I recently moved my child from the catholic school to the public school. I'm shocked that there are classes with 40-42 students! We have so many children that are coming into the area attending our schools and are not local residents.From what I'm told our hands are tied so I'm told. We work hard to make sure our children are in a safe and positive environment and have the tax bills to prove it. Now we have people who have only a portion of what we pay in taxes bringing in their children in to fill seats and over crowding at our schools. It is WRONG! Especially when I hear that the schools in their area have empty class rooms.
So my children are now in class with kids who are not being taught that you respect adults and how to behave at school. Although my children are not the one that the teacher is yelling at they are still feeling the abuse of it.
I pay too much for this and to have someone come in on a free ride and not support the school by being involved and not teaching their children how to behave makes me very angry. My opinion is that we should not pack them in where kids are sitting around classrooms without a desk because there is no more space.
The no child left behind is a bunch of crap. The school is failing so let's send these kids over here so they can fail there too. No one is thinking. I can't believe the brand new schools for schools with D's and F's on the Illinois Report card while the A and B schools are over crowded and old failing apart buildings.
Someone need to actually take charge and make a real budget and make our future a priority. Kids should not be allowed to leave a school unless there is no room for them. They should not squeeze them in the school doing well. Maybe it is the teacher that needs a change not the student. I see know why the Chicago public school system is failing and I know that I will not be apart of it very long that is for sure.
This area is only going to be filled with those who have to live hear because those of us who don't will be getting out as soon as possible and moving to the burbs.
A Beverly/Morgan Park parent
This area is only going to be filled with those who have to live hear because those of us who don't will be getting out as soon as possible and moving to the burbs.
A Beverly/Morgan Park parent
5 comments:
@Frustrated, parents at the successful schools MUST be open to receiving children from lower performing schools and resist the urge to block access to certain classes and with certain teachers.
In this era of NCLB and school choice, the segregation vs integration battle will have to be fought all over again. I am a cynic on this subject; I believe that the underlying purpose (if not purpose, the result) of NCLB was to discredit public schools. Again, this is the story Ravitch tells in her book--about how NCLB could revive the argument for vouchers. Vouchers are all about segregation.
I know that my motivations for my push for discipline in the schools is often not understood. Maybe I haven't stated it clearly enough. My desire for improved discipline has never been about making life easier for teachers, etc. It is in the schools of low income children where discipline is worse; it drives people away to "better" schools. In the end, it is the low income children that are harmed. That is my motivation.
One more point--this era of segregation is much more about low income vs high income than it is about black vs white. At this point, enough black families have made it into the middle class--and they are, also, successfully fleeing the problems of the low income schools.
This segregation looks like a racial issue because of the higher number of blacks in the low income bracket. Of course, there is still a racial component of this segregation, but it is based more on income than on color.
Maybe (only maybe) if we begin to see this problem as economic rather than as racial, we can look at the problem in a new light and find new solutions. Probably that's being too optimistic.
That's right Emerge. But . . . isn't that part of a district's job in managing the dynamics of such a program. If I have a child at a good school that is academically talented I would simply want some assurances from the school that certain curriculum standards would be maintained. What I witnessed at District 150 when my children attended, was that the population (not due to bussing but rather the evolution of things) of the primary school changed and so too the rigors of the curriculum. I think if a school has a diverse population of students to serve than it has to devote more teacher resources/aides, have more breakout sessions, etc. to manage the variety of learners in the classroom. In my experience with District 150 this distinction was ignored.
Also, like the person you quote in your post, I purchased a home in a particular area (more than I was really able to comfortably afford) in order to be "entitled" to attend a certain school, so at the end of the day I REALLY wanted that school to deliver.
I am with Jon, more school choice, is at least part of the answer.
Food for thought:
http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/189-189/3743-the-myth-of-charter-schools
So far I have just scanned it--this is a sample:
The propagandistic nature of Waiting for “Superman” is revealed by Guggenheim’s complete indifference to the wide variation among charter schools. There are excellent charter schools, just as there are excellent public schools. Why did he not also inquire into the charter chains that are mired in unsavory real estate deals, or take his camera to the charters where most students are getting lower scores than those in the neighborhood public schools? Why did he not report on the charter principals who have been indicted for embezzlement, or the charters that blur the line between church and state? Why did he not look into the charter schools whose leaders are paid $300,000–$400,000 a year to oversee small numbers of schools and students?
Guggenheim seems to believe that teachers alone can overcome the effects of student poverty, even though there are countless studies that demonstrate the link between income and test scores. He shows us footage of the pilot Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier, to the amazement of people who said it couldn’t be done. Since Yeager broke the sound barrier, we should be prepared to believe that able teachers are all it takes to overcome the disadvantages of poverty, homelessness, joblessness, poor nutrition, absent parents, etc.
The movie asserts a central thesis in today’s school reform discussion: the idea that teachers are the most important factor determining student achievement. But this proposition is false. Hanushek has released studies showing that teacher quality accounts for about 7.5–10 percent of student test score gains. Several other high-quality analyses echo this finding, and while estimates vary a bit, there is a relative consensus: teachers statistically account for around 10–20 percent of achievement outcomes. Teachers are the most important factor within schools.
But the same body of research shows that nonschool factors matter even more than teachers. According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on students, but it would be foolish to believe that teachers alone can undo the damage caused by poverty and its associated burdens.
Post a Comment