US Public Schools... suck.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Could do what my Dad did. Kick me out on the streets and see how much life sucks.
Gives you a broader perspective on things.

While there's no question in my mind that this is not the preferred method (and typically causes many more problems), I have seen this work as well. Occasionally, the good old bucket of water in the face that almost drowns you works wonders.

Wouldn't call it a prefered method, I would call it a "When all else fails..." thing.

In any case, alot of my fellow "peers" really do need a good kick in the ass instead of just taking things for granted.

[PLAYER57832]

Still, I would try to look at why parents are not showing up (sure you are, just saying, as a district...). Just saying its "apathy" is too much of a catch phrase, too easy.

No...it ISN'T "too easy" and it's no catchphrase. It is reality.

It is, because the "why" varies so enormously. That one phrase fits so many situations its useless in looking for any type of solution.

Is it that parents really don't care about their kids much at all, are of the ilk that basically thinks society will raise their kids for them. (a lot of parents fit that mold, I realize) OR is it that the parents are working 12 hour shifts, have irregular schedules and no childcare, etc, etc.

I completely understand 12-hour shifts and irregular schedules from my time in the military...and yet, my wife or I was always in contact with our childrens' teachers. That is not an excuse for lack of involvement.[/quote]lol... you had a spouse available, and obviously had more than one vehicle. (just to point out some examples)

The point isn't that these thing make it impossible. The thing is that the more difficult it is, the more effort is required, the more incentive parents need to show up.

I will say that teachers here go out of their way at times to meet with parents (sure they do in many areas), even going to visit parents at their restaurant becuase they could not drive and could not afford to take off even if they could drive.

But, really, my point was that for any such reason, you can pick up a few people to whom it applies. None really is the entire answer, but each one accounts for a piece. Add them up and you get a lot of parents who don't show up for almost as many reasons.

I mean, several fire fighting families had to reschedule last year because we got side routed to a fire instead of to conferences (luckily ours had just finished, but there was not time to drop us home before going). In one case they never did reschedule.. not exactly a common issue, but it all adds up.

Are the parents themselves just feeling intimidated and not really wanting to deal with a teacher they feel will just be "superior" or even have "unrealistic expectations".

This defines apathy, as far as I'm concerned. If they actually care about their childrens' education, they'll show up regardless of this (and possibly just to spite it).

Sort of. But, its really a "chicken and egg" type deal. Most parents do start by showing up. But, if they don't find it to be productive, may wind up giving up. Its like saying "just go out and get a job" (parenting, of course IS a job). Easy to say, but without the training and skills, how really can you. Many people just don't really know how to do more than sit and listen to whatever the teacher says... then go home and seath. And, as I noted, in some cases, their kids may be better off, because as much as lack of parent involvement is absolutely real, so , too, is complete arrogance by some administrations and teachers. The place where I disagree with greekdog, etc is in placing that attitude at the union's feet. It, too, is largely born of frustration. Teachers do a very hard job, see little real benefit from putting out that extra mile. Its a complex issue that needs ALL involved to work cooperatively together. And that is what is just not happening. There is, in education, just like in politics today, too much of pointing fingers and not enough of sitting and listening and only THEN responding. Note.. I am not criticizing you personally here. The thing is that in any school there are teachers who do care, do their very best, just like there are many parents who do. But, alone, none can do what needs doing.

Also, well, you assume that parent teacher conferences actually DO something or indicate something. If you are really involved in your child's education (as, ironically, you claim below in my high school comment), then you don't need conferences. If you have problems, then often conferences are not a good place to fix them. (the time is too short, too constrained, etc.)

Ironically, the fact that you have an open session may be harder for some parents, either becuase they (incorrectly, I am sure) percieve that other parents will hear or think they might be stuck waiting in line, etc. (its always a trade-off.. nothing will work the same for everyone).

Of course...yet they can't discover that there is no line (for ANY of the teachers, from what I've observed) if they don't get off their asses to find out.

Also, remembering you are dealing with high school.. is the attendance higher in lower grades? I don't even remember having parent-teacher conferences at my school in high school, because the school felt that we were more responsible for ourselves by then.

I don't recall having parent-teacher conferences when I was in high school either. But I think that sort of points to the problem I'm stating...it wasn't particularly necessary then, because parents by and large WERE involved in their kids' education (at least to the point where they made sure homework was being completed).

I disagree there. I saw far less parental involvement in High School than earlier on. Kids were expected to be reasponsible for themselves. We heard over and over variations of "you cannot rely on mommy and daddy any more ".

[Woodruff]

Still, I would try to look at why parents are not showing up (sure you are, just saying, as a district...). Just saying its "apathy" is too much of a catch phrase, too easy.

No...it ISN'T "too easy" and it's no catchphrase. It is reality.

It is, because the "why" varies so enormously. That one phrase fits so many situations its useless in looking for any type of solution.

No, the solution IS easy. That parents make their kids' education a priority like it should be.

Is it that parents really don't care about their kids much at all, are of the ilk that basically thinks society will raise their kids for them. (a lot of parents fit that mold, I realize) OR is it that the parents are working 12 hour shifts, have irregular schedules and no childcare, etc, etc.

I completely understand 12-hour shifts and irregular schedules from my time in the military...and yet, my wife or I was always in contact with our childrens' teachers. That is not an excuse for lack of involvement.

lol... you had a spouse available, and obviously had more than one vehicle. (just to point out some examples)

Poor assumptions. We have never had more than one vehicle in our lives. Yes, I had a spouse...and she has worked at several points in our marriage, to include during times when we still maintained contact with our kids' teachers. Stop making excuses.

The point isn't that these thing make it impossible. The thing is that the more difficult it is, the more effort is required, the more incentive parents need to show up.

More incentive? The kids' future should be incentive enough! For gods' sake, this is precisely the problem...making excuses for inexcusable behavior.

But, really, my point was that for any such reason, you can pick up a few people to whom it applies. None really is the entire answer, but each one accounts for a piece. Add them up and you get a lot of parents who don't show up for almost as many reasons.

No, many excuses, but one reason...apathy.

I mean, several fire fighting families had to reschedule last year because we got side routed to a fire instead of to conferences (luckily ours had just finished, but there was not time to drop us home before going). In one case they never did reschedule.. not exactly a common issue, but it all adds up.

Again, an excuse...if the parents care, they WILL reschedule. I absolutely understand that things come up and that parent-teacher conferences aren't necessarily "makeable" because of work. But that does not in any way preclude still being in contact with teachers outside of those conferences. It's not like that's the only allowable time to talk to teachers.

Are the parents themselves just feeling intimidated and not really wanting to deal with a teacher they feel will just be "superior" or even have "unrealistic expectations".

This defines apathy, as far as I'm concerned. If they actually care about their childrens' education, they'll show up regardless of this (and possibly just to spite it).

Sort of. But, its really a "chicken and egg" type deal. Most parents do start by showing up.

I disagree entirely.

Also, well, you assume that parent teacher conferences actually DO something or indicate something. If you are really involved in your child's education (as, ironically, you claim below in my high school comment), then you don't need conferences. If you have problems, then often conferences are not a good place to fix them. (the time is too short, too constrained, etc.)

I agree completely, as far as that goes. For the parents who are truly involved, parent-teacher conferences don't do much. Ironically, those parents seem to be the only ones who show up to them. But parent-teacher conferences do have value in that they act as at least a reminder to a really busy parent that "hey, you could come talk to Johnny's teacher about this problem he's having in class".

[Nobunaga]

... US Public Schools - Bastions of Free Speech - a model to the world....

http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-03/n ... er-student

[PLAYER57832]

Still, I would try to look at why parents are not showing up (sure you are, just saying, as a district...). Just saying its "apathy" is too much of a catch phrase, too easy.

No...it ISN'T "too easy" and it's no catchphrase. It is reality.

It is, because the "why" varies so enormously. That one phrase fits so many situations its useless in looking for any type of solution.

No, the solution IS easy. That parents make their kids' education a priority like it should be.

Is it that parents really don't care about their kids much at all, are of the ilk that basically thinks society will raise their kids for them. (a lot of parents fit that mold, I realize) OR is it that the parents are working 12 hour shifts, have irregular schedules and no childcare, etc, etc.

I completely understand 12-hour shifts and irregular schedules from my time in the military...and yet, my wife or I was always in contact with our childrens' teachers. That is not an excuse for lack of involvement.

lol... you had a spouse available, and obviously had more than one vehicle. (just to point out some examples)

Poor assumptions. We have never had more than one vehicle in our lives. Yes, I had a spouse...and she has worked at several points in our marriage, to include during times when we still maintained contact with our kids' teachers. Stop making excuses.

The point isn't that these thing make it impossible. The thing is that the more difficult it is, the more effort is required, the more incentive parents need to show up.

More incentive? The kids' future should be incentive enough! For gods' sake, this is precisely the problem...making excuses for inexcusable behavior.

But, really, my point was that for any such reason, you can pick up a few people to whom it applies. None really is the entire answer, but each one accounts for a piece. Add them up and you get a lot of parents who don't show up for almost as many reasons.

No, many excuses, but one reason...apathy.

I mean, several fire fighting families had to reschedule last year because we got side routed to a fire instead of to conferences (luckily ours had just finished, but there was not time to drop us home before going). In one case they never did reschedule.. not exactly a common issue, but it all adds up.

Again, an excuse...if the parents care, they WILL reschedule. I absolutely understand that things come up and that parent-teacher conferences aren't necessarily "makeable" because of work. But that does not in any way preclude still being in contact with teachers outside of those conferences. It's not like that's the only allowable time to talk to teachers.

Are the parents themselves just feeling intimidated and not really wanting to deal with a teacher they feel will just be "superior" or even have "unrealistic expectations".

This defines apathy, as far as I'm concerned. If they actually care about their childrens' education, they'll show up regardless of this (and possibly just to spite it).

Sort of. But, its really a "chicken and egg" type deal. Most parents do start by showing up.

I disagree entirely.

Also, well, you assume that parent teacher conferences actually DO something or indicate something. If you are really involved in your child's education (as, ironically, you claim below in my high school comment), then you don't need conferences. If you have problems, then often conferences are not a good place to fix them. (the time is too short, too constrained, etc.)

I agree completely, as far as that goes. For the parents who are truly involved, parent-teacher conferences don't do much. Ironically, those parents seem to be the only ones who show up to them. But parent-teacher conferences do have value in that they act as at least a reminder to a really busy parent that "hey, you could come talk to Johnny's teacher about this problem he's having in class".

Looks like I let myself get bogged down in debating one word, instead of really looking at the bigger issues.

My overall point, I believe was just that its too easy to toss out the word "apathy" -- say parents don't care, which effectively puts the blame on the parents for not being involved. Too often that becomes an excuse for schools "well, we can't do anything, because parents just don't care". That absolutly is an issue, but it can also be an excuse that keeps schools from looking deeper. THAT was my real point, not to say apathy did not matter.


Also, while parent attitude matters a LOT, if the kids are engaged, they can overcome bad parents.. if the school gives them a chance. Teachers cannot rely upon kids just "sitting and paying attention" any more (if they ever could). They have to work to engage them. Good teachers do, have always done that. Unfortunately, often current assessment standards/practices don't allow teachers to do that. In our local schools, the teachers have to "teach to the test" and, we are told, have to place kids based on their test scores.. even when there are extenuating circumstances that make those tests invalid.

[Woodruff]

... US Public Schools - Bastions of Free Speech - a model to the world....

http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-03/n ... er-student

Don't blame the school system or even that school - blame that teacher. That teacher is a mess and probably needs to be fired.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm for demolishing the school, and if the children and teachers can't get out, they are necessary sacrifices.


--Andy

[Ace Rimmer]

I like that it took 10 months for Player to respond to Woody.

[Symmetry]

I like that it took 10 months for Player to respond to Woody.

Nobunaga bumped it from necro-purgatory, to be fair.

[xeno]

My school district is one of the tops in the state because teachers aren't allowed to unionize. Do away with the silly teachers unions already

[Symmetry]

My school district is one of the tops in the state because teachers aren't allowed to unionize. Do away with the silly teachers unions already

I can't agree with some of the silly politics that teachers' unions engage in, especially in the US with tenure, but doing away with unions, especially if you want to attract good teachers into the system, seems a little too far.

I think part of this is that the way the debate against teachers is often framed as if unions and teachers are to blame for failures that they often have no control over.

[Nobunaga]

I like that it took 10 months for Player to respond to Woody.

Nobunaga bumped it from necro-purgatory, to be fair.

... Yeah, I knew the thread existed and saw no reason to start a new one for something as minor as this. Dug it up.

[Symmetry]

I like that it took 10 months for Player to respond to Woody.

Nobunaga bumped it from necro-purgatory, to be fair.

... Yeah, I knew the thread existed and saw no reason to start a new one for something as minor as this. Dug it up.

Much as I disagree with you on other things, that wasn't a slight at you, just pointing out what happened when the thread came up again for Ace Rimmer.

[Phatscotty]

A post from my friend, Chaplain Jerome Davis

No wonder America went from number one to 25th on the education scale when it comes to industrialized nations. People are taught to hate the very Founders that eventually wanted to eliminate domestic slavery! The three-fifths clause had nothing to do with personhood or black people because it never mentioned race. It had everything to do with how many representatives the slaveholding states could send to Congress. The Democrats wanted to play on words. They wanted to count slaves as “persons” for representative purposes, but also wanted to count them as “property” for slavery purposes. The anti-slavery Founders would have to exercise wisdom in response. The final compromise was that only sixty percent of slaves – that is, three-fifths of slaves – would be counted to calculate the number of southern representatives to Congress.

[Woodruff]

A post from my friend, Chaplain Jerome Davis

No wonder America went from number one to 25th on the education scale when it comes to industrialized nations. People are taught to hate the very Founders that eventually wanted to eliminate domestic slavery! The three-fifths clause had nothing to do with personhood or black people because it never mentioned race. It had everything to do with how many representatives the slaveholding states could send to Congress. The Democrats wanted to play on words. They wanted to count slaves as “persons” for representative purposes, but also wanted to count them as “property” for slavery purposes. The anti-slavery Founders would have to exercise wisdom in response. The final compromise was that only sixty percent of slaves – that is, three-fifths of slaves – would be counted to calculate the number of southern representatives to Congress.

Non-sequitor much, Phatscotty?