Yeah, I’m still here. Just rushing through a truncated week.
I had breakfast this morning with a couple of nice guys representing SCRG (no, really). More about that later — or I might let Cindi write about that first, since she was there, too.
Anyway, I spoke briefly with young Max at the next table, and he told me about his new blog. I believe those of us who have been in this racket for ages should give a break to kids trying to get into the business, so I gave him a link. I put him at number 3 for visibility, right behind Laurin and Sunny (ladies first).
He calls it "Democrats in the South — Capital to Capital," and subtitles it "A Liberal Blog." Brave kid.
Anyway, it looks like he’s making a pretty earnest effort to keep us up on what the Dems are up to.
Good luck, Max.
Related Posts
Amazing that you actually posted a link to a pro-school choice page of SCRG but I guess that’s to make up for Cindi’s upcoming hatchet job.
Even though the private schools spent less money per pupil than the public schools, the parents were much more satisfied with them. Happier parents, better students, lower costs — those are the clear advantages of private schools and voucher programs. No wonder the teachers’ unions are so busy spinning.
Brad, while you’re updating your “Fun with Links” you should purge Jerry Brown. His last blog entry was October 2005 and it’s been stuck there ever since. Maybe since he finally got hitched his domestic obligations have eaten into his blogging time.
Brad,
Thanks for the tip. This kid has a reasonable, and intelligent approach to issues. I can learn a thing or two from him, and I suspect he is capable of rational discussion…unlike say…the “Lie of the Day” guys…which merely dribble bile upon a web site and think it is worthy of consideration.(U ought to discontinue that link)
This republican has saved the blog…and will read it daily. Thanks.
Chris
Actually, I usually give links to organizations when I mention them on the blog.
Note that Cindi calls them the "ironically named" South Carolinians for Responsible Government, and I call them Orwellian. I think mine is classier.
Aw, Phillip, let’s give Jerry a few more days. I just feel nostalgic about him. He was one of my first links. I can’t help it if he’s a slacker. The boy’s never been the same since Linda Ronstadt. Would you be?
In the meantime, if you’re looking for something new and fresh, try Talking Salmons. It’s got attitude.
Thanks for the plug Brad. It was good to see you today, and I hope to bring something new to the South Carolina Blogosphere.
Good luck, Max. You’ll certainly need it in November because it looks to me as if every single one of the candidates put up by the Dems is destined to lose, most of them bigtime. You’d probably be better off just starting to work on 2008 right now.
Brad,
Linda Ronstadt about 40 years ago or now?
Max, you already have. You made me aware Tom Daschle has a presidential campaign. I guess the unemployed need something to do to pass the time. Then there is Algore. Maybe those two retreads can run together. Gor-Dash. Has a ring to it.
Follow the links, LexWolf, follow the links. I’m saying Jerry hasn’t been at the top of his game for a long time.
No better place than here to put a link to a
strong case against No Child Left Behind in today’s Wall Street Journal.
No Child Left Behind is beyond uninformative. It is deceptive.
It will be a tough road ahead for the Democrats, but don’t underestimate the opportunities for 2006. Tommy Moore will have a difficult time with Sanford, particularly if Moore doesn’t raise considerably more money, but candidates like Robert Barber, Jim Rex, and Grady Patterson are all in positions to be competitive. As far as 2008 goes, I ordered the presidential links in their likely order of potential contention. I would have put Al Gore, but I think he is enjoying being a one-issue man, albeit an incredibly important issue.
Jim Rex has a very good chance to win because Floyd gives him a ready made platform – save public schools from Floyd and her cronies (out of state, in state, and in this blog).
He doesn’t need to articulate any real vision and hasn’t. I’ve been beating this drum since early May and am actually inclined to vote for her because I’m fed up with the status quo. This coming from a freakin democrat teacher.
Max, I hope there’s someone out there to inspire us as a party, but it sure ain’t Rex.
Yes, I’m baaaccckkk!!!
Hey, Randy! Where you been, buddy?
Listen to me. I sound like John Boy.
Who said, “Never interfere when your enemy is beating himself”? Sun Tzu?
Wow, it didn’t take long for the promising young liberal Max to be demoted to number 4 in Brad’s blogroll, behind the right-wing mili-blog.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Napoleon
John Boy, I needed a hiatus from some deaf ears and to focus on my masters work.
In the words of Yogi Berra “We made too many wrong mistakes.”
Realizing that a link to Will Folks blog is probably the kiss of death on Brad’s blog, but I found this interview with Thomas Ravenel to be very informative… at least from my perspective, his view are EXACTLY what I hope to hear from a candidate: limit government, be accountable, and work for the people:
Thomas Ravenel interview
Brad claimed before that transcribing an interview is too costly/difficult. Wonder how Folks is able to do it? It really helps to be able to see all the questions as well as the answers.
Hey, Randy,
What would be your top three priorities if you were elected instead of Rex or Floyd?
Thanks, VietVet. My version was pretty far off the original but at least you recognized what I was referring to…
Doug: “accountability, limited government, and work for the people” sounds no different than political posturing – exactly what a republican candidate would say.
If he’s so concerned about the fiscal stability of our state, why didn’t he hold off on the Senatorial campaign and plan all along to run for this office? Did Patterson’s job performance only dip this past 2 years?
I have nothing against him, but I am leery of anyone running a campaign.
RTH:
1) Easily #1, establish the purpose of k-12 education. Ask 5 people and you may get 5 different answers – good citizens, job training, ability to think for oneself, ability to interact in the world around us… Ask Lee and he’ll tell you it’s to indoctrinate the next generation of Marxists.
As a follow up, curriculum and standards should be aligned with this goal. For example, why does a hs grad going to Harvard get the same diploma as a classmate who has a 1.7 gpa and is getting a minimum wage job after hs? The cookie cutter model, which the legislature oversees (and not educrats as Lee and Lexie would blindly suggest), has to go.
2) Hold students accountable before moving on to the next grade (Doug is on the money here). Why is the hs exit exam given in the fall of the sophomore year? Also, we socially pass students to hs because they are too big to stay in ms. Why not create an alternative setting?
3) Develop an accountability system for the adults involved. The evaluation system for teachers is very subjective and ineffective. For administrators, it’s may as well not exist. For parents, it doesn’t exist.
The end of course exams are great measurements for many courses. Use those for teachers. Have teachers and parents evaluate administrators. AND, there should be a codified communication system to document how parents were involved. If I call a parent 3 times about his or her student not doing homework, what else can I do? This actually happens EVERY year. How should that student’s score on PACT or end of course exams count against me?
Randy,
Not sure if you read the interview or not, but there’s more substance there than the brief synopsis I gave. It came across as more than just a stump speech..
Here’s the part that I liked most:
“Heather S. – You sound a lot like Mark Sanford when you say that. Come to think of it, wouldn’t you just be another rubber stamp on the Budget and Control Board for the governor’s limited government agenda?
Thomas – Absolutely not, although I do believe in limited government. I’ll tell you who I would be a rubber stamp for, though, and that would be the average taxpayer who’s basically sick and tired of getting jerked around by government. I agree with Mark Sanford on a lot of things, and when he’s right, I’ll vote with him. I agree with our State Comptroller General, Richard Eckstrom, on a lot of things, and when he’s right, I’ll vote with him. I also agree with Hugh Leatherman and Dan Cooper on a lot of things, and when they’re right, I’ll vote with them. I care about protecting the taxpayers, and I’ll do that whether I’m voting alone or voting unanimously with the other board members. It has to be – I mean – for me it will be about the issues in front of me and how they affect the taxpayer and the bottom line, not the politics or the personalities behind the issue.”
He also favors making the treasurer, secretary of state, and other positions appointed versus elected. It makes sense.
Instead of each person doing what it takes to make himself more electable, it would put the accountability directly in the hands of the governor.
And as a teacher, you may be interested in reading what he thinks about the state pension plan (which he says ranks 97th out of the largest 100 plans in terms of performance).
As for runninf for Senate, here’s a good line:
Heather S. – But don’t you think it costs you politically by not committing to a full term? Don’t you think Grady will use it against you?
Thomas – Well I promise I won’t serve eight out of the next nine terms, how’s that?
RTH,
You didn’t ask me, but my three priorities would be:
1) Greatly improved vocational education at the high school level. Give our kids the option to become productive members of the workforce, especially those without college aspirations.
2) Overhaul PACT testing. Replace with
existing national tests given every other year (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th). And if the results are to mean anything, don’t promote kids who don’t pass. Use it to test students, not teachers or schools. Let Principals evaluate teachers with parent and peer input. Let the market evaluate schools by where people choose to live.
3) Consolidate school districts. One per county.
Okay, I’ve gotta have 4…
4) Implement a LIMITED, INCOME CAPPED,
PILOT voucher program in ONE underperforming school district. The voucher also needs to subsidize transportation costs if necessary.
And the recipients of the vouchers
and their parents must adhere to a
strict set of requirements that promote
parent involvement.
Doug, is there such an animal as #2?
Ole Rubber Stamp Ravenell. Still unwilling to say that he’ll actually serve out his term, if elected.
That’s just the way TRav rolls.
I guess he gets credit for honesty… on this point, at least.
Doug, Ol’ Jim Rex wants to find a test that will give more information than the PACT but will take less time – makes me think of the new diet in which you can eat as much as you want AND lose weight.
The problem with a reliance on PACT is that it covers a limited number of teachers and stops at middle school. Personally, I like having state and national course tests because it provides meaningful feedback. I received my AP Stats exam scores for my students last week. Administration and I know how good a job I did.
Without this, I can pass every student. Students are happy. Parents are happy. Admin is happy. Mr. E is a great teacher with glowing reports.
I read the entire column. Again, I have nothing against Rav, but I question why he (and Quin) ran for this office. I do think they both simply wanted to hold an office. He may be very good.
Randy, that looks good. You really ought to run, you know. Except that you would probably be very frustrated trying to actually implement those goals. You’ve got my vote though.
RTH,
re: national tests
I’m only aware of Iowa’s Testing program.
http://www.education.uiowa.edu/itp/index.htm
On the website it says they:
“develop standardized achievement tests for use nationally in grades K-12”
Why should each state have a different test? Other than to keep a bunch of educrats employed?
Doug, that dull thump that you heard was Lee’s head exploding.
The implications of your suggestions send anti-state and federalism-loving conservatives into paroxysms.
Americans would first have to reach an agreement on the purpose of a public education and how to reach that purpose. (Just as RandyE above suggests that SC must.) Then there would have to be an agreement on the curriculum. Natually, the tests would have to be aligned to the curriculum.
I’ll stop here because I just can’t wait to hear the learned opinions of Lexie and Lee about how the private sector can fulfill all of the above (and do it faster/better than the public sector).
What’s that? “Who knows? Who cares?” What a great business plan!
Herb, I’m frustrated now as many of you’all are (Doug especially). There are alot of good things going on in our schools, but are often overshadowed and limited by crap.
Talk about a head exloding, Doug don’t read the following:
I heard from a colleague that an assistant principal in a local district was chronically late. She was finally demoted and sent back to the classroom AT THE SAME PAY.
Randy, Doug (and everyone who has a suggestion for improving SC education) drop by Jim Rex’s blog. I don’t know if Rex reads the blog but at least he’s got a chance of actually gaining a position where he might make a difference.
Randy, you might use your answer to my question above as a start. Keep in mind, though, that your first objective has probably been discussed by professional and amateurs alike for centuries without resolution.
Try offering solutions rather than open-ended discussion questions since the office has a finite term.
For instance, should we go back to the dual -track (college prep, vocational) system of the past? If so, when should students be separated, and, is such segregation good for society?
If we hold junkie parents or single-parent households responsible for not properly overseeing their kids then what incentives or disincientives should be used?
And, what exactly should be done with students who repeatedly fail?
RTH – When you said “students who repeatedly fail” – I immediately thought of Algore. But, forgetting Al for a moment, these students should lose the opportunity for a taxpayer funded education, at least after the age of 16. A few years of mopping floors in a fast food joint or sweeping the Wal-Mart parking lot is probably exactly what they need to get their heads screwed on right. We have to stop telling these kids they are victims. Let me say I am not including kids who fail due to medical handicaps.
>For instance, should we go back to the dual
>-track (college prep, vocational) system of
>the past? If so, when should students be
>separated, and, is such segregation good for
>society?
It is possible to do both. I attended a vocational high school in Massachusetts in the late 70’s. Spent freshman year trying out six different trades (electronics, graphic arts, commercial arts, data processing, carpentry, and sheet metal).
Based on my obvious ineptitude at carpentry and sheet metal and my lack of any artistic skills, I chose the data processing shop.
For the next three school years, I spent
one week exclusively learning to program computers and the next week in academic classes (with double periods of math, english every day).
While not specifically intended to be a college prep environment, there was nothing preventing a motivated student to do so.
After high school, I went on to graduate from Purdue with a B.S. in computer science.
Only about 10% of my classmates followed the college route, but those who didn’t were far more likely to have a decent job as well as a career path upon leaving high school than the graduates from the “traditional” high school.
My two brothers also attended the same voke school and studied culinary arts (with a real working restaurant open to the public inside the high school). One stuck with it after high school (chef) and the other went another direction (financial director at a Fortune 500 company).
Fast forward to present day and I’ve got
two nephews who went through the same
voke school and are now at Penn State in
engineering majors and a niece in a nursing
program. She’s entering her senior year and is working in a nursing home this summer, making $14/hr. Better than McDonalds, right?
Here’s a link to my high school. Take a look at what they offer and tell me if you
can see some benefit to having this as an option for our students in SC…
Assabet Valley Regional High School
Here’s a list of the various trades currently offered:
Auto Collision Technology
Automotive Technology
Building & Grounds Mgt.
Business Technology
Computers & Information Systems
Cosmetology
Drafting/CAD
Electrical Wiring
Electronics
Food Trades
Digital Multimedia
Print Communications
Health Assistant
Metal Fabrication
House Carpentry
Painting & Decorating
Plumbing
Precision Machining & Automated Manufacturing
Refrigeration & Major Appliances
Dave, what if a student fails third grade, fifth grade, and seventh grade?
Would you put this fifteen-year-old back into a seventh grade class of 12-year-olds for his final year in school?
Doug,
Assabet looks good. It appears to be something like a magnet vocational school that draws from a number of districts.
A system of similar schools would certainly be an improvement over what we have currently in SC.
But, I also note that it evidently doesn’t accept everyone who applies. What happens to the rejects?
RTH,
Assabet draws on students from (I think)
seven towns. Throughout Massachusetts, there are probably 20 of these regional vocational schools. Students who are not accepted go to their local high school. Admission when I went was based more on attitude than anything else. If you’re going to give someone 1500 hours of vocational training, the kid better want to be there.
I see some limited attempts locally in the high schools to provide some career-based training. My daughter is in a new culinary arts program at Blythewood H.S. that is pretty good but one hour a day is not enough to do anything more than spark an interest to pursue that career after high school.
You guys are supporting my # 1 initiative. Let’s move from the cookie cutter approach -not all kids are going to college, which is a revelation to some.
RTH, I doubt the SC legislature has had meandingful dialogue on the purpose of the billions of dollars earmarked for public education beyond preparing students for college (tech or 4 year). I did offer specific solutions.
I have to take issue with you on how to handle failing students and “segregation” by ability level.
MS Students are well aware now that, save an act of God, they will be socially promoted to hs. Many are minimally concerned about their concern in ms because of this. As I suggested in my iniatives, provide an alternative setting so they are not socially promoted nor kept back with the younger students.
The tracking system, like college prep vs vocational, along with the negative consequences are already in place to some degree. Students who take “tech” classes are painted as lower or even dummy students by their peers. At Spring Valley HS, those who went to the vocational center to take classes were stereotyped. Stereotyping is what teens AND Americans in general do!! As Doug pointed out, the vocational centers provide students with meaningful curriculum and many of these students WANT that option. I’ve seen all this first hand repeatedly.
As my youngest son enters his final year
of middle school, my impression is that the weakest link in our current public school system is at the middle school level. at least this is what I have observed with three kids going through middle school in the past seven years.
Not sure exactly why that is… maybe it has something to do with puberty or brain development at that age. But it also has been our observation that some of the worst teachers we have encountered have been at the middle school level. Seems like a lot more of them are either new or just hanging on til retirement.
I’ll be interested to hear from high school teachers in the next few years if they notice a difference between the kids coming out of the single gender middle school programs. Maybe that helps… or
maybe we need to start “leveling” kids
at that middle school age. I know when I
was in middle school, the kids were slotted into three different tracks.
Randy,
“Meaningful discussion” and “the SC Legislature” should only appear in a sentence similar to “The twain shall not meet.”
I’m not sure what you’re taking issue with. I’m asking for suggestions on what to do with repeat failures– boot camp?
Doug’s suggestion suits me. Offer a single magnet school for voc-tech oriented high school students in each county.
It dawned on me this morning that most of us posters on here are urbanites or suburb dwellers. Would rural voc-tech high schools feature an ag component?
The voc-tech high schools could be implemented as an extension of the voc-tech college system. It would seem to be an ideal campaign issue– except that it would cost money.
Maybe even Floyd would get behind it if it was offered as a way to get vouchers in the door.
I’m pretty sure Richland 2 has plans (and bond funding) to build another high school in northern Richland County sometime before the end of the decade. Wouldn’t it be a great idea to make that one a voc-tech centerpiece for the state? Imagine turning out 400 skilled, employable members of the workforce every year… graduates who could move from internships and apprentices to becoming taxpayers and business owners by the time their regular high school counterparts are graduating from college.
As for the ag component in the suburbs, didn’t you see the story in The State about the 3500 marijuana plants found in North Springs last week? Could have been an excellent “field study” experience for our high schoolers… 🙂
I guess the growing the pot wasn’t what the district had in mind for vocational training.
Anderson has a high school devoted to vocational studies/training – very impressive. The Germans track their students as they leave middle school – college prep hs and vocational hs.
Doug, you score a bullseye with the middle school observation. There has developed a culture at that level in which students are generally written off as too hormonal to be held accountable.
Look at the math curriculum for 6-8th grade math, it’s the same content: fractions, solve basic equations, percents, area of rectangles etc. Guess what I’ll teach the first few weeks this fall to my low level students… As you keep suggesting, hold them accountable for learning. When many get to high school, it’s culture shock when they fail and are actually held back.
RTH: I’d take the kids that fail middle school and put them either at an alternative school or a school within a school in hs. Give them a rigorous remediation schedule focuses on the basics. Let it be a situation where they can catch up quickly, but an alternative that is a deterent to failing.
Of course, you won’t hear Rex nor Floyd (not Brad’s barber) talking meaningful reform like this.
Actually, unless they’ve changed the system drastically since our kids were in school there, the Germans track their kids after fourth grade. College prep begins with the fifth grade, although the details vary from one province to another.
Theoretically, a child can move from one track to another. Practically, it becomes hard to do, since peer pressure tends to keep kids where they are.
what if a student fails third grade, fifth grade, and seventh grade?
Would you put this fifteen-year-old back into a seventh grade class of 12-year-olds for his final year in school?
What would you suggest, RTH? Just pass him/her along even though the material hasn’t been mastered, or even halfway comprehended? We’ve tried that and it ain’t working. All you’ll end up with is a bunch of functional illiterates.
IMO, public schools could drastically improve immediately if they were able to remove non-performing students from the mainstream classes. Kids who want to act up or simply can’t keep up with the class should be put in specialized classes/schools, instead of being allowed to screw things up for all the other kids. If/when they are willing/able to keep up they can be returned to mainstream classes. Most kids do want to learn (even if they don’t always want to admit it lest they be seen as uncool) and it’s simply incomprehensible that we let a small minority spoil it for everyone else. We’re not doing anyone any favors by letting our worst students dictate the progress of an entire class.
Tracking would also be great. Face it, kids aren’t all destined for college, nor should they be. Different kids have different abilities and gifts. Just for example, I’m reasonably good at administration and running a small business but I’m a total idiot on building and fixing things. My neighbor is just the other way around so when he needs help with paperwork (e.g. taxes), I help him out and when I run into a mechanical problem I know I can count on him to bail me out. Similarly, we need to figure out a way to put each kid on a suitable track. Putting them all on a college track is a waste of time for at least 2/3 of them. The big caveat though is that there needs to be a way to move between the tracks. As any parent knows, as a kid grows older, his/her preferences can change drastically.
In the German system mentioned by Herb above, it’s virtually impossible to switch “up” from the basic Hauptschule to the midlevel Realschule to the college-track Gymnasium. The only switches I’ve ever seen were “down”. The obvious effect, of course, is that kids and parents do everything in their power to make it to the Gymnasium for the 5th grade because it’s only down after that. The competition is intense and a test taken in 4th grade mostly determines the entire rest of the kid’s life. Never mind that many kids are late bloomers – in Germany they’ll never have a chance to be a Herr Doktor Professor or CEO but “only” a plumber or low/mid level white-collar worker unless they pass that 4th grade test.
Bottom line, on a theoretical level tracking kids sounds great. On a practical level in a system I know firsthand, it’s not something Americans would want. The good thing is that here, unlike in Germany, your life is not based on how well you did on a test when you were 9 or 10. There’s always another chance or two or three.
Herb, 4th freakin grade?!
Our kids, I believe, would be well served if they were tracked after middle school as it was before in Germany (as I understood it). It goes back to why does a kid on the lowest track with a 1.7 gpa get the same sheep skin as the valedictorian who’s going to Harvard?
I’ve seen many young people passionate about auto-repair, carpentry, machine shop etc. who went through high school having to take a set of courses about which they cared less. On paper it sounds good that they read classic literature, take algebra 2, take biology etc. Realistically, they are learning almost nothing and we spend a great deal of time and money on force-feeding this curriculum.
I say let’s have a vocational diploma and a college prep diploma. The vocational training in many areas carries alot of weight in the job market.
Pretty much during the fourth grade. It never was on the basis of some “test”, at least in our experience. (I don’t know of any “SAT” test in Germany, neither for deciding which school pupils go to after the fourth grade, nor for deciding aptitude for college.) Rather the pupil’s whole attitude, aptitude, and work up until that point was taken into account. But if parents really pushed hard, they could, as Lexwolf points out, often get their kids into the Gymnasium, or college prep track, the effect of which has caused the watering down of the whole thing.
However if a kid isn’t really suitable for that track, it sooner of later comes out, and it makes life miserable for everbody.
Still, the German system of vocational training and apprenticeship is, as you seem to be suggesting Randy, better than what we are doing. We shouldn’t be forcing young people to become what they were never intended to become. Rather they should be encouraged to develop and train well in a profession that they enjoy and benefits everyone else.
You notice it on professions like Brad’s barber and hairdressers in general. Back when I had hair and had to go the hairdresser, I dreaded going when we were visiting the U. S. (of course I’m pretty chincy about paying for it, so that obviously had something to do with it). I could be pretty certain that in German the guy had had three years of intensive vocational training and knew how to cut hair. In the U.S., I ran across people who had trained for less than a month, and were let loose, without supervision, on the general public.
I’m not trying to put down hairdressers in the U. S. I’m sure if I really needed them now, I would know more about them! The point is that we can do better with vocational training, as I want to hear you suggesting.
One key factor in making sure a vocational high school successful is to provide a suitable academic curriculum in addition to the vocational training. As I said earlier, my high school went on a on a “one week voke/one week academic” schedule half the kids on each schedule. We had two English classes per day – one literature and the other grammar/writing/vocabulary/etc. Math was also two periods per day with the first period spent on lecture and the second on doing what would normally be considered homework (with a teacher there to assist).
There were not many electives and the science classes were basic lab types (Physics, Chem, Bio) without the different AP, Honors levels. Again, while attending college was not considered the primary role of the school, the academic side was sufficent to get anyone who wanted to into a decent mid-level college.
Also, during our senior year, if our grades were B average or better, we were given the option of finding a job in our chosen trade and working every other week versus coming to school. Normally, the guidance office would arrange a job sharing position with another senior who was on the opposite schedule.
The goal of high school should be to create productive members of society. For many kids, the right choice is a vocational education.
Aaahh, the purpose of education. Finally someone addresses it.
Unfortunately, what I see in education is often a focus on getting students their diploma and not on preparing them to enter society. Parents, students, and admins are often content and even happy if the students are passing or making whatever grade they want. We are a grade driven institution.
I’ll give you an example. My homework policy requires students to TRY every problem. I look over the work to see that they tried to use their notes or examples in the book. If they leave problems blank, I give them a zero.
Some parents react as if I’ve deprived students of a constitutional right – “they should get partial credit!” is often the cry.
My response is that in a job if I only do part of my work, I don’t get partial credit. I am reprimanded and eventually fired. What bothers me is that the parents don’t get on their student for not trying those problems.
Herb,
admission to the Gymnasium is based on a test and/or grades, depending on the state. It’s a very competitive process since spaces in the Gymnasium are obviously limited, and you can’t attend a university unless you have completed the Abitur, or final exam, in the 13th grade. Quite a few students drop out before then but even if they complete the Abitur the competition for the free university spots is even tougher. Since tuition is free and students are even given money to for living expenses, there has to be another method for limiting access. Students can’t simply opt to pay their own way like they could here but can attend only if they make the Numerus Clausus cut. Depending on the major, this can be anywhere from an almost 4.0 GPA (in German terms, actually a 1.0 as an A equals 1.0 and a D equals 4.0) to a few tenths less. A 3.0 will get you nothing.
The whole thing is, or at least used to be, a very rigorous process but it also allows virtually no second chances. It’s like a funnel growing increasingly narrow. If you know what you want when you’re in 4th grade and are willing to do whatever it takes along the way, you’ll be OK. Otherwise, you’re SOL.
As for your barber example, do you really think it takes 3 years to learn how to cut hair? Once you learn the basics in a couple of weeks, the best way to learn is by doing. That 3 years is mostly a waste of time but it gives the barbershop owner a cheap source of labor. I’ve gotten my share of haircuts in Germany and here and I haven’t noticed any noticeable difference. There are good and bad barbers in both countries, 3 years or no 3 years.
The educational system inevitably reflects the society in which we live, so in part the decision about who receives what training is tantamount to determining divisions of labor.
In my opinion our educational system is outmoded, but not for the reasons that are usually cited. Yes, our educational system in too many respects doesn’t work well, but then again, capitalism, for the vast majority of citizens, doesn’t work well either. Regardless of how the educational system is arranged, it can never fix capitalism’s problems. Capitalism’s problems are systemic to a degree that would shock most people if they knew about it. With the advent of modern computers and stochastic programming, today it is possible to predict economic outcomes with astonishing accuracy-even among statistically equal people-and it’s not pretty.
For example, most people have no idea that the top 1% in the US owns about 35% of the wealth and that the bottom 60% of the population owns only about 5% of the wealth. Also, only a handful of people have an inkling as to why the wealth distribution numbers are so skewed-the real reason being that capitalism is statistically rigged to give these long-term wealth distribution numbers. As a note of caution about tax cuts: we’re already maxed out at the top 1% owning 35% of the wealth, so further tax cuts will do no good for the rich, however we can quite possibly destabilize the economy by giving tax cuts faster than the Fed can adjust the money supply.
As far as education is concerned, everyone who has contributed has made valid points given that we continue using the same economic system. As for me, I’d like to focus on training people to created good divisions of labor through the democratic process. I think that the liberal arts portion of education should remain intact for the most part, but that math curriculum needs to be updated because of the ubiquitous availability of computers. Instead of teaching arithmetic for six to eight years, I would rather give kids a computer and a good graphical program (e.g., simplified LabView or Matlab) to learn math. Also, I think it would be good to teach kids object oriented programming (perhaps Java), HTML, and a scripting language. I’d like to see everyone receive some vocational training that is intrinsically related to his academic studies. Finally, I do not see a problem with religious education being provided in public schools on an elective basis.
LexWolf, your information re Gymnasium isn’t completely accurate, at least not for the provinces where I lived (Bavaria, Baden-Wuertt., Rheinland-Pfalz). Since three of our kids did Abitur, I think I know something about it! Getting through grade 13 and Abitur isn’t for slouches, but the average kid can do it, if they learn to work a bit. Bavaria has had traditionally been the hardest academically, but even that isn’t what it used to be. Austria has been far more rigorous; I don’t know if it has kept up its standards or not, but I suspect that the struggle with “affluenza” is having its effect there.
Even with the “cut” in the fourth grade, a kid can still move over to the college prep track, at least theoretically. As I mentioned before, peer pressure works against that. Another thing that worked against it for one of our kids was not having had French. I suspect that one still has to have two foreign languages beginning in the fifth and seventh grades, and if you haven’t had them, well you can’t change over in the ninth.
Since foreign language was not a factor, it was simpler for kids to move over from the bottom track into the middle one, and a lot more kids did.
The problems really begin, as you noted, at the university level, and I suspect the job opportunity situation is even more problematic. I think there are more university opportunities than you are suggesting, but what good does that do if the jobs aren’t available? At the time our kids were in school, that was reckoned to be a signficant reason for drug misuse by kids in Gymnasium: no future in the economy. I don’t think it has gotten better.
I still would contend that the vocational system is much better than ours, and we can learn from it. And of course it is a mute point, but I wouldn’t dismiss the training programs for hairdressers, either. I would imagine that a “hairologist” here (they used to call them that here, at least, because I knew one!) would tell you there is more to cutting hair than you might think. Most jobs are more technical than they appear to be.
I think Mark makes an insightful observation about looking at education through the lens of our capitalistic society. There seems to be a notion that everything can be evaluated or solved with a market based approach.
What such proponents fail to acknowledge is we don’t have a pure system. There’s welfare, medicare, bankruptcy protection etc. If Mark’s statement that education reflects the society at large, with which I agree, then it’s based on this same mixbreed system we have for capitalism.
I suggest that our education system should allow students to “be whatever they want to be” and provide a structure that help them achieve this. The tracking I propose does this.
Upon “graduating” from middle school, students can focus on their post-secondary future which is ONLY 4 years away. If Billy wants to be an auto-mechanic, he goes the vocational route. If Bobby wants to go to college, he takes college prep courses. Each gets a diploma relative to what they want.
If Billy graduates with his vocational diploma and decides he wants to be a mechanical engineer, he can spend a year at Mid Tech then transfer. Admissions would be based on his work at M.T. and not hs.
It appears that we’re all thinking somewhat along the same lines. (Though no one really took my question about ag voc very seriously. Maybe if ethanol fuel takes off then things will change.)
It’s been a remarkable discussion. One that “Daddy” Brad should take heart from, given his column today (Sunday).
Reforming our educational system would be an immense challenge. It’s too bad that none of our politicians (outside of Mark “I’ve read ONE Ayn Rand book” Sanford) have the intellect or the guts to enlist South Carolinians in a major effort to improve the state substantially.
I suspect that our proposals would find HUGE support in the business community, as well as, the general populace.
David Brooks wrote an article last week condemning Hillary Clinton for her latest proposal, $3000 per year scholarships to make sure everyone who can spell the word college gets to go. What’s next, let’s let all the victims of society simply skip the 4 years of study, award them a degree in some near useless field of study, and then we can all feel better that everyone went to college. Another great idea, like national health care, from Hillary.
RTH hit two great points; great discussion (are you reading this Brad) and the need for a voice.
Alas, Rex and Floyd won’t be that voice. If Rex is elected, nothing will change. If Floyd gets elected, she’ll try out some of her fantasy plans which will go no where and nothing will change.
I’ve said it before, I think Daddy Warthen does a great job, BUT I take issue with how he’s covered the education super race this year. The choice issue makes good media talk, but the issues we’ve discussed here are the real issues, in my opinion.
Two great non-surprises: Brooks slags Clinton and Dave brings down the level of discussion to petty, GOP talking points.
Mark W, do you mean that concentrating wealth more than the current top 10% owning 90% of the wealth will “destabilize the economy” or do you mean that it will destabilize the social contract?
Many of the more insightful of the monied classes credited FDR’s reforms in forestalling an economic/political revolution.
I have to disagree with your proposal to substitute computer calculators for basic arithmetic knowledge. I think that knowledge of basic math is essential to moving forward.
I think that adopting our dual track high schools proposal beginning in the ninth grade would do a lot towards solving the middle school problems. Sixth, seventh and eighth graders currently aren’t offered sufficient incentive/disincetive to focus their concentration on subject matters. A life altering decision looming on the horizon might (with much additional prodding) focus their minds.
Mark, please define “some vocational training that is intrinsically related to his academic studies.”
RTH – Read the Brooks article. He made a lot of sense. Why do we want a national policy pushing more and more non-students into colleges. Tradesmen are valuable in our society, in fact critical. Or are we going to import Mexicans, Guatemalans, etc. to be our bricklyers, electricians, plumbers, truck drivers, etc. The federal government needs to stay out of the career business to begin with but the last thing we need is to push even more kids into college with financial incentives.
The Fed Gov IS and should be in the career business. Much of the congressional legislation is built off of the Interstate Commerce clause, which clearly deals with careers. They oversee a great deal of the loans and grants.
Having said that, should we be pushing everyone into college? If we mean 4 year colleges, no. If we include 2 year colleges in which students learn the trade of bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, truck drivers etc. then yes, more should be encouraged.
Currently, SC offers two tracks in hs – “tech” and college prep. The purpose of the “tech” track is to prepare students for a technical field as an alternative to 4 year college and was created to replace the general class track. In effect, we have simply renamed the track and classes, but the rigor and content is essentially the same.
Again, the goal is often getting the tech students a diploma. It’s a factory production approach; move the kids along. We adults are ALL complicit in this pathetic situation.
Randy, so people would not have careeers if the federal govt. stayed out of that venue? This is another example of the vast over expanded nature of the Fed. The founding fathers would have never tolerated it.
Dave, please show me where I stated the position “people would not have careers if the federal government stayed out of that venue.”
Are you suggesting that the No Child Left Behind Law was overreaching? The federal loans are overreaching? Bankruptcy is overreaching?
Hi RTH,
Those are good questions- I’ll try to answer them.
Yeah, I literally meant that giving more tax cuts to the rich could destabilize the economy. I say this based on what I’ve learned from my model economy and from tracking market capitalization. It’s been a while since I’ve worked on this (for the past several months I had been working on recursive compression of random numbers-to no avail, unfortunately), but when I was closely following this stuff, I took a close look at what made the economy stable according to my program. The three variables that keep the economy stable (according to my program) are the money supply, taxes (regressive, flat, or progressive), and currency fluctuation. All three variables interact with one-another. Currency fluctuation happens automatically, and it serves to conserve the wealth in the system for short periods of time. Progressive taxes keep the system from overheating, and the money supply keeps the rate of investment at the right rate for maximum return. When the fed pumps money into the system, the biggest corporations take that money and pass it down to smaller companies, and the smaller companies pass it down further still on to even smaller companies. During the investment phase, market cap differences decrease (i.e., wealth inequality decreases) until the money filters down to the bottom. Next a flurry of monetary exchanges ensues, and then the return phase takes place, where the profit is returned up the hierarchy to the top companies, and eventually to the banking system, and market cap differences become great. This cycle happens every four or five months or so.
The Fed carefully adjusts interest rates to keep the system stable, but with big tax cuts to the rich, there’s no longer as much of an incentive for wealthy people to invest and to risk their money. That’s bad because there’s a certain ratio (the investment rate) that has to be maintained (the threshold is at the top1% owning 35% of the wealth), and if it is not maintained, according to my model economy, wild fluctuations in terms of market cap begin to happen. Since wealthy investors already have a lot of money due to big tax cuts, then the Fed can’t have much of an effect on the rate of investment. I’ve created this scenario on my computer before-with big boom/bust cycles, and inevitably the economy collapses, and it takes a long time to regenerate itself.
Yeah, FDR had people like Huey Long to deal with. Long was running around giving speeches to tens of thousands of people back in the early thirties (he was also all over radio). FDR used that sentiment to tell the oligarchy that ran the US back then that they’d have to make some compromises-or else.
I wouldn’t want to eliminate arithmetic, but six to eight years is too much for me. Once students understand division, I’d like to teach them about ratios as slopes of lines and make math based on Cartesian coordinates and algebra, which of course leads right into calculus. New graphical programs make it pretty easy to draw all types of functions. I think that using them will facilitate the understanding of mathematics.
I don’t believe in competition concerning education. Also our system is based heavily on Enlightenment/Inductive thinking due to thinkers such as Locke. Empiricism as the driving paradigm made sense up until the mid twentieth century, when information and knowledge were more limited. Today however, we have mountains of information and data and many well-understood scientific laws. Today we can treat current knowledge as a priori knowledge and go from there to create new knowledge and new ideas. I’d much rather take the ideas of everyone and combine them in the best way through the democratic process.
Finally, I meant by my cited statement that we should do a better job of fusing the classroom with the real world. If you are teaching about magnetism, then let students work with motors, contactors and relays on a real system. If you’re studying torque, then have students torque down a head using a torque wrench to ingrain in them that torque is really a force, regardless of what they units may suggest. Many ideas that are studied in the classroom are actually applied in the shop.
Randy, in the first paragraph of your post you state that the feds are and should be in the career business. And yes, NCLB programs are wrong as well as the federal agencies being in the homeloan and financing business. How many multi-millionaires are getting low interest loans from the Farmers Home administration. And look at the massive ongoing failures of HUD, an agency that specializes in building high rise slums where drug pushers can thrive. The Feds need to be out of these areas in addition to many others.
That first statement explicitly indicated careers exist ONLY by the power of the fed? Did I really write that?
So failures indicate the government should pull out? We lost the Vietnam War, so the government should not be in the war business? The incredible waste and mismanagement with respect to Katrina indicates the government should not be in the relief business? That’s a baby and bath-water approach.
The Fed government does over reach and there is incredible waste, just as there is tremendous waste in business. At times, there is also a tremendous need for intervention. At the turn of the 19th century, there was trust busting. We have insider trading issues. Reagan intervened in airline business.
The government is bad script is a drastic oversimplification. Of course, in recent years which party has been overreaching through this same Fed government?
Dave, against my better judgement, I’ve wasted the past five minutes googling for Cabbagehead Brooks’ column that you referenced.
When you provide a link, then I’ll waste another few minutes reading it.
From all indications, my reply will also be a waste. Your reading comprehension (or due diligence) is so lacking that you either failed to read or to understand the numerous posts above.
All the adults on the thread have agreed that voc-tech training is essential to reform. I’m relatively sure that Sen. Clinton’s proposal would cover tech schools also.
You’re doing a great job at parroting the red herrings, strawmen, RNC b.s. and rightwing talking points of the day, however. We’ve come to expect nothing less.
Sorry, Brad, my civility quota is exhausted today.
PS Dave, nice job at derailing the discussion by deliberately misreading Randy’s post.
Of course, I’ll feel badly if you have some mental handicap that impedes your reading comprehension.
There was a time in this country when education was primarily “mentoring.” Of course, the primary occupation being “mentored” for was Christian ministry. Our society has changed a lot since the times of the Puritans, or the Presbyterian “Log Cabin” seminaries, but methinks that perhaps there is more potential for some “mentoring” on the vocational track? I mean, I saw at least the potential for it in the German apprenticeship situation. Of course, I also saw some bosses “blowing their opportunities.” I also some who used them well and whose apprentices were trained well, for example as finished carpenters.
Certainly “mentoring” is sorely needed in theological training, and I suspect other occupations as well. Theological training was moved from the parish to the academy in Europe in the 15th century, I believe. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t we end up basically doing the same thing with the arts and sciences? And don’t we need to move away from the “stuff the heads full of facts so they can regurgitate it on a test” approach?
Hope that is all not too elementary. Just an attempt to contribute to the discussion.
Sorry, Brad, my civility quota is exhausted today.
No kidding! That post is so full of incivility, abuse, and invective that it would take Lee and I at least a couple of months to equal it. Yet you guys are the ones complaining about incivility. Hypocrites!
Herb, I’m a little lost regaring the mentoring concept.
I think you make great points with the “haven’t we done this before” and move away from what we call “skill drill.”
Education is, in practice, a grade focused institution, not a learning institution. I think we all had classes in which we made a good grade but learned little, and vise versa. If a student learned a great deal in my class, but made a low grade this would not be considered a success. If a student doesn’t learn alot, but makes a good grade, everyone is happy.
A big problem is we are diverted from addressing this with debates on choice, changing class schedules, special programs etc. I’ll beat the drum again; follow the candidates and debate in the super of ed race and you won’t see the real problems addressed.
I haven’t complained, Lexie. I’ve never claimed to be civil. I’m just returning fire with fire.
I recognize that you and Lee are just a few steps away from brownshirts. I’m just willing to say it and risk being called down for “incivility.”
BTW, you and Lee are welcome to call me a liberal ’til you’re blue in the face. It’s a badge of pride in my vocabulary. I understand that things are different on Bizarro World.
Mark, I’ve often thought that teaching basic geometry by having students design and build a structure would serve multiple purposes simultaneously.
Randy, if grades don’t reflect learning then how should it be measured?
I suggest two initiatives:
Build on the end of course testing we have now for freshmen classes. Use department exams so we can compare teachers and classes.
Beef up our grades and target grade inflation. A big part of the problem that’s inherent in grades is we need to include grades for effort. For example, if students are given a grade for doing hw, many won’t do it. I don’t have time to grade the assignments, so I give them a grade for completion. And you have students that memorize enough for the test but don’t learn.
Beef up our grades and target grade inflation.
The Army has a great way of doing that. Their officer evaluation reports used to be so inflated that virtually everybody received the top ratings which of course made the reports meaningless. They solved the problem with a senior rater profile. Along with the report itself would come another form showing how the rater had rated other officers. In other words if you receive a top rating from a rater who only rated 2 out of 58 officers that high, it would obviously mean much more than if the rater had given that rating to half of the ratees. Solved the problem overnight. With today’s technology it shouldn’t be all that hard to normalize grades so that grades from easy and hard graders are comparable.
we need to include grades for effort.
Absolutely not. If anything, we need to make grading more rigorous and more like real life. I can just see you on a cold winter night and the guy who unsuccessfully tried to replace your broken furnace saying “but I tried”. Somehow I really doubt that you would just tell him not to worry and that you appreciated his effort – it’s really not all that cold anyway. Effort is all good and well but it’s actually completing the job that really counts (even if it’s just homework). Effort without actually completing the job as well will get you nowhere in real life – except maybe in a government bureaucracy.
Lex, step on up. Sub for me for ONE day and SHOW us how easy it is to put those military and business applications to use.
Go ahead and explain EXACTLY how homework should be addressed.
What, again you want me to do your job for you? This is at least the third time now. Why are we paying you guys if you keep trying to slough off your responsibilities every chance you get?
Homework is fairly simple IF you are willing to enforce the standards. If homework is done, the kid gets credit. If homework isn’t done, the kid doesn’t get credit. Of course, if you’re in the excuse business, you will now come up with all sorts of copouts about why kids can’t do homework. Doesn’t matter because the central question is always, did the kid do the homework or not. Nothing else matters in real life so why would you want to make things overly easy in school just so he/she can have a rude awakening at the first/second/third/etc. job?
RTH – You need to take a basic course in Googling it appears. But to save you the time, here is an excerpt from the Brooks article about Hillery and her latest dumb idea. Enjoy!!!
A case in point: Over the past three decades there has been a gigantic effort to increase the share of Americans who graduate from college. The federal government has spent roughly $750 billion on financial aid. Yet the percentage of Americans who graduate has barely budged. The number of Americans who drop out of college leaps from year to year.
The reasons for dropping out are as numerous as the people who do it. Many students are academically unprepared for college work. Many suffer personal or family crises. Many are bored in the classroom and disengaged on campus. Many suffer from a strange cognitive dissonance. They have high aspirations. They know what they have to do to succeed. Yet when it comes time to, say, show up for a math test, they blow it off. And yet they still seem confident they will achieve their goals.
Some students, a relatively small slice, drop out because they can’t afford college. Perhaps 8 percent are driven away purely for financial reasons, according to a growing pile of research. William G. Bowen, Martin Kurzweil and Eugene Tobin summarized what we know in their book “Equity and Excellence”: “It seems that family finances have a fairly minor direct impact on a student’s ability to attend a college,” though family background has a large impact on whether students are academically and socially prepared.
Yet when politicians address this problem, they inevitably ignore the core issues — lack of preparedness, personal crises, disengagement, cognitive dissonance. They flee to the issue of tuition costs. They think like engineers.
Recent administrations have increased tax credits and grants to help make college affordable. This week, Hillary Clinton and the folks at the Democratic Leadership Council unveiled the centerpiece of a plan to restore the American Dream. They called for creating performance-based higher-education block grants worth $150 billion over 10 years and $3,000 tuition tax credits. They believe the programs will lead to one million more college graduates by 2015.
These are some of the smartest and best people in politics today. And yet their proposals won’t work. Tuition tax credits and grants have not produced more graduates in the past and they will not do so in the future. Bridget Terry Long of Harvard meticulously studied the Clinton administration’s education tax credits and concluded that they did not increase enrollment. Sarah E. Turner of the University of Virginia concludes, “Very broad-based programs such as tuition subsidies or across-the-board grants to low-income students are likely to have minimal effects on college completion while imposing large costs.”
It’s easy to see why politicians would want to propose tax credits as a way to bribe middle-class parents into voting for them. But if you actually want to increase the share of college graduates, you have to get into the ecology of relationships.
You have to promote two-parent stable homes so children can develop the self-control they need for school success. You have to fundamentally reform schools. You have to expand church- and university-sponsored mentoring programs and support groups. As Caroline Hoxby of Harvard notes, you have to surround students with people who will help them make informed decisions so they can attend a college they find useful.
Dave, I wasn’t irked because I couldn’t find Cabbagehead’s column.
I was irritated because you deliberately hijacked a thoughtful, constructive discussion about how to make SC schools better into a pointless partisan debate.
If you’d bothered to read (and comprehend) the numerous posts prior to leaping at the chance to slag Sen. Clinton then you would have known that the proposals under discussion included voc-tech schools on par with college-prep high schools. Your little screed about “tradesmen…Mexicans, Guatemalans… bricklayers, electricians etc.” really just proved that you can’t be bothered with participating in a constructive discussion.
You obviously leaped at the chance to inject Cabbagehead’s partisan criticisms of Sen. Clinton. (Brooks: “It’s easy to see why politicians would want to propose tax credits as a way to bribe middle-class parents into voting for them.”)
Neither I, nor anyone else was advocating the plan that Sen. Clinton and the DLC proposed. In fact, our ideas were focused on secondary-level education reforms that would actually remedy some of the supposed ills that Cabbagehead blames for the alleged epidemic of college dropouts.
You would have known that if you really wanted to be relevant to the discussion instead of scoring partisan political points for “your side.”
Thanks for the quote from Cabbagehead. My initial reaction is that the rightwing reflexively justifies government aid to the politically powerful (corporations, fundie religious organizations and the rich) but searches diligently to “prove” aid to the middle and working classes is a “waste.”
Actually, I see no reason for me to defend Sen. Clinton’s proposal against Cabbagehead’s partisan attack. But, I will consider some his supposed “supporting evidence.” I’m betting that the sources end up being bought and paid for by reactionary rightwing foundations, think tanks or billionares.
RTH – My posting about the Brooks article was germane to the discussion on this thread. Policies like those promoted by Hillary and her gang are part of the reason public education is not progressing as it should. It’s not the teacher’s fault, rather it is the misguided, even if well intentioned, actions of the nanny staters in our society. Also, we have these people in the GOP as well as in the Dem party, so I wasn’t trying to score one for the GOP. And I doubt that Harvard and UVA researchers are part of the vast rightwing conspiracy.
Randy, by “mentoring,” I mean one person helping another, one on one. Usually it has to be focused and limited for a certain time, otherwise both parties grow weary. Apprenticeship, if it is done well, can be a mentoring relationship.
Back in the old days, we trained pastors that way. Theological seminaries are beginning to realize that, and move back there. It is good to know Hebrew and Greek, but what good is it if you don’t have people skills, and you don’t find out until you are let on to a congregation? Young people training for ministry need to be placed alongside people in ministry who are able to be positive role models.
Perhaps the word “tutor” is more understandable in education, but I don’t mean just teaching facts. Learning by doing, is the important factor. And in order to do that, someone has to make the “doing” attractive.
Our whole educational system is based on the academy with its hierarchy. We can’t change that all at once. But we can possibly begin to move in other directions. I think we need help from faith-based initiatives, and other groups that have positive influence on our democratic society, but see the “Civility” thread for my thoughts on that.
Herb and Randy, this is from that Brooks article: You have to promote two-parent stable homes so children can develop the self-control they need for school success. You have to fundamentally reform schools. You have to expand church- and university-sponsored mentoring programs and support groups. As Caroline Hoxby of Harvard notes, you have to surround students with people who will help them make informed decisions so they can attend a college they find useful.
Two courses of action, fundamentally reform schools and faith-based initiatives, are fighting words with the entrenched education establishment (led primarily by leftist socialist leaning elites).
Dave, since you’re evidently a big believer in Bobo Brooks maybe you ought to read this six page article from U.S. News and World Report.
Then tell me if Bobo didn’t deliberately misrepresent the main thrust of Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education.
Here’s a statement by one of the authors at a Brookings Institute symposisum:
EUGENE TOBIN: Today’s barriers to entry are vastly different. Although explicit policies to keep certain people out on the basis of race, gender, and religion have been eliminated, more organic barriers such as poor academic and social preparedness, information deficits, and outright financial hardship are limited college opportunities for students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, a group that contains more white students than minority students, even though racial minorities are disproportionately represented.
These barriers are just as troublesome in their effects and in many ways much more difficult to overcome than the explicit exclusion of individuals with unwanted characteristics.
The editors of “The Economist” recently observed that the United States likes to think of itself as the very embodiment of meritocracy, a country where people are judged on their individual abilities rather than their family connections. To be sure, the editors observed, America has often betrayed its fine ideals. Yet, today most Americans believe that their country does a reasonable job of providing opportunities for everybody, but are they right. Such statements cry out for careful empirical study, and thanks to the cooperation of 19 highly selective colleges and universities and the assistance of the college board, we now have a rich new dataset at our disposal that allows us to provide answers to some of the most complicated questions about equity, excellence, and their interaction.
RTH – I dont have time to dig into the other link but will later. But after reading this sentence—– “more organic barriers such as poor academic and social preparedness, information deficits, and outright financial hardship are limited college opportunities for students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds,” it made me think…. Hey, we can solve this whole problem very quickly by correcting some 18 years of a person’s life experience instantly and also have the Gates foundation provide totally free college for all. By the time someone is 18, if they had poor parenting, poor participation in school, plus they are broke, my advice is join the Army and see the world, if the army has room for them. Now if we want to talk about helping a grade school kid, there is a chance there. Anyway, later on this.
“Promote 2 parent homes.” That is good. But it is far from reality, and we have to pick up the kids where they are, not where we wish they were.
All those barriers are part of the larger overall problem, Dave, but Bowen and his fellow authors seem to think that money plays a pretty big factor in keeping qualified applicants out of college.
Here’s a choice excerpt:
For many admissions officers, the stock answer has long been that there is simply not a large enough pool of academically qualified low-income students. Performance on standardized tests, class rank, grade-point average–all are highly correlated with family income and parental education. Low-income applicants, as a group, don’t do well on any of them. “I just don’t know how they’re admissible in much higher numbers than we already have,” says Don Davis, associate director for student financial services at the University of Texas-Austin, one of the state’s elite universities, where undergraduates’ median family income hovers around $80,000. “It’s not something we can change.”
Bowen, the author of several influential works supportive of race-based affirmative action and critical of low academic standards for college athletes, disagrees. In his new book, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education, he insists that there really is a substantial pool of low-income applicants who have what it takes to succeed at the nation’s most selective schools. Some of them may not look as good on paper as do more affluent applicants, Bowen acknowledges. Still, his data show they have great academic potential and that admissions officers aren’t doing what they could to give promising low-income kids an extra nudge in the process.
It’s not rocket science, the following is intuitively sensible (notice the qualifiers “tend” and “likely”).
The children of parents in professional fields are more likely to live in families in which education is valued more. Because the parents are professionals they tend to make more money. The children of parents in careers or jobs that required less education, tend to value education less and the parents tend to make less.
A former principal in the area summed it up best. There is a direct relationship between SAT scores of students and the square footage of the houses they live in.
IQ probably follows this to some degree. Those with higher IQs probably tend to get a better education etc.
This doesn’t mean IQ and socio-economic levels result in predestination, just tendencies.
And the role of teachers in all this is….?
Randy, that correlation is probably very accurate but methinks that if we mandated that all public housing units would now each be 5,000 sf per family, it wouldn’t change a thing. Silly but true. I work with black engineers, black marketing personnel, and other minorities and these people achieved success from very low income beginnings. The opportunities are there, but hiphop, drugs, sex, and the like are in the way.
Come on Dave, the size of the house is symbolic of the type of family. Taking it literally is a misuse of the point. I’ve seen better from you.
Can people pull themselves up by the bootstrap? Obviously they can. Can people drive drunk and make it home without an accident? It happens every night. Does this mean we don’t have to address drunk driving?
There is clearly data supporting the fact that students in low socio-economic families and in non-traditional homes achieve academically at a much lower rate. That was actually part of Lee’s warped point about “black single parents not caring about their kids.”
The issue is this population needs more help in achieving. I don’t mean giving them anything. I mean, providing resources (tutoring, counseling etc.) to help them help themselves. For example, after school ended one day, I heard someone screaming obscenities out front. I discovered it was the mother of one of my students cussing and yelling at him to hurry up and get in the car. Apparently, that’s how he’s treated at home. No wonder he was angry and unfocused in class. That’s not “hiphop, drugs, sex, and the like in the way.”
I see that Dave still won’t take up the basic issue of Bobo Brooks’s intellectual dishonesty.
Not surprising, really.
Lying is something of a tool of the trade for wingnut commentators. Al Franken even wrote a book about it, Lying Liars etc. From Coulter’s spurious footnotes to O’Reilly’s numerous alleged Peabody Awards to Santorum’s spurious Iraqi WMD to John Lott’s bogus gun studies, the rightwing finances liars, their lies and the media that insinuates them into the national discussion.
RTH – I’m still here, just a little tardy on followups. In the Bowen data – it says:Some of them may not look as good on paper as do more affluent applicants, Bowen acknowledges. Still, his data show they have great academic potential and that admissions officers aren’t doing what they could to give promising low-income kids an extra nudge in the process.
Now read it again with my changes in it:
Some of them may not look as good on paper as do more AMISH applicants, Bowen acknowledges. Still, his data show they have great academic potential and that admissions officers aren’t doing what they could to give promising AMISH kids an extra nudge in the process.
Now, if Bowen had written a treatise to favor the Amish kids, the lefties would be screaming to high heaven. What, preferential treatment for all those white German descendants, how dare they? It may even be racist. Abe Lincoln was as poor as they come and learned the three Rs in a one room log shack. And please don’t tell me that Bowen’s article had nothing to do with race. The left code words for black minority is “low-income”. Think about how much better we all are if everyone is treated the same, or would be better.
Randy – You are at the root cause of the problems as you describe the faulty parenting that some kids receive. Teachers cannot control that and we certainly don’t want the government controlling it. To me that leaves faith based organizations, neighbors, and other family members. There is no magical solution by any means. The saying that an apple doesn’t fall far from the tree has resonance. The beauty of our society in many respects is that a son or daughter of a hardnosed redneck construction worker with a mom who waits tables at a Huddle House (talk about some food with your order of smoke) can, with some internal motivation and effort, become a doctor. By the same token, look at Jimmy Carter and Billy Carter. Jimmy’s politics aside, he achieved great things. Billy (who I believe is dead) was a redneck buffoon. My point is we cannot consider it a societal failure if little Johnny wants to goof off in school and end up shoveling ditches for a living. And if the parents are facilitating all the reasons for the goofing off, so be it. That’s life.
Another red herring post for Dave.
Let me restate the case for you, in case your finely tuned sense of reverse discrimination went haywire.
Bobo cites a very impressive sounding book with very authoritative authors as supporting his thesis. Bobo contends that lack of money doesn’t prevent people from going to college. Instead he implies that Bowen et al think that deficient “family background” and social/academic prep are to blame.
Yet, when one actually reads Bowen et al it turns out that they believe exactly opposite of what Bobo implies.
It’s especially ironic that Bowen et al are totally in favor of– gasp!– that nightmare of supposedly “self-made” conservatives, affirmative action.
So, you see, Dave, the affirmative action debate is actually a red herring. My point was and is that Bobo Brooks can’t be trusted because he’s intellectually dishonest. In fact, I have little doubt that Bobo’s true goal was attacking Clinton. It’s what he gets paid for as a rightwing attack poodle.
Who’s Bobo?
Great come back.
NOT.
RTH – You are over analyzing Brooks. And next week he may write a favorable article on the Hildabeast, then what will you say? Anyway, this thread is probably finito.