Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I agree that the education lately has been lacking something; I believe
    it to be the parents fault though, not the teachers.
     Parents now-a-days are to busy to care or they just don't care.  I see
    many parents "neglecting" their children by not spending reading time
    with them and by not teaching them much of anything.  I think that some
    parents "think" that their children will some day know everything-but
    not by reading or figuring problems out for themselves.  Some parents
    "baby" their kids and do everything for them and by doing so it really
    hinders their childrens learning ablity.  
      Teachers can only teach so much.  I believe that the schools shoud be
    strictor than they are; but parents won't go for it. I think that the
    parents who don't want more disipline in the schools are the ones whose
    children will be suffering the most because it shows the lack of
    belief in disipling- and that is a major part of the kids lack of
    learning.  Kids who aren't disiplined early on will have a tendency to
    be unmotivatied- in MY opinion- therefore they aren't motivated to
    learn.  Also when they haven't been disiplined they also tend to become
    unruley and when there are a couple of these kinds of kids in a class
    room it disrupts the whole class.  It's especially hard for a child to
    accept "orders" from an athority figure when their parents don't care.
    They have the attitude "who are you to be telling me what I should do?
    You're not my mother or father- they don't tell me what to do."  
     Drugs in a way plays a part of the problem- from the parents.   Many
    parents grew up using pot and have never gotten away from it.  Those
    people are unmotivated themselves so how are they to teach their kids.
    Those people usually send their kids out to play all night and then
    they send the kids to bed when they come in.  Or they send them into
    the other room to watch T.V.  Too bad T.V. doesn't have more shows
    for kids; not like Perfect Strangers or The 10 of Us, but shows that
    teach kids how to read, do math, understand verbs-nouns-pronouns.  Not
    like Sesame Street- that is a very good program for small children, but
    one that is geared more towards 8 year olds and up. They should have a
    show for pre-teens,even younger, that teaches them about they body,
    what sex is, what AIDs is.  Many parents are afraid to talk to their
    kids and many kids watch T.V. so why not teach them something else
    other than how to cheat on one's spouse, how to kill people, how to 
    do drugs etc.  No wonder we have so much of this going on- we teach our
    kids to do that.

               
    	I heard recently by accident a broadcast talk by Issac Asimov on 
    S.E.T.I., given at one of the local Boston colleges - maybe Emerson.
    He went off on a tangent talking about Education in America and
    what changes will be needed to make the Education a more effective
    experience for the Students.
    
    	One of the things he mentioned is that we are going to have
    to drop the English/Western style of education, which is "curriculum" 
    based. Curriculum, of course, means that you'll learn these things
    in this order and do what we say - or "fail".
    
    	His idea of what will repleace a curricula driven educational
    experience will be one that's driven by the individual's personal
    needs and interest. Proposterous!!!
    
    	Personally, one of my first experiences with _discrepancy_ was
    when my 4th grade teacher put the day's curricula - or schedule
    - on the boards. She'd actually bother to write "Science 3:00 -
    3:15" and I knew damn well that it'd never happen. It never did
    - the 15 minutes just ended up "cush time" - let alone being enough
     to cover "Science"...
    
    	I happened to like science. Apparently, the items in the curricula 
    were more important. I was invalidated for protesting, by the teacher.
    
    	Joe Jas

	 In some states a substitute teacher need only have a
	 high school diploma.

	 Where I went to college, if you failed out of your first
	 major, you changed to education...You only needed a 2.0 gpa
	 (C average) to graduate from there.

	 My brother's math teacher (8th grade) cannot do basic
	 math...more than once I've corrected her.

	 My 8th grade history teacher told me that Japan was on our
	 side during world war II.  I had the same guy for Current
	 World Affairs in 9th grade and we were forced to write a
	 report on Ancient China.  (I was intrumental in getting this
	 guy fired.....Everyday he would twist something
	 around....kids believe what they hear, and he was teaching
	 lies.)

	 There are some really fantastic teachers out there, but on
	 the average I believe their qualifications are substandard.


	 This is not going to change, tho, until teachers begin to get
	 paid decent wages.

	 Catch-22

	 kath
	 

    After 6 years in school 'administration' (3 years on a public
    school budget committee and 3 years on a private school school
    board) I no longer believe that poor education in the US is
    the teachers fault. Sure there are some bad teachers but on
    average I believe that the quality is very good. I also think
    it is getting better. The pay rate of teachers (take it from
    someone who personally negotiated teachers pay a couple of months
    ago) has steadily increased far faster than the average worker.
    How many of you got a 10-15% raise in each of the last three
    years? That's what teachers are getting and it looks to continue
    for a while. Sure they had a long ways to come but it's getting
    there.

    I believe that it is a complex problem. It's not just teachers
    or parents it's the system. I *do* believe that parents can do
    the most for their kids. What with two income families there
    isn't usually a parent to even make sure that all the homework
    gets done let alone help the kids with it. This is a big problem.

    Sure not all (perhaps not even many) helped their kids 20 years
    ago but society was different then. Back then there was more stigma
    attached to not doing ones homework (at least in my schools). Now
    the social pressure is not there and regardless of whether or not
    it ever was there needs to be some 'pressure' on kids to do the
    work.

    One other big factor is all the 'programs' that kids have to take
    part in in school. Computer lab, special projects, extra programs
    for LD or slow reading or what not did not exist 20 years ago.
    These programs, while good and generally useful, break up the
    day and help make scheduling, continuity, and discipline harder for
    teachers. Hard to see a way around that problem with out added either
    more hours in the day or more days in the school year. That is
    an approach that appears to be fought more by teachers and parents
    than by students by the way. (I've talked to all three groups about
    it.)

    These issues are just a few of the ones I see. The others are both
    more complex to explain and to solve. But I really believe that
    parents who find a good school can make up for almost all of the
    deficiencies by taking a few hours a day to help their kids with
    their school work, reinforce the value of education, and take
    advantage of educational opportunities outside of school. (for
    example trips to historic places [a walk around Boston is cheap],
    trips to museums [a few dollars to invest in your childs education],
    buy them (or borrow for them) all the books they'll read.)

    			Alfred

    Saved from being written by moderator
    
    
               <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 568.5                Educational Crisis in the US                    5 of 6
GIAMEM::MACKINNON                                     0 lines   2-MAY-1989 12:49
                      -< education reform needs money!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    There are many things that can be done to straighten out the
    schools, but as with most things, these solutions need to
    be financed.  And there is no money for education.  It is usually
    put into other less important places.  Society has to wake up
    and demand from the government to make the money available to
    education.  Until this is done, the state of the system will not
    change.  People have to make it clear to the government that 
    we want the money to go towards education and not to less important
    issues that do not directly affect the future welfare of this nation.
    What is the purpose of having a fantastic new bombing machine if you can't
    find anyone capable of being taught how to operate it?  Let's put
    the money to better use!!!
    
    Michele

>     Drugs in a way plays a part of the problem- from the parents.   Many
>    parents grew up using pot and have never gotten away from it.  Those
>    people are unmotivated themselves so how are they to teach their kids.

 I find this to be a gross ovegeneralization. I think you would probably be 
surprised how many supremely motivated individuals smoke a joint every now
and then.

 Besides, I think you could probably make a stronger case for alcohol abuse-
it is more prevalent and its effects more devastating.

 The Doctah

    
    Money is a substitute for what we used to have a few generations
    back - close knit families, neighbors, peer pressure to do well,
    to do the right thing...
    
    Make society livable. Make it possible for people of average means
    to own homes, to save, to have roots in the community. Encourage
    families to stay together, to live in a neighborhood a long time,
    to live close to the job, to always have some adult at home. 
    
    Conditions like this can't be bought for money.
    
    More money will merely buy more bureaucrats and anyway we are
    paying enough taxes as it is. 

>    I need some feedback here. Let me try not to ramble too much. Why
>    are American students not learning? 

         Oh, but they are! They are learning exactly what
         they *need* to learn to survive...unfortunately those
         things often do not include the *subjects* being
         taught. Humans learn all the time, but to learn skills
         that do not directly relate to survival, they must
         feel at ease and safe...hardly a possibility in an
         urban ghetto school, do you think?
         
         They also lack an overall view of America and where
         it is [or wants to go] going...our individualist
         nature prevents us from instilling into our children
         national goal setting. The Japanese internalise a
         naitonalistic committment to excell as a country...Americans
         internalise a "personal" committment to excel at
         "personal" objectives....a grave difference. You
         can't socialize children to see their own desires
         and dreams as paramount over national ones and then
         by some magic expect they will then go off to school
         and learn all the stuff they need to make the US
         great.
         
         Foreign nationals attending college in the US have
         a statisrically  unbelievable rate of return to their native
         countries even when they can never hope to achieve
         the same standard of living they had as *students*
         [much less professionals] on their return. Why? Because
         they bought into the NATIONAL agenda of get the
         training, then come home and train your fellow countrymen. 
         
         The following is opinionated and at times bitter.
         My background is education...I gave it up as a losing
         proposition. These are *only* my opinions.
         
    
>    1) Drugs?
         
         I still see drugs as first a symptom and second a
         condition that prevents children from being "safe".
         Drugs at home and on the streets are "initially"
         more intrusive to children than actual drug use.
         Going home to Mommy and Daddy shooting up is not
         conducive to homework...or even being fed.
         
         Around about Jr. High...it starts to swing into usage.
         
         Let's face it, if we have not caught *any* student's
         imagination by the time they are 11 or 12, it's
         gonna be a long road to catch it after...drugs or
         no drugs. It used to be beer....[still is in some
         parts of the country]...anything that is
         anti-establishment. 
         
         I am not down-playing the immensity of the drug problem,
         but as far as the education as an issue goes, per
         se, I think it is a side light to the real problem.
         A symptom. A reality of the back-drop.
         
>    2) Broken homes/latch-key kids?
         
         You know, children have almost always in our society
         been left alone in one way or another. Except for
         rural communities where extended families are a norm,
         the nuclear family has been the status quo in America
         since the 50's...And there is no way *not* to leave
         children alone in a nuclear family a good deal of
         the time.
         
         There *is* the issue of school as baby-sitter that
         is bandied about by educators across the country,
         but in my opinion that would not be a bad function
         for schools to serve in some circumstances. IF we
         are interested in providing a safe and healthy
         environment for our children to learn in, and IF
         the environment in the "real" world is not that way...
         WHY NOT have schools provide an extended "keeper"
         function? Big bloody deal....or is it better to let
         the building sit empty? And its a lot better to have
         the kids on the street instead of in the gym...yup.
         
         As to broken homes....another side issue I think.
         Adversity is what living is about. Children need
         to learn to exist with it. That is not to say that
         we [school, or parents, or churhces, or WHOMEVER]
         should not help provide support to children facing
         these dilemmas, but let's not blame Mom and Dad's
         inability to live together for all the ails of the
         modern world.
         
>    3) Bad teachers?
         
         My favorite topic....[snarl]. Tell me, would you
         let your child stay with someone just because they
         were 22 and had taken 10 courses in education? Damn
         right you wouldn't. But we *will* let our children
         spend a good 50% of their waking hours with just
         such people with no guarentee of any type that these
         people have the native intelligence of raw cabbage.
         
         Give me *one* good teacher and I will turn around
         the lives of 9 out of 10 "lost" children. Hmmm?
         
         So why aren't they out there? And where have they
         gone? [into computers no doubt....] Well, to be fair,
         some of them *are* out there....failure just makes
         such better *copy* than success. Don't ask me why
         they are out there....they certainly are not being
         rewarded in any way visible to the naked public.
         
         Yes, yes, I know that nurturing young things is a
         joy and all that bull-cr*p....and it is....but it
         doesn't feed a teacher's kids, or put a teacher's
         kids through college....just how much self-sacrifice
         do we demand?
         
         And perhaps more important....it used to be that
         teachers had a "status" that made up in part for
         the lack of remuneration. They had supprt. Well,
         don't look now, but all that has passed by the boards
         quite a walk back down the road.
         
         Unfortunately, the position of teachers as a group        
         politically has not helped their cause in this area,
         but hindered it. Teachers have steadfastly adhered
         to a "close ranks" attitude that results in harboring
         incompetents among their ranks....and leaves them
         wide open for devastating criticism by their opponents.
         
>    4) Pay too low to draw competant people? 
         
         Yes, it is. You can graduate from college in almost
         anything [short of folklore] and make more money.
         
         And the people paying the bills are going to have
         to start realising that one cannot hire people for
         9 months out of 12 with the premis that they can
         go find another summer job. Give me a break. If you
         want teachers to *be* professional, then you need
         to start treating them that way. They should have
         full year contracts and should work 12 months per
         year. [The good ones do anyway....and the bad ones
         will have one less "cushy" reason to choose education
         as a place to park]
         
>    5) Tenure harboring incompetence? 
         
         The point of "tenure" in historical terms was to
         protect "faculty" [originally at post-secondary level]
         from discrimination based on belief. In other words,
         to prevent faculty from being fired, not for
         incompetence, but for holding beliefs or researching
         topics distasteful to wealthy trustees.
         
         We seem to have stretched this far beyond its intent.
         
         Teachers "must" begin to accept the fact that people
         who pay their salaries have a right to expect
         competence. And have a right to "test" for it in
         some manner. Those doing the testing need to be
         extremely sensitive to the nature of the "test".
         Somehow it must protect against the very descrimination
         that the original tenure law was intended to prevent.
         
>    Without good teachers America will loose. We will loose our standard
>    of living and our competitive edge in the international marketplace.                     
>    I am beginning to think we should re-vamp the whole educational
>    system at the most basic levels. But replace it with what?
         
         Good luck on re-vamping. There is a ton of research
         pointing to just that conclusion...and has been for
         at least 50 years. And what good has it done anybody?
         
         The institution of education is all balled up with
         the self-identity of "America". We truly expect and
         need to have people "struggle" against all odds to
         survive and succeed before we will accept them. It
         is our Puritan Ethic....a national characteristic
         that is enacted in all our social institutions,
         education included. If it didn't hurt...it wasn't worth it.
         
         "Everyman's" response to a young black in the ghetto
         of some city, struggling against all odds to rip
         free of illiteracy...is..."Good for him, it'l either
         kill him or make him a man...."
         
         I have sat opposite these folks in too many school
         board meetings to hold any hope but for the occasionally
         truly dedicated teacher that comes along and touches
         the lives of their students "in spite" of the system.
         
         There *are* good schools and teachers out there,
         but you find them where there is an anomoly of some
         sort in the communities they serve....lots of money,
         a local small college, bedroom rural....some factor
         that adjusts the attitude of tax payers and teachers
         alike to make them a team instead of players in game.
         
         Your question needs to ask how do we re-vamp our
         societal ethics...not just educational ones.
         Re-organization of education will never work as long
         as the society behind it is individualistic and
         capitalistic. 
         
         ---
         
         Melinda    

  I buy into the "Krupinski" theory (covered in another recent note).

  Our society demeans the value of good, hard work.  I won't repeat all
  of Tom's arguments -- please consider them included by reference.
  Schooling, unfortunately, is often hard work.  And the kids don't
  see it paying off any more than the adults see their own hard work
  paying off.  Better to: (choose one or more) 1) Deal coke, 2) Buy
  a lottery ticket, 3) etc.

  Society as a whole should return the value to work.

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Other notes mentioned "...schools capturing (a child's) imagination
  by the age of 11 or 12...", Asimov suggesting (I think) that schools
  would teach what children were interested in, and finally that the
  material taught must be tied to reality, not discussed abstractly.

  These three ideas all go together.  While there are certainly a few
  dumb old boring subjects that one must just grind through (with the
  list varying with individual people), there are plenty of cases where
  the material *SHOULD* be presented with exciting concrete examples,
  and where the specific topics covered *CAN* vary depending upon the
  interests of the students.  We use curricula merely in our attempt
  to "mass produce" standardized students suited to taking standardized
  tests.  (Remember Asimov's sci-fi story about "Education Day"?)

  And it isn't a question of "capturing" a child's imagination, it's
  more a question of not beating the imagination and quest for knowledge
  out of them.  If you have any doubt about a conversation with the near-
  est three-year old will set you straight!  "Why..."  "Who..."  "How..."
  "What if..."

                                   Atlant

 Melinda-
    
    I agreed with most everything you said. You make alot of good points.
    
>         Your question needs to ask how do we re-vamp our
>         societal ethics...not just educational ones.
>         Re-organization of education will never work as long
>         as the society behind it is individualistic and
>         capitalistic. 
    
    Here's where you and I diverge. My impression of this paragraph is that
    we need to become socialistic. I do not believe that is the answer.
    
    I think that we need to inspire our young people to strive to excel.
    I do not know how to accomplish this. I do know that no matter what the
    reason for the motivation (be it capitalistic or socialistic or
    whatever) the most important thing is the motivation itself- not why.
    Without some form of intrinsic motivation, students will not excel.
    They will wallow in mediocrity and indolence.
    
    There are two schools of thought wrt increasing money for education.
    One says we need to spend more to get better instruction. The other
    says spending more will only lead to increased bureaucracy. In fact,
    both are correct (neat trick, huh?). What is needed more than simple
    additional revenues is more intelligent allocation of resources.
    There are some very useful programs that are curtailed or dropped due
    to unavailability of funds. This is not especially helpful. There are
    also alot of paper shufflers at the top of the school "administration."
    They are not especially helpful either, considering their rate of pay
    vs the actual benefit they provide to the students. The money can often
    be better spent elsewhere.
    
    I think it makes alot of sense to make teachers work 12 months per
    year. If they are paid a competetive salary based on a 12 month year,
    they will not be as attracted to industry. It is somewhat unfair to
    expect them to get a summer job, especially when the summer job pays
    even less than teaching. All in all, the teachers I observe get paid
    pretty much on par with industry workers on a per hour basis. Since
    they only work 9 mos, it appears to be much less than they are getting
    on a workhour basis.
    
    If you ask just about any teacher, they will claim to put in long hours
    etc. Practically no teacher will claim they don't earn their pay. On
    the other hand, ask the students about the teachers. You'll find that
    most teachers do not grade homework at all. You'll find that they do a
    very poor job of grading tests and papers on a timely basis. Most
    teachers almost beat the children out of the classrooms when the bell
    rings. I find that many teachers have the attitude that "well I'm only
    getting $x per year, you can't expect me to do a good job for that."
    I hate that attitude.
    
    On the other hand, if you survey graduating college students, you'll
    find that the vast majority of teachers come from the bottom 25% of
    their graduating classes. This statistic alone should scare parents out
    of their doldrums. We have poor students teaching our children! Don't
    get me wrong, it is not entirely the teacher's fault. Society must
    certainly bear some part of the blame for encouraging all of its best
    students to pursue careers in industry while relegating the poorer
    performers to teaching. (Obviously, not all teachers come from the
    bottom of the class. There are some very intelligent teachers who just
    like to teach.)
    
    I think that we must attract better candidates for teachers. Right now
    there is virtually no competition to be a teacher. There should be.
    
    One thing that bothers me about teachers pay is the rate at which it
    climbs. Undeniably, some locales have underpaid their teachers for so
    long that such increases are reasonable. I think that teachers have
    gotten too used to whopping pay increases (10-15%/year). I think they
    are going to really have a hard time dealing with the 5% raises (which
    are not guaranteed to happen every year) that industry is used to.
    Unfortunately, before they accept the realities of smaller pay
    increases, there will be alot of frivolous strikes based on the premise
    that "we always used to get 10% raises." Teacher's pay is quickly
    catching up to industry standards. As usual, the pendulum swings the
    other way.
    
    The Doctah

         Hi Doctah!
             
>    I agreed with most everything you said. You make alot of good points.
 
         Oh-oh....I'm in trouble now....[grin]
         
>>         Your question needs to ask how do we re-vamp our
>>         societal ethics...not just educational ones.
>>         Re-organization of education will never work as long
>>         as the society behind it is individualistic and
>>         capitalistic. 
>    
>    Here's where you and I diverge. My impression of this paragraph is that
>    we need to become socialistic. I do not believe that is the answer.
 
         I wrote it badly...in my mind it is a matter of degree.
         I do not think that socialism is much of an answer
         either...I *do* think we must somehow redefine what
         we as a society see as [word search in progress]
         success? 
         
         Currently this is defined by how much money I make
         or how comfortable I am in material terms...we are
         an unabashedly capatalistic society...and we are
         also somewhat [shall I say] "loose" about how we
         get it. Ou folklore is full of heros who "cheated"
         the system or bent the rules to gain advantage...
         So young people today are often "set up" to expect
         that wheeling and dealing will in the end offer not
         only rewards but acceptance....
         
         It's like all our lotteries...we just can't really
         *believe* that there is *no free lunch*.
         
         I over-simplified my thoughts...sorry.
         
            
>    I think that we need to inspire our young people to strive to excel.
>    I do not know how to accomplish this. I do know that no matter what the
>    reason for the motivation (be it capitalistic or socialistic or
>    whatever) the most important thing is the motivation itself- not why.
>    Without some form of intrinsic motivation, students will not excel.
>    They will wallow in mediocrity and indolence.
 
         
         YES!  Can I say it any louder!
            
         RE: your comments about teachers' salaries...
         
         this is the kind of talk that teachers and especially
         union reps do not like to hear. Having been in all
         three positions...I am forced to say that in general
         I agree...there are many *specific* situations that
         I think we all could defend as not supporting you
         argument, but unhappily, I think that statisticalk
         averages will proove you correct.
         
         I am not sure that I agree with the inferred logic
         of your reasoning however. [correct me if I misread
         the stuff between the lines] But I read what you
         say as inferring that teachers and educators in general
         do not meet minimum quals of industry and do not
         know what they are in for....
         
         Hmmm...I think the end point here is right...but
         the path is wrong. I think educators are caught in
         the middle of change...they have run their institutions
         based on assumptions a-g...they are now faced with
         economic realities that force them to run them on
         assumptions  h-p...[ooops!] *Some* of their dithering
         may be due to plain old confusion. [chuckle]
         
         And some is based on the position of educational
         unions that seek to maintain high rates of increase
         to maintain high rates of membership. Everybody has
         an agenda...we need to remember that....Hmmm?
         

         Melinda

	There is one aspect of the change in US society which has changed
	in the past few decades which, while positive and necessary, 
	I believe has adversely affected US education. That is the 
	acceptance of women into the workforce in areas other other than 
	education. In days gone by, education was one of the few challenging 
	careers in which a woman not satisfied with staying home keeping 
	house could find ready acceptance.  This gave US school systems a 
	steady supply of low paid, bright teachers, who gave the US a 
	better education system than it would otherwise have, and at a much 
	lower cost.

	With the workforce situation improving, this pool of talent is
	now finding acceptance in areas other than education, and is no
	longer a pool from which school systems can pick and choose.
	This results in a lower quality talent pool, which demands a higher
	wage than was accepted in previous eras. No, I am certainly
	not arguing for a return to the bad old days. But to fail to
	point out this particular facet of the problem and address it's
	implications would be a mistake.

						Tom_K

    Re: .14
    
    Interesting thought.  I began to think back over my school years
    and counted the # of women who taught me, dividing them into 2 groups.
    Those that were married and with a family, and those who were what
    was then referred to as "old maids".
    
    The "old maids" won.  And I believe that the general quality of
    teaching was very good; they put into their students all the energies
    and interest that was not being diverted to their own families.
    And talk of poor pay!!!!  I am still trying to figure out how they
    lived on what they made.  They must have been financial wizards.
    
    When I went to school, we had such fun topics as geography [I think
    I can draw the map of the US with my eyes shut] and social studies.
    And for English lit. we studied exciting things like Wordsworth
    poetry and O. Henry stories [and I *liked* O. Henry].  
    
    Granted, my times were barely antebellum, however, it was a good,
    solid and basic education.  Algebra, geometry, etc. and Latin for
    2 years.  Some of us did well in those subjects, some of us [I,
    for instance] did better in what is sometimes referred to now as
    the "squishy" subjects [Lit., sociology, etc.].
    
    However, we did not have the distractions of TV, after school jobs
    that paid the same $ as the adults who work along side the kids,
    we didn't have our own cars, and we generally had some adult in
    the home who knew where we were, with whom, and doing what.  Life
    was pretty restricted and protected.  We also didn't have the grand
    and glorious computer.
    
    This isn't a note which adds much to what is wrong with the educational
    system; but there has been enough and more said on that part.
    
    As I see it, having been through schooling during a time which most
    of you consider ancient history, and having raised 4 children in
    the 60s and 70s, now watching my grandchildren begin their term
    in the school system, there is such a vast difference overall it
    is hard to say what can be picked out as wrong and what is right.
    
    I do know, however, that the basic and rather classical education
    I received in a country school in Georgia was very similar to that
    which was received by a friend of mine in a private school in England.
    
    And one of the interesting things I often find now is that the
    references I might make to literature or to mythology, for instance,
    is completely lost on many people 1/2 my age, while I don't have
    as much difficulty relating to their referencing more up to date
    materials.  
    
    Not much help, this rambling.  M 
    
     
    

    some suggestions:
    
    rewrite proposition 2-1/2 (for massachusetts) to clearly define
    where the money cuts will come from when the town can't meet it's
    budget.  It should NOT come from elderly services, school services,
    fire departments, and police departments.
    
    boost finances in general (from the government, hopefully, or have
    the government form a group in each state to assess the educational
    needs of the state and report with a request for money) - for schools.
    
    Improve teacher's salaries.  Employ teachers that teach beyond reading,
    writing, and 'rithmatic....teach social sciences, environmental
    studies, and a variety of electives....develop the interests of
    the student and work to make learning enjoyabale.
    
    Encourage parents to nurture children to enjoy learning.  Learning
    is not a punishment, school is not just "something you gotta do".
    Learning is a gift, and need not be painful.
    
    Place tuition-aid programs in many colleges which allow students
    (particularly students of education) to attend school where financially
    they may not have been able to before.  This will help those who
    would LOVE TO TEACH to get the credentials they need to teach. 
    And no one teaches better and has more learned students than a teacher
    who loves what they're doing - it really shows.
    
    Improve the social acceptance of teaching, by giving higher salaries
    and more benefits.  Allow teachers of primary schools to moonlight
    teaching seminars to other students, other teachers, or the general
    populace (i.e. literacy programs, etc....or even their own special
    interest focuses in the form of night courses) - and give them
    financial remuneration for this.  They can do this in the summers.
    
    STOP CLOSING SCHOOLS!  This is a BIG problem in Massachusetts where
    there was a decrease in the population of students for a time, but
    the baby-boomers are having their last batch of children, and like
    the snake who swallowed something EXTREMELY large, the bulge is
    coming our way.  There have been school closings and teacher layoffs,
    there has been a poor teacher-student ratio in many towns.  If a
    school is to be unused, lease it on a year-to-year basis to small
    businesses or daycare centers - don't renovate it into something
    totally un-school-like or tear it down for an office condo complex.
     
    The word must come from above, from the governmental administrata,
    the money must back the words, and we must regenerate pride in our
    abilities as a country.  Without a properly educated generation,
    we have no hope of being in the forefront of technology and innovation.
    We have no hope of being in the forefront of growth and awareness.
    
    How can people make educational cuts and think there will be no
    repercussions?  FORESIGHT is needed, and soon.
    
    -Jody
    

>         I am not sure that I agree with the inferred logic
>         of your reasoning however. [correct me if I misread
>         the stuff between the lines] But I read what you
>         say as inferring that teachers and educators in general
>         do not meet minimum quals of industry and do not
>         know what they are in for....
    
    If I understand the point you're asking about... What I mean is
    teachers are often coming from the bottom 20% of their class. One of my
    buddies (who spent about 6 year in college doing a 4 year program) is
    going to become a teacher. The people from my high school class that
    became teachers were all in the bottom 20% of our class. They were the
    students that were the worst at learning and studying. Now they will be
    teaching. It's kinda scary, unless they miraculously got their act
    together (one thing is that I went to a private high school with
    entrance requirements etc, so the average student there was quite a
    ways ahead of the average student at the public high school in town.)
    
    The other point that I made was that teachers have become accustomed to
    raises in excess of what industry generally provides. They also have
    tenure and other niceties that industry does not provide. I think
    they'd be in for a big surprise if schools were run like industry (like
    what happens when we have a "bad year" and no raises are forthcoming).
    I think that the unions would continue to ask for large raises even
    after economic parity has been achieved. Personally, I think unions
    have long outlived their usefulness, and now exist chiefly to extort
    money for their members and protect dead wood.
    
    I don't know if I answered the question or not.
    
    The Doctah

    What really ticks me off if the shortsightedness of some who do
    not see education as an investment for the long term in this country.
    
    Education is the one major force that can move a person from one
    economic level to another. Education is the one major force that
    can catapult us into the 21st century prepared for the technological
    advancements necessary for life. 
    
    I have a 1 year old and a 3 year old. They love to learn. It seems
    to be intuitive to love to learn. Where are "we" failing them? Is
    it, as someone suggested, at the age of social awareness, 11 to
    13. Or is it at a much more vulnerable age, 5 or 6.
                                     
    Here is my agenda for the schools of the year 2000:
    
    Drug dealing- automatic expulsion
    Guns or knives- "           "
    
    Teachers:
    *  Degree in teaching and in subject taught (in upper grades)
    *  Good pay for 12 month work (during summers with illiteracy etc)
    *  Frequent reviews and merit raises.
    *  Bad teachers are let go.
    
    Homelife
    *  Afterschool care for all.  
    *  Parents involved in PTA etc.          
    
    Money
    * Prop 2 1/2 can not cut education (Mass)
    * Federal funds. (I said in the year 2000 8^D)
    
    I can dream, right?
    Kate
    

re: .17
    
>        The other point that I made was that teachers have become accustomed to
>    raises in excess of what industry generally provides. They also have
>    tenure and other niceties that industry does not provide.

    I disagree.  My father works for a public school and over a period
    of several years, he and his fellow teachers watched the cost of
    living increase 17%, and their salaries increase 9%.  Tenured teachers
    have been laid off due to proposition 2-1/2 (last hired, first fired
    cut THAT far into the teaching staff at some locations).  I felt
    extremely guilty that my first year out of college I instantly made
    more then EITHER of my parents.
    
    And as for dead wood, if teaching paid better it would attract more
    people, and the schools could pick and choose.  If there were an
    adequate review system (based in feedback, results, etc...) I think
    those who were dead wood would be removed, and the more dynamic
    people attracted by the higher pay would be hired.  

    -Jody
    

    Ah, yes.  The big percentage raise gambit.  Someone once tried to
    hire a friend of mine at an inappropriately low salary, using the
    argument that my friend would thereafter get several large (in terms
    of percentage) raises to correct his low starting salary.  Upon
    reflection, my friend decided he would rather *start* with an
    adequate amount of money, and work his way up from there.
    
    							Ann B.

    I'd love to know where the cost of living has gone up 17% and teacher's
    salaries only went up 9%. I suppose there's an exception to every rule.
    In my town, the cost of living has been going up about half the rate
    the teacher's salaries have been climbing. Nashua teachers got a huge
    raise after the last strike- and are now among the highest paid in the
    area.
    
    I have a hard time accepting that you made more than your parents right
    out of school. Assuming that your approximate income for the first year
    out of school was $30K, I wonder how many years you'd have to be a
    teacher to make more than that (and only work a 9 month year). In my
    town there are teachers with 15 years of experience and just a
    bachelors making over $40K (for 9 months work). Do you come from a very
    small and poor town?
    
    Teaching (at least around my area) has been getting to pay more and
    more. It is very close to industry wages. There is also an option to
    spread your pay out over the whole year so you always have an income.
    
    The law of supply and demand will be coming into play here shortly
    anyhow. The demand for teachers will soon be outstripping the supply,
    thus catapulting wages as towns struggle to get teachers. This will in
    turn cause more college students to consider teaching as an option.
    
    Supply and demand seems to be rather sinusoidal in nature.
    
    The Doctah

    My father works in Arlington, and has for the past 18 years.
    
    My mother was founder/director of a daycare center (ages 1.5-8)
    for 14 years.
    
    Both of them went into teaching because they LOVE TO TEACH.  My
    father is working on innovative and effective ways to teach
    middle-grade children, particularly those who are learning-disabled,
    not necessarily by some mental/emotional block, but those who are
    already behind because the school didn't help them when they needed
    it...or didn't recognize the problems of growing up in surroundings
    that impeded their learning (poor or abused or neglected or whatever).
    He is teaching other teachers his ways of teaching, and always trying
    to make it make sense to the children.
    
    That's another problem with how children/adults/whoever are taught.
    They are sometimes *handed* a list of facts (calculus is a good
    example - or grammar rules) and not told WHY or HOW these things
    work, or WHAT they are useful for (in the case of higher-level maths
    and sciences sometimes).  Give us a basis - give us groundrules
    - explain what it is, and what it's useful for.  The teaching in
    many areas has turned to "lecturing" - there is little feedback
    and interface in the higher grades.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    The average teacher in Mass makes $33K. starting wage is about 20K.
    My source is the radio.WXLO, I believe.
    
    Kate
    

    re .21:
    
>    In my town there are teachers with 15 years of experience and just a
>    bachelors making over $40K (for 9 months work). Do you come from a very
>    small and poor town?
    
    Would *you* accept only $40K for having a bachelors' degree and
    15 years experience in your field?  I have half as much experience
    in my field and make more than that.
    
    I can say from personally knowing many teachers (my father, my sister,
    my mother, my best friend, and my brother) that the pressure they
    have on their jobs, the amount of work they do to meet the requirements,
    and the stress level associated with the job are *at least* equal to
    engineers' jobs.
    
    When was the last time you had to deal with a class of students
    who had a classmate that just committed suicide?  Sounds easy to
    you?
    
    Have you ever had a teenager (a student of yours) knock on your
    door at 9:00 pm because she had a fight with her parents, wants
    to run away, and has no one to talk to?
    
    Have you ever had to save up paper and envelopes to use for job
    because your employer was too cheap to buy enough of them for you
    to properly do your job?
    
    These are *real* situations that have happened to the teachers I
    have known; I am *not* making them up!

    Does your job involve being injured by a student in a race riot
    in a city high school that is being integrated?!  My father's did!
    So DON'T lecture me on how teachers are paid too little!  It doesn't
    reflect very well on you.   But surely you don't *mean* to come across
    as a stingy, selfish, insensitive, and small-minded oaf, or *do* you?
    

    re: .24 and anyone else 
    
     How much do YOU think that teachers should be paid? Justify the
    expenses please.
    
>    So DON'T lecture me on how teachers are paid too little!  
    
    Jeez! I thought that's what you were doing to me! :-)
    
>    It doesn't
>    reflect very well on you.   But surely you don't *mean* to come across
>    as a stingy, selfish, insensitive, and small-minded oaf, or *do* you?
    
    I don't even know what to say to that. I could be really sarcastic. I
    could get upset or hurt. I could turn your words against you. Right
    now, it just doesn't seem worth it.
    
>    Would *you* accept only $40K for having a bachelors' degree and
>    15 years experience in your field?  I have half as much experience
>    in my field and make more than that.
    
    No way. Then again, I do work full time. I also get only two weeks of
    vacation per year. I also don't have tenure. I also will not ever be
    able to make enough money in my field. This is a starting point for me.
    
>    I can say from personally knowing many teachers... that the pressure they
>    have on their jobs, the amount of work they do to meet the requirements,
>    and the stress level associated with the job are *at least* equal to
>    engineers' jobs.
    
    Well, my personal experiences are different. The amount of work my
    children's teachers do is infinitesimal. They collect no homework.
    They grade no homework. They average about 90 minutes of lecturing
    a week. They take "days off." (An excellent example for the children).
    They correct tests and papers weeks after they are handed in. They do
    alot of things wrong- but I certainly wouldn't want the job.
    
    They do have stress. Most of it is caused by discipline problems with
    the little brats who misbehave and are supprted in their abhorrent
    behavior by their parents. Make no mistake about it: teachers do not
    have a particularly easy job. 
    
    There are good teachers and bad teachers. Same with engineers, doctors,
    lawyers and garbage collectors. Some are overpaid, some under. Like any
    other empirical argument, an endless supply of anecdotes is available
    to either position. So, are we both right? Both wrong? Perhaps we
    should just agree that the education system needs a kick in the
    buttocks. Some people think that merely "throwing money at the problem"
    will make it go away. I don't. I think that the money is not going to
    the right places, not that there isn't enough. Money is inefficiently
    spent. Teacher's salaries should go up. But along with that should go
    teacher's abilities to contribute and qualifications. We should be able
    to weed out crappy teachers. It is not too easy to now.
     
    The Doctah                                             

    I've tried to answer this note twice.  May the third time be a charm...
    
    Classroom teaching is a very high-stress occupation.  There are
    rewards for doing the job well, but few of them are material in
    nature.  The hours are longer than a school day would indicate --
    I've had several teacher's meetings which took place in the evening
    so that I could be there - free time for me, but not for the teacher.
    Almost all of my son's teachers (he's in high school now) are active
    in at least 2 extra-curricular activities.  Most of them have only
    1 free period during the day for lesson-planning, paper-grading,
    student assistance, etc.  I would support paying them more, and
    for a 12-month year.  In return for the 12-month year, I would like
    to see fewer school-year in-service days, and the summer months
    spent getting the teacher-training that gets the teacher up-to-date
    on techniques and subject content.  
                                        
    What can we do to improve the US educational system?  Well...
                                        
    Content of material needs to be improved.  Particularly in the lower
    grades, attention to word-count and vocabulary in texts should be
    secondary to whether the text has interesting, accurate information
    that kids want to find out about.  Providing the appropriate context
    is critical.                        
                                                               
    Less of each year should be spent reviewing the previous year's
    material.  My son frequently was reviewing material until DECEMBER
    from a previous year.  This is particularly true in math and science!
    My opinion is that we can expect far more from our children than
    we do, as a general rule.  (For example, as a junior in my high
    school, *every single student, regardless of ability grouping* had
    to do a long [50 pages] research paper.  Some needed more help and
    direction than others.  But all of us did it.)
                                                               
    Teachers used to have a respected position within a community. 
    Currently they don't (witness some of the comments in this note).
    They need to be respected again.  Part of the reason that we are
    getting 'bottom tier' candidates for teaching positions is because
    of the lack of respect.  Part of it, as a previous noter pointed
    out, is because intellegent, educated women have a wider range of
    choices than they did 30 years ago, and few of them are choosing
    teaching.                                                  
                                                               
    We are asking our schools to do too much, while depriving them of
    tools to accomplish what they should.  Schools cannot be a surrogate
    parent, police force, social hall, etc.  They cannot be psychological
    treatment centers for those children having problems.  They should be
    expected to teach our children to read, write, do arithmetic, know 
    geography, basic history, and the principles under which the US
    operates.  Many of our schools are in a state of internal anarchy 
    because there are no effective legal means of discipline.  That needs 
    to be corrected.  How, I'm not sure, and ideas are welcome.
    
    I think our schools are salvageable.  The primary problem probably
    isn't money - it is imagination, discipline, and community interest
    that will be the keys.
    
    Alison  
                                                  

    Not related to the current discussion, just one specific instance...
    
    I had the pleasure of teaching junior-high students last year and got
    to know their homeroom teacher fairly well.  He'd been teaching for
    about 11 years and his salary was around 38K.  I sat in on one of his
    classes and was mesmerized -- this guy was absolutely fantastic! 
    
    He knew he could make more on the outside ... in fact he had an offer
    from Digital which was considerably higher.  He didn't take it since
    a) he loved teaching and b) he liked having the summer's off since he
    ran a soccer camp and went to Europe each year.
    
    40-50K after 15 years, even with a Bachelor's degree, isn't bad money. 
    I think a starting salary of 20K is a bit low, but a starting salary of
    25-26K would be reasonable.  The thing to note is that in the poorer
    states starting salaries can be as low as $12-$14K and don't progress
    very quickly, either.

    I think the *way* we teach may be a part of the problem also.  We
    need to teach 'thinking skills' and not just 'memory skills'.
    We concentrate too much on memorizing and rote learning and not
    enough on analysis, logical deduction and creativity.
    
    Mary

re .28:

	On the money. When I was in college I tutored students
	in programming. I quickly found out that teaching them
	a programming language was the easy part. The hard
	part was getting them to think through the problems
	and come up with a logical, ordered plan for solving
	the problem given. Once I got them through that, getting
	them to commit that plan to a computer program was all downhill.

					Tom_K

    Re:  teachers coming from the dregs of the workforce
    
    Not necessarily true.  There's been a recent upsurge in people leaving
    "industry" and going into teaching.  They bring real-world context
    to the subject, but they haven't necessarily been trained in teaching
    skills.  (And teaching is a skill.)
    
    Re: what I would do with the school system
    
    Spend more money on the lower grades (1-3) to drop the student/teacher
    ratio.  Concentrate on the basic skills -- reading, writing,
    arithmetic, etc. -- for at least the first two years.  Test children
    during the first years for learning disabilities.  Don't pass kids
    unless they demonstrate a required skill level.  I'm not sure if
    there's an efficient way to eliminate grades and just have classes.
    When I was in grades 1-3, I went to the reading class of the grade
    above mine.  Perhaps it's worth having classes for a particular
    subject based on skill level.  This might remove some of the stigma
    involved in being "held back."  Instead of one big step from grade
    to grade, the student progresses in smaller steps from class to
    class.  It also offers more flexibility, so a student who is good
    in math doesn't get held back a whole grade for a lack of reading
    skills.
    
    In addition to giving a solid grounding in basic skills, elementary
    education should also instill a desire for learning.  That's the
    hard part.  Tying skills to practical purposes ("This is what learning
    how to add will do for you") could help.
    
    I hate the way history is taught in the elementary levels.  It's
    so mythological as to be almost worthless.  Perhaps it should be
    left until middle school, when students will be better able to
    understand and deal with the complexities involved.
    
    (Brainstorm:  let's adopt the Spanish alphabet and rules for spelling,
    which are *much* more straightforward than English.  Spelling is
    such a daunting subject ....)

    What I would do to improve the school systems:
    
       As the previous noter mentioned, CLASS SIZE should be limited.
    Learning is an individual thing; the greatest learning comes from
    good teachers who motivate on a personal basis.  I think 15 first 
    graders is an upper limit, 20 students in primary grades, and no 
    more than 30 students in any high school or college class.  This 
    would be expensive because more teachers need to be hired, but job
    satisfaction would go up, and the money is spent directly where it
    does the most good.
    
       Remove most, if not all, required education classes from the
    education curriculum.  I do not know any teacher who respects
    these classes.  Teachers should be certified by demonstrating 
    knowledge in their subject areas and proficiency in TEACHING. 
    This would allow people (who have demonstrated skill as teachers)
    with degrees and/or experience in areas other than education 
    to teach and motivate our children. 
    
       I don't think we need teachers that are "in it for the bucks",
    but we must pay teachers better to reflect their value to our 
    society.  FACT:  Starting salaries in my school system for a
    teacher with a B.A. is $14,200.  If you have a master's degree, 
    you start at $15,000.  The best teacher I ever had (in 22 years
    of school) makes $30,000.  He has a master's+ and 15 years 
    experience teaching math. 
    
       I must say that most of the teachers in my primary and secondary
    schools loved teaching, and were *exceptionally* good at it.  I
    admire them tremendously.
    
    Barbara Miner

    This is being entered a bit late for Noters in the Eastern/Central/
    Mountain time zones (unless you have a terminal at home). But anyway, 
    tonight there is an hour documentary broadcast on ABC's "Burning Questions"
    at 10:00 PM EST.
    
    According to the blurb in TV Guide:
    
    	Barbara Walters anchors "America's Kids: Teaching Them How To
    	Think," a follow-up to a 1988 report on the decline of education
    	(America's Kids: Why They Fail"). This hour studies how reliance
    	on rote learning has led to the erosion of creative thinking.
    	"Not many schools give any thought to thinking," Walters says,
    	and they "are not producing the kind of workers we need." 
    	The report also examines how prematurely labeling students as
    	slow learners can cause them to "lose their natural curiosity
    	and give up on things."
    
      Alan
                                                                  

    I came to Dec from the teaching world. I have a Masters in Biology
    which qualifies me to teach college level courses but not high school.
    I personally love to teach, but without the 'ed' courses, the high
    schools would hire a 'warm body' with a teaching certificate rather
    than me with over 12 years of experience with community college
    and junior college students - who aren't that different from teaching
    high school which I would rather do.
    
    If I could go back to teaching I would, but my Biology is getting
    increasingly more out of date the longer I am away from teaching
    it.
    
    By the way, with two degrees, and teaching five courses, the maximum
    salary I ever made in teaching was 10K...and I worked *lots* of
    time outside of classes in preparation, helping students etc.
    
   Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    Thanks for your input. I was wondering when you would jump into
    this one. Can you tell us why you think America is loosing ground?
    You've got a bunch of kids and a bunch of experience.
    
    Alan,
    3 cheers for Barbara Walters. Bang-up job.
    Kate
    

    	I may get jumped on for this, but one of the previous replies
    	mentioned the Spanish alphabet, etc. I would prefer a move
    	to a more phonetic spelling of words. I know! I know! For
    	those of us used to the "old" way, it would be difficult.
    	At the very least, those learning the language would be
    	able to pronounce it on sight, without memorizing it.
    	That's probably the reason so many have trouble spelling.
    
    	Scott (Always got A's in spelling)

    Some good points made.  I've been out of notes for a week and read
    all replies at one sitting.
    
    We must realize as a people that we can't solve every problem for
    everyone.  It would be wonderful if we could.. but we can't.  Some
    problems can only be solved by the person who owns it, and some
    probably can't be solved at all.  Wheter we like it or not.  It
    doesn't really matter that much who is to blame.  We have to stop
    looking for a scapegoat at start working.  And it won't be solved
    this week.  If we admit from the start that it might take a decade,
    or maybe even a generation, and accept it, we'll be better able
    to deal with it.
    
    When I taught at Project Headstart (3 12-month years) we were given
    govt surplus food for mid-morning snacks.  We fed them right off
    the bus, and it made for a much happier classroom.  There was a
    breakfast program in the schools (at least here in Mass) until the
    last administration.  Whether you believe you should feed your
    neighbor's child or not, s/he will be a hindrance to learning in the 
    class if s/he is hungry.  Teacher burnout is a fact.  We had two
    assistants for every teacher.  Our classes accepted children at
    2 yrs 9 mos. thru kindergarten age.
    
    We also shouldn't allow others to disrupt our learning process.
    If one child is causing a problem for 15-20, the parent should have
    to find an alternative.  I know it will be a hardship for the parent,
    it will for the child also, and I really feel for them.  But this
    is 'real life,' and we do children a major dis-service by teaching
    them, or allowing them to assume, that 'someone' will take care of it.
    
    At some point in time REALITY must come into play in the school
    system.  The funding must not be tied to a political administration.
    Our children need and deserve educating no matter who is in office,
    be it national, state, or town.
    
    Some children were interviewed on TV a while ago.  They complained
    they weren't able to learn what they wanted because the books they
    were using were crushingly dull.  Who chooses the books that get
    bought and what criteria is used?  
    
    Ask the kids what they think about the problem.  Ask the teachers
    what they think.  We don't want to expend good effort on something
    that's not a problem while overlooking something that is.
    
    
    
    
         

    One of the reasons that books are so crushingly dull is the fear of law
    suits; especially history and science books.  The books have less and
    less in them because of these fears 
    
    - suits from religious types because they speak of evolution in the
    science books 
    
    - suits from atheists because religions are spoken of in history
    books.  Separation of church and state!!
    
    -suits from religious types because a religion other than their own is
    spoken of.  My religion is the only right one!!!  And their was one
    situation that the parents didn't like the books because it was
    teaching their children to be humanistic/individualistic and not to
    live in fear of their God. 
    
    It's to the point now that children don't know the reasons people
    came to this country in the first place - freedom from religious
    persecution.  This is a part of history that's being left out.
    
    
    They are trying to put the meat back in the books due to teacher
    pressures, but they are still getting a lot of flack from parents. 
    The poor kids are suffereing because of the parents.  We cannot
    decide on what should be included in the curriculum - everyone has
    an opinion but no one can agree.
    
  
    Suzanne  

    How much do people out there really know about schools?  I'm
    not so sure that everyone knows as much as they think they do.
    
    Pop quiz time:
    
    In the average public school system ~ 51% of the money goes to
    ~30% of the children. Which ones?
    
    In the same school system some students account for between 10 times
    and 40 times that average student cost. Which ones?
    
    What percentage increase in budget are average school systems facing
    in NH this year? Is it more or less then 3 times the inflation rate?
    
    Multible choice:
    
    Gifted students account for (more or less by definition) 10% of the
    students in a school system. What percentage of the high school
    drop outs are gifted? 
    
    	a) 10%
    	b) 25%
    	c) >50%
    
    Payroll concists of what percentage of the average school budget?
    
    	a) 40%
    	b) 60%
    	c) 75%
    
    True or false:
    The average school system has special programs for gifted children
    	at the 5% or more of the level of funding as for LD students.
    
    The federal government funds programs that it requires schools to
    	start.
    
    Most school systems (school boards and administrators) want more 
    	federal funding.
    
    Most school systems (school boards and administrators) want more 
    	state funding.
    
    In general, cost per student is less in public schools than in
    	private schools. (After accounting for differences in teachers pay.)
    
    It is cheaper for a school system that doesn't have it's own high
    	school to tuition their students into a public high school than
    	to allow a tax rebate for use in private high schools.
    
    				Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    Would you please post the answers.
    
    Thanks,
       
    Kate
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

           <<< TERZA::DISK$ACCESS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]PARENTING.NOTE;7 >>>
           -< Babysitting and Daycare - topics 171-175 ONLY please >-
================================================================================
Note 1193.0          4th grade math in US educational system           5 replies
RADIA::PERLMAN                                       41 lines   4-MAY-1989 17:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My 4th grader had the following homework problem set, from a book
(not made up by a teacher on the spur of the moment).  Supposedly,
the purpose of word problems is to read the words, and think, not
mindlessly find the numbers mentioned and plug them into a formula.

Problems 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the most outrageous, but there's something
wrong with every one (can an odd number of people be in a 3 legged race?,
does "back and forth" count as one toss or two?).
Anyway, just thought I'd share it, for your amusement/alarm.

The "right" answer to all of them was, of course, taking whatever
two numbers were mentioned in the problem and multiplying them together.
My daughter of course did that without noticing anything strange
about the questions.  

1.  86 people dropped 25 clothespins into a jar.  How many clothespins
    were dropped in all?

2.  19 people raced 40 feet in the three legged race.  How many feet did 
    they race in all?

3.  31 people hopped 35 feet in the potato-sack race.  How many feet did
    they hop in all?

4.  13 people raced 23 yards in the carry-an-egg-on-a-spoon race.  How
    many yards were raced in all?

5.  97 people tossed water balloons back and forth 12 times.
    How many times were balloons tossed in all?

6.  18 people played 42 minutes of volleyball.  How many minutes
    of volleyball were played in all?

7.  35 people played 12 innings of softball.  How many innings were played 
    in all?

8.  42 people played 25 minutes of football.  How many minutes of
    football were played in all?

9.  13 people raced in the 60-yard dash.  How many yards were raced in all?

    
    re :.41
    
    How upsetting. Schools actually _buy_ books like that? It's as if
    some idiot sitting in front of the TV one day came up with those
    problems in about 5 minutes. They have no relation to reality. How
    can kids believe that math is important if the questions are so
    mindless? It's obscene. 
    
    And I think 12 innings of baseball played by 35 people is _still_
    twelve innings of baseball.
    
    Roberta

             --------------------- TEACHERS ---------------------

1.  Tenure

    I won't even comment on this one.

2.  Pay for Performance

    This is "no no" to many teachers. Last month I had a conversation with five
    elementary school teachers. I talked about DEC's salary review process.

    They were in shock. They could not believe that a persons salary could be
    determined by a few managers, or that it should be associated with
    performance. They believed that salary increases should be automatic.

3.  Teachers need to become "professionals".

    Unfortunately many are not professionals today.  - MANY ARE
    Many act as skilled laborers who "punch-in" at a set time and "punch-out"
    at a set time. Instead of picks and shovels, they use a blackboard and
    books as their tools.

    Unfortunately, in their attempt to secure a favorable contract
    they have lost all pretenses of professionalism. To me, a professional is
    one who cares enough about his/her trade that they continuously extend and
    upgrade their knowledge, sometimes work on additional projects without
    demanding additional pay. Someone who is always willing to share their
    knowledge with society. Someone who gives more than is required by either
    formal (expressed) or informal contract.

    (When your manager comes and asks you to prepare
    some special report, do you say "It's not in my contract" ?)

    I know of one Massachusetts town teacher contract that specifies
    the length of the teaching day in minutes. The running joke in that town
    is that the teachers are home before the School Busses have left.

4.  We do not recognize excellence in teaching.

    There are many many good teachers. It is difficult to reward these
    teachers. PTA and other groups often try with "Teacher" tea parties,
    "at a boys", etc. 

    The teacher contracts, unions, etc. prevent good teachers from receiving
    rewards in the form of increased salaries.

             --------------------- BOOKS ---------------------

1.  Book selection in this country is too political.

    Book companies can not write and publish a book for a particular school or
    small set of schools. The costs are enormous. They must offer books that
    can be sold in the religious conservative south to the liberal northeast to
    the conservative mid-west.

    The result is often pablum.

             --------------------- PARENTS ---------------------

1.  In our quest to be individuals,
              to differentiate OURselves,
              to develop OUR careers - we have forgotten a few things.
                                       to be family members...

    We are overly involved (or interested) in our career - and the kids suffer.

          If someone were to ask "Who are you ?"

                  Would you answer "Joe a father" or "Joe a programmer" ?

    Our priorities are often questionable

         We are too interested in $$$.
         In a past time, people would talk about their HOUSE as a HOME.
         Today, most people talk about their HOUSE as an INVESTMENT.

         Ever notice how many families with 1 child live in a 5 bedroom
         house. In order to maintain the house both spouses have to work.
         The child goes to day care after school. The parents come home from
         work at 6-7 after a long day. Spend a hour with the child before
         he/she goes to bed.

         It reminds me of the kids magazine "Highlights". On their cover
         it says "Find whats wrong with this picture ?"

         We need to spend more time with the kids.... (and not at 10 o'clock at
         night when their tired and should be in bed)

    We "don't have the time..."

         Last year I helped a local PTA group try to recruit new members. I
         produced a computer mailing to all kindergarten parents (about 130)
         informing them about an open house to introduce them to the PTA.
         We also put posters in the local business windows, advertised in
         the three local newspapers and called some by phone.

         On the evening of the open house, the PTA (with their coffee, donuts
         and other goodies) opened the doors at 7pm. At 10:30 they closed the
         doors. Not one person came. ZERO "0"

         Over the next week, I interviewed some of the parents. A few could
         not make it because of conflicting schedules, but the majority (over
         half) said they did not have the time.

         How many parents have met their childrens teachers;
                once, twice ?

         How many parents have met their childrens principal;
                once, twice ?

2. Divorce

    Last year while visiting in another state, I talked with a principal of a
    small school of about 200 children. He talked about divorce rates and
    problems with the kids. He also mentioned that he has two hats; School
    administrator, and enforcer of the restraining orders. We have so many
    divorces in our society and so many "ugly" divorces that he had 32
    restraining orders to maintain for his 200+ kids.


   Bob...

    

    Someone I work with told me this story a couple of years ago.
    
    The Digital employee (let's call him Rod) has a son in the 5th grade
    (let's call the son Mike).  As will happen sometimes with 11-year-olds,
    Mike got ready to go to bed one night and announced to his parents that
    he had a report due the next day and hadn't started on it.  He asked
    his Dad to help him with it (translates to do it for him).  Rod said,
    OK son, I'll help you with the report, but only on one condition.  I
    will attach a note to the report, telling your teacher exactly what
    happened and how your report was written. I'll call your teacher
    tomorrow to be sure she read the note.  Mike, who had little choice at
    this point, agreed.  Rod then dialed into his Compushare account,
    accessed the Encyclopedia Brittanica, extracted a report on the
    assigned subject, and printed it out.  He gave it to Mike with a
    note attached explaining exactly what had been done.
    
    The next day Rod called the teacher.  Mike's teacher *would not
    believe* that the report had been produced the way Rod said it had.
    She *insisted* that she wasn't fool enough to think something like
    that was possible!
    
    Rod just threw up his hands in frustration.
    
    Our educational system is in a sad state indeed...
    
    							Pat

    
    my spouse, a teacher with about 5 years experience and a master's
    degree, is currently employed by a school district that, as far as i
    can tell is about as middle-of-the-road as you can get. today she
    received her contract for next year. her pay increase amounts to 
    slightly less than....1%

The current secretary of education spoke at the commencement of Rhode
Island College last Saturday (my sister graduated - yay!)....and had some
interesting things to say about the state of education in our nation...here
are some notes I jotted down:

Education is wonderful - because NO ONE can EVER take it from you.

Education should contain Virtue, which is made up in turn of courage,
temperance, and justice.

Lack of education is a lack of development, and in this lack of development
we all lose.  We are interdependent, and the loss of human potential
through lack of education effects us all.

Give to others.  Help others learn.  Encourage them to learn.  Encourage a
love of learning.

The elementary school and secondary school systems in our country are
failing our children.

One out of every four students drops out of school prior to graduating.

45% of all hispanics drop out, so it is even more critical in some
particular "cultural areas"(?) of our country.

Test scores indicate we are not well educated, and in these we fare poorly
against other countries.

We suffer deficits greater than monetary ones.  We suffer from an
educational deficit.

There are 27 million illiterate adults in this country.

40-50 million adults have a fourth grade reading level or less.

600,000-900,000 children drop out of school EVERY YEAR.

We must volunteer to get involved.

He GUARANTEES the educational system WILL be restructured.

A nation is never finished - each generation recreates it.  And only by
educating the young can we better this nation.....

I was born in '56 so I don't remember this myself, but I guess that I was a
beneficiary of (the trailing edge of?) it: when Sputnik was launched and the
space race got started, wasn't there a big push to improve science & math
education in the US?  Is this true, or just propaganda or my muddled memory?
If it is true, how did they do it?  Aren't we in a similar situation today?
(Except that it's trade, not thermonuclear war, we're primarily worrying about.)

					- Aron

    There certainly was such a push, Aron, and they did it thru a barrage
    of hand-wringing and exhortation in the media.  I'm not sure how
    fundamentally successful it was; certainly the support for science in
    elementary and secondary schools didn't seem to improve as a result.
    
    						=maggie

    I started first grade in 1957.  I think the space race was a key factor
    in promotion of "new math" -- a more conceptual approach to mathematics
    that stressed problem solving above arithmetic skills. (And the
    pendulum then proceded to swing way in the other direction, thus
    spawning the "back to basics" movement.)  I think the main
    beneficiaries of the new math programs were (at first anyway) well-off
    suburban schools on both coasts. 
    
    I remember learning SMSG math in junior high (does anyone remember what
    SMSG stands for?  We used to call it 'some math some garbage', but that
    wasn't the real name!).   It was all based on set theory.  And it was
    only available to the "top groups". The "lower" sections were still
    plugging away at business-type problems. 
                                             
    I remember the conceptual science curriculum -- "blue" and "green"
    biology.  (I forget which publisher came up with that series, though.)
    When I was getting my masters degree in education, I remember
    hearing several times that this curriculum represented a major shift
    in science education away from memorization and towards problem
    solving in the sciences, and that planning for this curriculum began
    when the space race escalated in the 50's.
    
    I'm not contradicting what you are saying, Maggie, but I think our
    viewpoints reflect our respective upbringings a decade apart -- you in
    city schools in Minnesota during the 40's and 50's, and me in suburban
    schools in New England during the 50's and 60's. 
    
    Holly
                                              

    What the heck was "old math" anyway?  When I was stuck with my math
    homework, my mother always said she couldn't help; she didn't
    understand this "new math."  That _really_ frustrated me; didn't
    1 + 1 _always_ equal 2?
    
    -Tracy
    

    fond memories of the song by Tom Lehrer...perhaps mildly incorrect
    but the spirit is still there...
    
    "With old math, the idea was to get the Right Answer....
    
    (forthwith he takes a subtraction problem and writes it on the chalkboard
    on the stage twice, and proceeds to do it in base 10)
    "You can't take three from two, two is less than three, so you look
    at the four in the ten's place...now that's really four tens so
    you make it three tens, regroup, and you change the ten to ten ones and you
    take away three that's nine.....(and proceeds to do the rest of
    the subtraction)
    
    "But wait...in the math book (he's talking about a third grade math
    book) the problem was not in base 10, it was in base 8.  But base
    8 is like base 10, really, if you're missing two fingers....hang
    on!
    
    "You can't take three from two, two is less than three, so you look
    at the four in the eights place....
    
    The chorus being...
    
    "hooray for New Math, New Math
     it won't do you a bit of good to review math
     it's so simple
     so very simple
     that only a child can do it....
    
    "Tune in tomorrow...we're gonna do... FRACTIONS!"
    
    
    I think new math probably includes heavy duty algebra, more complex
    geometry, high-level calculus, anything you generally didn't need
    to get by in this country several decades ago.  But with the invention
    of calculators, we can all try and understand the analyses and
    derivations behind these complex things that we are sometimes told to learn
    in high school and college.  Unfortunately, most engineers don't
    have to derive the equations, they simply have to use them, or even
    remember which ones to use and what they're called because often
    you can just look things up in a table or a handbook.
    
    Of course, the result is that a lot of people look at *me* funny
    when I can't do triple integrals to save my life, but have *no*
    problem doing multiplication or long division by hand....maybe I
    was born too late?
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Here's a *tough* math trivia question for you:
    
    Does anyone else remember how to extract square roots by hand?  (You
    know, you performed a sort of long division...very tedious!)
    
    /Charlotte - Calculators didn't come out until I was in college, and
    then only for the moneyed (basic model around $400, and didn't do
    square roots).  I found my slide rule when cleaning up the study at
    home over the long weekend!

    The process is called synthetic division.  And I could probably
    do it if I had to, although it would take some trying.  If I have
    to figure a square root I generally find the integers it's between
    by recursive getting-closer-to-the-answer, and then do some
    guesstimating.  
    
    -Jody

Take an initial guess at the square root.

Divide the number by the guess; then take the average of the guess and the 
quotient to get a new guess.

Repeat until the successive guesses are close enough.

	-Neil

    I graduated high school in 1974. Gawd, that was ages ago. I was
    a fairly good student in English. I knew how to diagram a sentence
    with the appropriate parts of speach. I could recognize gerund phrases
    from prepositional phrases. I was a good fairly good student naturally.
    I never studied. Was high half the time.
    
    I entered college at the ripe old age of 25. That was 1982. My college
    English consisted of "subjects" and "action words". Can you believe
    this? I had this in the 4th grade at the age of 9. We had to exchange
    papers in class now and then to correct. These kids were illiterate!
    Although it's true I went to a junior college I can't understand
    this. Why? Were all the resources put into science and math? What
    good is math if no one can communicate? Dumb,dumb,dumb!
                       
    Comments please,
    Kate (who copped a not so well deserved A in college English 101)
    
    

    In re square roots, I can demonstrate how to do them by modified
    division but I can't explain it...
    
    Bonnie

Re:  .54

>    Does anyone else remember how to extract square roots by hand?

I do (and I can even explain it).  .56 describes what amounts to the half
interval method, which works reasonably well on a computer but which is a
bit of a nuisance to do by hand (because you have to grind out all of the
divisions to the number of places desired).  The old time pencil and paper
method involves repeated division by a changing divisor, and it generates
one decimal place per partial division iteration.

Now for the really odd part:  I never learned this in school.  I learned this
from... my mother!  Yup, in the days when women weren't supposed to know any-
thing about math or science, Mom had gotten a really excellent grounding in
the old math.  She had no concept of set theory or trigonometry, and calculus
was well beyond her.  But she knew all kinds of mental arithmetic tricks,
could handle basic algebra word problems with no sweat, and almost never
committed (at least in my presence) a computation error.  And she could do
square roots by hand.  Awesome.

On the old math versus the new:  as I remember it, the new math struck our
school in about 1960, when I was in seventh grade.  We studied natural num-
bers, integers, rationals, and (briefly) reals, and the basic properties of
numbers (commutative, distributive, associative, closure, inverses, etc.)--
essentially a set theoretic approach to mathematics.  It was that aspect that
seemed to divide the generations mathematically in our household; once I
started with that stuff, I was on my own.  Initially, at least, this course
was offered primarily to the better math students; it wasn't until somewhat
later that it found its way into the general curriculum.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

    You mean... most people don't know how to do square roots?
    
    The only New Math I remember was alternate number bases in sixth
    grade.  Both my parents could do math stuff at least to calculus,
    as could I -- we all had Miss Baker in high school math!
    
    						Ann B.

    
    I'm confused. 
    
    What exactly is the difference between old and new math? Is it simply
    that in old math you only learned simple arithmetic, i.e. + - *
    / ? Or is it that you didn't learn the WHY behind stuff (like the
    concept of number bases?) Or was there actually a different method
    to doing the same equations, depending on whether you were in old
    or new math?
    
    Thanks for any answers.
    
    Roberta     

    Re: .61
    
    Roberta, I was a product of "old math" in elementary and secondary 
    school.
    
    My major in college was Mathematics (with a minor in E.E.).
    
    From what I observed in "old math" versus "new math" is that:
    
       - In old math, one learned simple arithmetic (although how
         "simple" solid/plane geometry, trig and calculus are is
         debatable), but not always (ever?) *why* we did what we did
    
       - In new math, one learned the "why" (but sometimes still
         couldn't correctly multiply 3 times 6)
    
       - In new math, one learned some totally useless concepts
         such as set theory, modulo numbers.... (just my opinion)
    
    Alan 

      What we were exposed to and what we remember are not necessarily
      the same thing. I graduated in 68 with a fairly good pre-college
      knowlege set. I was going to college as a music major so a lot of
      my high school classes were things like band, harmony and drama,
      however, I also had biology,chemistry,algebra,geometry and lots of
      advanced english and history courses.

      Sounds good, but what do I remember? Almost nothing of the
      chemistry and enough math to get through a stats class with a lot
      of review. I am shaky on geography but I know where to find a map
      so what difference does it make? I know where to look up a lot of
      things I don't know off the top of my head. Am I dumb and under
      educated cause I couldn't pass a pop quiz on it if I had one right
      now? I used to know all the bones and muscles in the body when I
      worked in x-ray, I'd be hard pressed to name them now. So what?

      I can remember lines of poetry and DCL commands. I can read music
      and run a cluster. I was taught where and how to find out what I
      need to know when I need to know it. To me that's what being
      educated is all about. Not being able to remember the capital of
      North Dakota doesn't seem a detriment in my life. liesl

Re:  .61

>    What exactly is the difference between old and new math?

The essence of the difference is indeed in your second posing of this ques-
tion:

>    Or is it that you didn't learn the WHY behind stuff (like the
>    concept of number bases?)

I recall seeing some "old math" books at the same time that I was taking
some new math in parallel.  The older books often presented ideas without
proof and expected you to commit them to rote memory.  For example, I recall
that an old geometry book, when discussing congruent triangles (remember those?
Ah, youth...), stated as postulates (unprovable things, usually very basic)
that if two triangles had three sides all of the same length, or two sides
of the same length and an included angle of the same size, then the triangles
were congruent (same size and shape).  Our "new math" book came up with a
much more elementary postulate than that, and then proceeded to prove that
the above conditions yielded congruence.

>    Or was there actually a different method to doing the same equations,
>    depending on whether you were in old or new math?

Ultimately the equations were the same.  But it was a bit like the examples
liesl gave a few notes ago:  you didn't end up memorizing as much; rather,
you learned to figure out what you might need to solve a problem from a few
basic principles.  In old math, if your memory slipped you on one equation
you might well be lost; in new math, you had a good chance of deriving it
when you needed it.

I didn't find new math to be nearly as useless as Alan did, by the way.  From
set theory I learned the concept of boolean arithmetic; from number bases,
I learned binary arithmetic; from modular arithmetic I learned about the
concept of working in base 2**32.  And all of those are concepts I use every
day at work here.  After all, our computers are binary, work in base 2**32,
and do ANDs, ORs, and XORs as well as other arithmetic.

						--Q

    re: .51
    
    SMSG. . .School Mathematics Study Group, a group of people from
    Yale to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. . .the (required) math
    course I had in my first year of college turned out to be the 
    same SMSG course I had as a junior in high school.  Having already
    learned the material allowed me to simultaneously ace the college
    course while spending my time pursuing more rewarding endeavors.
    And, since the course was "Chance and Probability", those endeavors
    were indeed rewarding. . .mainly, I used to pull all-nighters before
    the math tests playing poker.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  I'm with Q on this one; all that junk about sets, base 12,
    base 2, and stuff has proven handy, not only here at work but also 
    in my other career with all its new-fangled digital-sampling-sequencing
    gizmos.