End of Dept Ed

[Anonymous]

I think most of what schools get wrong starts at the local school district level, not with DOE.

Literacy - they need to focus on things that work and provide strong decoding skills, like phonics rather than "balanced literacy" and other things that have poor outcomes for decoding, comprehension and long term learning.

Math - too much procedural teaching without conceptual models. You get students to follow steps but then they don't know how to transfer or reason with what they learned. Schools need to focus more on mastery, visual models and other things proven to have better outcomes.

Curricula overall - are often fragmented and inconsistent across grades, teachers are re-creating curricula and there's no strong sense of cumulative multi-year knowledge being built.

Testing is misused by districts - they often either misuse them for punishment or ignore them entirely, schools teach to the test, or don't have feedback loops.

Tutoring is often lacking, it's generic after-school help, and it's not aligned well to class content. Instead tutoring should be a lot more focused and aligned to the curriculum.

Professional development is often things like one-off workshops that aren't well aligned to daily practice.

Special ed programs often miss because they focus more on compliance rather than evidence-based interventions. It's heavy on paperwork and light on impact. Instead there should be more MTSS/RTI with proven interventions and gen-ed and SPED instruction should be better aligned.

Schools also screw up on tech, they spend a lot on platforms and devices but fumble on instructional integration.

And then there's spending. Too many school districts obsessed with the edifice complex, over-investing in facilities and glossy textbooks that are often overpriced and underused. Instead they should focus more on teach quality and time.

Those among many others are areas where school districts are failing us far more than the Department of Education is.

[Anonymous]

^focus more on teacher quality and time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once the Dept. of Ed. made the testing high stakes, the kiss of doom was sealed. When the tests become the means by which funds are given or taken away or school choice is to be granted or busing will become an issue or tutoring is mandatory or teachers are to be called onto the carpet, it's a HUGE problem.

So what happened? The tests were watered down. The "data collection" rules were changed (to a 3 year average from a 1 year). They did anything and everything to make the statistics "work" for both the Dept. of Education and the local districts. Because nobody wanted to admit that testing was not the way to improve the schools (anything else would be a lot more difficult and how could they let the taxpayers and voters know that they had failed). Meanwhile the teachers were totally aware of the game and the parents were not far behind. Employers and taxpayers were livid. Is it any wonder that people were mad? When they made education into a political football they ruined it. Now everything is politicized and look where we are.

The tests were driven by state-level accountability and bipartisan legislation like NCLB, not Department of Ed passing random edicts from on high. Also, testing isn't inherently "doom." It's a diagnostic tool. The problem is in how states and districts use test results, typically for punitive measures rather than improving the curriculum and instruction.

Also, NAEP wasn't "watered down" and 3 year averages aren't "watering down" - all it does is smooth out temporary anomalies like a bad year due to a local disruption - or the pandemic. NAEP is still the gold standard for measuring proficiency, and is independent of state tinkering and it is what prevents states from gaming results.

It's true that testing alone doesn't improve schools. But testing DOES provide transparency. NAEP revealed persistent achievement gaps by income and race that otherwise would have been hidden. Also, what's your alternative? No testing means no accountability, and parents, taxpayers and others would not have a good way to measure how schools are serving students compared to others.

"Teachers knew it was a game, parents caught on, employers were livid" - sounds like anecdotes and hyperbole. I don't know of any employers who hire based on 4th grade test scores, they care more about long term skills, which testing tracks. Parents WANT transparent data, otherwise they'd be in the dark on how well or poorly their kid's school is performing.

And politicization isn't new - Brown v Board of Education and other things have been part of the education game for years. But that said, blaming politicization solely on Department of Ed ignores all of the insane things happening at the state level where it comes to curriculum, funding and local control. I for one do not want my state to mandate that schools be named after Charlie Kirk or that teaching about slavery or climate science be eliminated to be replaced with school prayer. What's going on there is far worse than anything I see Department of Education doing.

+1

[Anonymous]

None of this matters if students don't show up consistently ready and willing to learn and are placed in an appropriate leveled classroom.

[Anonymous]

*appropriately

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been proven time and time and time again that the achievement gap is tied to income and parental involvement. There is no substitute for those things, no matter how hard to the government tries. They will just continue to flush money down the toilet.

So your approach is to give up and not try to address disparities? :shock:

How are you supposed to address lack of parental involvement? You can’t make parents care.

You are correct. You can't make parents "care", but you can provide a carrot and stick approach to parenting. It would require something as simple as conditioning any federal assistance that a person or family receives who has a child under 18 to undergo a mandatory course (and completion) on parenting. What the course constitutes could be developed, but it would likely include learning about character, respect, accountability, whole-child development, communication skills, and social emotional learning. After course completion, there would be a cycle of regular check ups (maybe annually) with a social worker (or something similar). The school that the child attends would also be included in reporting out progress on the student. Failure to meet certain requirements would result in loss of all federal assistance. Programs that would qualify could include CHIP, Medicaid, TANF, free and reduced price lunch, etc.

The point is to discuss solutions to problems not to keep complaining and give up because you think there is no way to fix something.

Or just do what the Danish government does - parental assessment. If you don't pass, your children are removed and placed up for adoption. See the BBC article. One women lost her children because she had a history of getting involved in dysfunctional relationships.

[Anonymous]

I started teaching BEFORE there was a Dept of Education. I taught Title I in the early years. BEFORE Dept of Ed.

Better without it. Get it back to the local level. Every layer of bureaucracy adds costs and keeps dollars from the classrooms--where it belongs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been proven time and time and time again that the achievement gap is tied to income and parental involvement. There is no substitute for those things, no matter how hard to the government tries. They will just continue to flush money down the toilet.

So your approach is to give up and not try to address disparities?

How are you supposed to address lack of parental involvement? You can’t make parents care.

You are correct. You can't make parents "care", but you can provide a carrot and stick approach to parenting. It would require something as simple as conditioning any federal assistance that a person or family receives who has a child under 18 to undergo a mandatory course (and completion) on parenting. What the course constitutes could be developed, but it would likely include learning about character, respect, accountability, whole-child development, communication skills, and social emotional learning. After course completion, there would be a cycle of regular check ups (maybe annually) with a social worker (or something similar). The school that the child attends would also be included in reporting out progress on the student. Failure to meet certain requirements would result in loss of all federal assistance. Programs that would qualify could include CHIP, Medicaid, TANF, free and reduced price lunch, etc.

The point is to discuss solutions to problems not to keep complaining and give up because you think there is no way to fix something.

There is a vast swath of parents who don’t care and don’t qualify for any of these programs. Some of the most sociopathic, disrespectful, and terminally dumb bullies come from wealthy parents. This just seems like a nanny-state way of singling out and punishing lower-income parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been proven time and time and time again that the achievement gap is tied to income and parental involvement. There is no substitute for those things, no matter how hard to the government tries. They will just continue to flush money down the toilet.

So your approach is to give up and not try to address disparities?

How are you supposed to address lack of parental involvement? You can’t make parents care.

You are correct. You can't make parents "care", but you can provide a carrot and stick approach to parenting. It would require something as simple as conditioning any federal assistance that a person or family receives who has a child under 18 to undergo a mandatory course (and completion) on parenting. What the course constitutes could be developed, but it would likely include learning about character, respect, accountability, whole-child development, communication skills, and social emotional learning. After course completion, there would be a cycle of regular check ups (maybe annually) with a social worker (or something similar). The school that the child attends would also be included in reporting out progress on the student. Failure to meet certain requirements would result in loss of all federal assistance. Programs that would qualify could include CHIP, Medicaid, TANF, free and reduced price lunch, etc.

The point is to discuss solutions to problems not to keep complaining and give up because you think there is no way to fix something.

There is a vast swath of parents who don’t care and don’t qualify for any of these programs. Some of the most sociopathic, disrespectful, and terminally dumb bullies come from wealthy parents. This just seems like a nanny-state way of singling out and punishing lower-income parents.

And punishing the children of lower income parents.

I assume this is a feature for the wealthiest Republicans,.so their kids can go full pay and get a much easier acceptance for these professional degrees while poor kids have to struggle along with just their bachelors, if they are even able to get that.

Thing is, not many rich kids want to be social workers.