of kids don't. do we just write them off? if so, what will become of them? your kids will probably complain of them as takers later in life. and there will be many.

 

even with very supportive parents, i remember many teachers that influenced my development. many were role models. many introduced novel ideas that i never would have independently considered. most were instrumental in my development. i don't think it's desirable to produce carbon copies of parents even if they're great. a world of clones seems pretty unappealing. where would new ideas and innovations be produced? so, i fundamentally disagree.

 

You are contradicting yourself again, especially since you agree that changed social norms contributed to the decline of parental qualities. You cannot make up for that decline by hoping that the schools would fill the void of bad parenting. If anything, it exacerbates the problem because you nurture an absenteeism environment where vultures like the Far Rockaway principal thrives at.

 

And let's examine that case relative to your boarding school example. The wealthy parents who can afford an exclusive boarding school are making a conscious choice to place their kids there. And yes, there is some replacement of parental duties within that school environment. But it's not just from the educational standpoint - it's also from the rules and regulations that students must abide while at that boarding school. That it a totally different set up from kids going to a regular public school, where discipline has been neutered by the BoE's, but more importantly, by the idiot parents themselves who don't like to see schools punish their precious darlings.

 

So, what about Far Rockaway? The only reason we hear about it is probably because 5-10 caring parents finally had enough of stonewalling by the BoE that they called NY Post, and that got things going. I can assure you that in many other school districts in NYC, the problem would not get this acute. But in this place, the 95% of the parents who could care less were just waiting for the 5% to finally get fed up. And you know what? If those 5% had a choice, you bet they would run to place their kids in a charter school if given the opportunity.

 

So there's the quandary for the feel-gooders like yourself. You are perfectly ok with keeping the status quo, and not allowing those 5%-10% to escape that school, because you are so superficially concerned about the remaining 95%. Yet, without this NY Post story, you would never hear about this school, and they all would be out of sight, out of mind. And you waste another generation because you aren't doing anything to the families who want a better life for their kids and help them get out of crappy schools like that.

 

Which brings us back to the solution. It has to be brought back into the homes, and the way to do it is to bring back a sense of shame for not going to and finishing school. The main reason that the US trails most all developed nations in primary school academics is that in those nations it's still societally unacceptable to strive to be stupid.

[TakeYouToTasker]

you can ignore what ever you like. most of the time i ignore you. but the legal profession doesn't ignore the concept of schools replacing parents. it's called "in loco parentis".

Simply because there is a legal precedent doesn't make it effective. It is, quite frankly, more than a bit bizaare that you believe a teacher, who spends several hours per day for 180 days with a student before they move on, can effectively replace a lifetime of imparted morality, work ethic, and values; or can care for a child in the same way that motivated and concerned parents can. A stable, caring home cannot be replaced.

 

ever heard of a boarding school? do some quick estimating between the amount of time a prep school student spends with parents versus teachers over the grades 1-12. yet many of the most recognizable figures in business, gov't and academics worldwide attended such schools and then continued on to universities and many even further to professional or graduate school. the correlation between lifetime earnings and educational level attained is robust and undeniable. yet, many here seem to argue against the importance of education and especially, good teachers. i suspect that argument really only holds when discussing education for people not like us - the others.

The attendance of those schools in no way replaces an imparted work ethic or morality of the parent. It is an extension of those values, and the expectations that accompany them. Success at those institutions is dependant on the willingness of the student to accept the disciplined lifestyle. This willingness is not imparted by the faculty, it is expected upon arrival. It comes from the home.

 

re post 76, i don't see what there is to refute. there are some bad teachers. i figure i've had over 100 formal teachers in my 20+ years of formal education. several were quite incompetent. several were inexperienced. yet many were fantastic and inspiring. on balance, the quality was excellent. just as it should be and could be for every student.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

 

How? How could it be? The supply of good teachers just isn't there, and even if they were, how can they be effective for kids whos families don't place a high value on them or the work they are trying to do? What good is the best hammer in the world if there are no nails available for striking?

[Gary M]

The main reason that the US trails most all developed nations in primary school academics is that in those nations it's still societally unacceptable to strive to be stupid.

 

The other nations likely don't subsidize that goal either!!

[GG]

The other nations likely don't subsidize that goal either!!

 

No, they do.

[birdog1960]

You are contradicting yourself again, especially since you agree that changed social norms contributed to the decline of parental qualities. You cannot make up for that decline by hoping that the schools would fill the void of bad parenting. If anything, it exacerbates the problem because you nurture an absenteeism environment where vultures like the Far Rockaway principal thrives at.

 

And let's examine that case relative to your boarding school example. The wealthy parents who can afford an exclusive boarding school are making a conscious choice to place their kids there. And yes, there is some replacement of parental duties within that school environment. But it's not just from the educational standpoint - it's also from the rules and regulations that students must abide while at that boarding school. That it a totally different set up from kids going to a regular public school, where discipline has been neutered by the BoE's, but more importantly, by the idiot parents themselves who don't like to see schools punish their precious darlings.

 

So, what about Far Rockaway? The only reason we hear about it is probably because 5-10 caring parents finally had enough of stonewalling by the BoE that they called NY Post, and that got things going. I can assure you that in many other school districts in NYC, the problem would not get this acute. But in this place, the 95% of the parents who could care less were just waiting for the 5% to finally get fed up. And you know what? If those 5% had a choice, you bet they would run to place their kids in a charter school if given the opportunity.

 

So there's the quandary for the feel-gooders like yourself. You are perfectly ok with keeping the status quo, and not allowing those 5%-10% to escape that school, because you are so superficially concerned about the remaining 95%. Yet, without this NY Post story, you would never hear about this school, and they all would be out of sight, out of mind. And you waste another generation because you aren't doing anything to the families who want a better life for their kids and help them get out of crappy schools like that.

 

Which brings us back to the solution. It has to be brought back into the homes, and the way to do it is to bring back a sense of shame for not going to and finishing school. The main reason that the US trails most all developed nations in primary school academics is that in those nations it's still societally unacceptable to strive to be stupid.

shaming the parents is unlikely to work. there's no peer pressure as their peers likely have similar lifestyles. unfortunately, for these people, i agree there's little chance at rehabilitation and efforts at such are likely to be wasted. with kids, it's often different. they still care pretty deeply about their perception from peers. and for that reason and the fact that teachers and school employees can lead by example, there is more hope for them.yes, the parents should have discovered the mess in far rockaway much sooner. yes, they appear to be negligent parents. but so should have the other employees of the school and the superintendent among others. they failed miserably. they should all be replaced. more checks and balances need to be in place. systemic reform is clearly needed in this district. but this episode shouldn't precipitate giving up on educating every kid with a loser parent.

[GG]

shaming the parents is unlikely to work. there's no peer pressure as their peers likely have similar lifestyles. unfortunately, for these people, i agree there's little chance at rehabilitation and efforts at such are likely to be wasted. with kids, it's often different. they still care pretty deeply about their perception from peers. and for that reason and the fact that teachers and school employees can lead by example, there is more hope for them.yes, the parents should have discovered the mess in far rockaway much sooner. yes, they appear to be negligent parents. but so should have the other employees of the school and the superintendent among others. they failed miserably. they should all be replaced. more checks and balances need to be in place. systemic reform is clearly needed in this district. but this episode shouldn't precipitate giving up on educating every kid with a loser parent.

 

And I would like to eat ice cream all day and not get fat.

 

Read what you wrote again, and ask how you would close down an entire school, when it's nearly impossible to move one crappy school teacher out of a district?

 

You cannot wash away bad parenting because it's how they are. It wasn't always like that, and you have to think of the future. But because you're & the system doesn't want to recognize that those kids lives are already going to be wasted and major changes are needed (not just throwing money at it) to help the future kids, nothing will be different for the next generation.

[3rdnlng]

Unintended consequences or intended consequences?

 

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2014/01/17/obama-administration-mandates-racism-in-schools/?subscriber=1

Claiming that African-American and Hispanic students are more harshly disciplined than whites for the same infractions, the Obama administration now advises that any disciplinary rule that results in a "disparate impact" on these groups will be challenged by the government.

"Disparate impact" analysis, as we've seen in employment law, does not require any intentional discrimination. It means, for example, that if an employer asks job seekers to take a test, and a larger percentage of one ethnic group fails the test than another, that the test is de facto discriminatory because it has a "disparate impact."

In the school context, the federal government is now arguing that if a disciplinary rule results in more black, Hispanic or special education kids being suspended or otherwise sanctioned, the rule must be suspect. The "Dear Colleague" letter explains that a disciplinary policy can be unlawful discrimination, even if the rule is "neutral on its face ... and is administered in an evenhanded manner," if it has a "disparate impact" on certain ethnic and other groups.

The inclusion of special education students is particularly perverse, as special ed students frequently get that designation because their emotional disturbances cause them to misbehave in various ways. So if a rule against, say, knocking over desks, is found to be violated more frequently by special ed than regular ed students, then the rule must be questioned? That's circular.

As the CATO Institute's Walter Olson notes, the federal guidelines pass over one example of disparate impact with no comment -- namely the dramatically more males than females who face disciplinary action nationwide. If we are to judge a rule's lawfulness by the disparate impact on males, no rule would survive the inquiry. Is it possible that more boys misbehave in the classroom than girls? To ask this question is to venture into an area the federal government would have us avoid. Actual infractions by individuals are not the issue. We must have group justice, not individual justice.

More at the link above.