Will we be better educated than our children?(U.S.)

[strike wolf]

I'd heard that in the US, the progression from one grade to another wasn't automatic. that you could be "held back".
I know that this is theoretically true, but I've only heard of one or two cases (one anecdotal, possibly not true) in all the kids mine know.

I think it should be a nore real possibility: you're not doing a child any favours moving them on to more complex stuf when they don't get what they've been taught already.

IN the UK, you move up automatically - if you are too far behind you may be taken out of normal schooling and put in a special needs school. (most "special needs" kids are taught in normal school with a little extra help)But it's not uncommon to be returned to a lower year, or promoted to a higher one, in a particular subject.

I know of a kid who was held back but it was because of disciplinary reasons.

[Nikolai]

seriously though, I dunno what the U.S.A.'s problem is, maybe everyone there is stupid but private schooling is not the way forward.

Why not? Seems like schools that are motivated to produce educational results (because if they don't the parent will stop paying them and go elsewhere) do a better job than schools that essentially rely on the good will of the teacher.

I can't even tell you the number of terrible teachers I've run into who really, really should be fired on the spot because they're only in it for the pay. That's crippling in public schools, where the school has no motivation to get rid of them for bad teaching and the union would scream and shout and put up a huge fuss if ever anyone was dismissed for "being a bad teacher"...

[hecter]

On a slightly unrelated note, one of the best teachers I ever had was one of the only teachers to ever be put on the "unsatisfactory teacher" list in our district for actually being a bad teacher... And he was on there twice! Everybody else was on there due to sexual related charges and such. The official reason he was on there was that he didn't do enough marking that the principle could see (in a nutshell, he didn't give us enough tests) but the real reason was because him and the principle didn't like each other, so the bitchy principle tried her hardest to get him fired. He really was a great teacher though, I had him for an electronics class, and I learnt more about anything and everything with him than I did with any other teacher. Everyday, he'd give us a few snippets from the news, both electronic and world politics, and he'd tell us about the history of world politics, about wars and such. And of course, there was a lot of electronics being done. LOT'S of reading. Just not very many tests...

[oaktown]

I can't even tell you the number of terrible teachers I've run into who really, really should be fired on the spot because they're only in it for the pay. That's crippling in public schools, where the school has no motivation to get rid of them for bad teaching and the union would scream and shout and put up a huge fuss if ever anyone was dismissed for "being a bad teacher"...

As a public school teacher who has worked almost exclusively in inner-city schools, I'd say you're half right... there are a ton of bad teachers around, and since there is such a shortage of qualified and credentialed people applying for the work it is rare that bad teachers are run out of the profession - though I've seen it happen, and in well-documented performance cases the unions usually back off. But none of us are in this for the amazing salaries that the state pays; I'd say there are few professions that require the equivalent of a master's degree that have a starting salary as low as that of the average educator.

I've observed that the teachers that can't hack it in public schools leave to go work either at private schools or they find positions in schools with more affluent kids, where they don't have to deal with severe emotional and behavioral problems and where the kids already come to them knowing everything they need to know to perform well in standardized tests... if I ever had a classroom full of kids who came to school well-rested, fed, clean, and able to speak English let alone read I'm not sure I'd know what to do with them.

Somebody pointed out in this thread that the lowest performing schools are the schools that get the most state/federal money, and they are - but they were the lowest performing schools before they got all of that money, not as a result of the money. When my schools spend that money its on things that affluent schools don't need - social workers, psychologists, nutrition services, breakfast for kids that otherwise wouldn't get any, language classes for parents, sports programs (no little league in these neighborhoods), homework tutors, etc. In the end we still don't have money to pay for the things that many schools afford thanks to the efforts of their parent groups - computer labs, field trips, art and music instruction, etc.

In answer to the question posed in this thread, I'd say that the average American child's education will be at least as good as that of their parents... if your parents went to an ivy league university, you probably will too. If your parents worked their way through community college, you can too. If your parents made it to middle school and dropped out, you might make it to high school before you drop out.

And no, I don't have any solutions other than to show up to work every day.

[oaktown]

I'd heard that in the US, the progression from one grade to another wasn't automatic. that you could be "held back".
I know that this is theoretically true, but I've only heard of one or two cases (one anecdotal, possibly not true) in all the kids mine know.

When you move a kind along despite not being at grade level, we call it social promotion.

I think it should be a nore real possibility: you're not doing a child any favours moving them on to more complex stuf when they don't get what they've been taught already.

Right, you're calling for more academic promotion and less social promotion. But it gets tricky... if a seven year old can't comprehend material that is theoretically at his level, what guarantee is there that he will understand it when he is eight? And if he still doesn't get it when he's eight (which is often the case) do you hold him back again?

Retaining a student in a grade level involves much more than just saying, "Well, Timmy didn't pass the test - he can't move on!" I've retained students, but only after months of consideration and conversations with the parents, psychologists, special education teachers, etc. about the student's cognitive abilities, emotional and physical maturity, hearing/vision/speech processing, health history (doesn't help much to hold back crack babies and children with fetal alcohol sydrome), social skills, attendance, home situation (did this kid spend most of the year sleeping in car?), etc. It's rarely as simple as saying, "Timmy just didn't get the math this year - but he will with another year of work!"

I think, is the responsibility of parents to take an interest in their kids education, teach them the value of the education that they are given and the hard work that it takes to make the best of it. get those kids off the ritalin and video games and take them hiking, read with them, expose them to the things of their world that will challenge them to aspire to be something better than a fat spastic blob that can't read.

Spot on, black elk... but what happens when a parent doesn't value education, reading, or hiking? Does the school system try to re-teach the parents? Or do we impose our values on their kids? Sadly, fat blobs tend to have kids that are fat blobs.

[Nikolai]

Mmmm... I have ideological problems with that perspective, but I'm just a tutor, so I mostly see only the kids who have a hard time academically. And I don't do a lot of inner-city work. So I'm not familiar enough with the practical questions to make definitive statements on some of these situations.

However, I will maintain my observation: a lot of teachers are in it for the money. No, it doesn't pay particularly well... but as long as you put in at least the appearance of a mediocre or better performance, the school won't fire you, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be able to put in your 30 years and retire with a nice retirement package, if you so choose. Oh, and government supported benefits... yeah. It's not about the large sums... it's about the security of the job. And I deal with a lot of teachers who started off with good intentions and were genuinely interested in teaching... but have burnt out, and are only still in it because they've only got x more years. (Oh, and I freely admit I may be jaded, since the nature of my position is such that my dealings with teachers are slanted towards the ones who aren't very good. )

That's one reason why I like private schools more on an ideological level... if the teacher stops teaching, you fire them. That motivates the teacher to produce results, even if they aren't particularly enthusiastic about teaching. And on a practical level... I don't get a whole lot of students from private schools, and the ones I do get are usually fairly well-educated for their grade level and are simply struggling with one subject, as opposed to the kids who come in for chemistry or physics in high school or college and can't read or spell or do simple arithmetic without a calculator. (No, I'm not frustrated about that at all... whatever gave you that idea? )

[oaktown]

However, I will maintain my observation: a lot of teachers are in it for the money.

technically, everybody who has a job is in it for the money. If jobs didn't pay and money fell from the sky in abundance, how many people would keep working? I suspect that all of the world's trash collectors, bankers, lawyers, accountants, farmers, waitresses, construction workers, dish washers, gardeners, gas stations attendants, telemarketers, plumbers, and internet gaming site operators would quit their jobs immediately and hang a money net outside their window. The few people who would keep working would include those who went in to their job because they loved the impact that they could make on the world/other people: artists, chefs, veterinarians, and teachers - and even then it would not be all of those people, because as you said folks burn out and cease to love their work after a while.

I don't get a whole lot of students from private schools, and the ones I do get are usually fairly well-educated for their grade level and are simply struggling with one subject, as opposed to the kids who come in for chemistry or physics in high school or college and can't read or spell or do simple arithmetic without a calculator.

So, do you think that private school kids need less tutoring help because the school has better prepared them, or because the students that attend private schools were better prepared to begin with? Ask your private school kids who taught them to read, and I bet they'll tell you it was their parents. Ask your struggling public high school kids who taught them read, and I bet they'll say it was a teacher.