Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I wish that people who sign up to teach or work in schools with a known high percentage of Spanish speakers would attempt to learn Spanish as well. Sign up for language classes. Use Rosetta Stone. Hell, use Duo Lingo - it's better than nothing.

let me gently and delicately add that once again, the effort/burden is on the school staff. Why? I have a decent working knowledge of Spanish (I can overhear and understand, read/remember some vocabulary words from a few years of long-ago high school Spanish and immersion in school environment), but it's been discussed at meetings that unless you are truly bilingual and fluent, you may not "wing it" especially when it comes to student information. Expected to use parent liaison or contracted services. Can't the parents learn enough English to safely communicate? Where's the compromise?

Some do. Some don't. What's your plan for the kids of parents who don't?

This. Yes, there are probably some parents who are slacking off, counting on the school to fill in the gaps. (Query: is this kind of neglectful parent likely to step up if the school steps back?) Some parents simply can't. A parent who works swing shifts or multiple jobs isn't going to be much help with homework or after-school supervision. In the case of English fluency, it's hard to learn an additional language as an adult, especially if you are working full-time (or multiple jobs), which makes it harder to take advantage of classes (and if you work something like fast food or retail, those employers are notorious for not providing consistent, predictable schedules, or schedules with any meaningful advance notice.

Some parents are slackers, yes. But it's not their kids' fault.

Learning a new language as an adult is quite difficult. Even more difficult if you have no formal education. Children should not be punished because their parents can't learn English as quickly as you'd like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I wish that people who sign up to teach or work in schools with a known high percentage of Spanish speakers would attempt to learn Spanish as well. Sign up for language classes. Use Rosetta Stone. Hell, use Duo Lingo - it's better than nothing.

let me gently and delicately add that once again, the effort/burden is on the school staff. Why? I have a decent working knowledge of Spanish (I can overhear and understand, read/remember some vocabulary words from a few years of long-ago high school Spanish and immersion in school environment), but it's been discussed at meetings that unless you are truly bilingual and fluent, you may not "wing it" especially when it comes to student information. Expected to use parent liaison or contracted services. Can't the parents learn enough English to safely communicate? Where's the compromise?

countries.
Some do. Some don't. What's your plan for the kids of parents who don't?

This. Yes, there are probably some parents who are slacking off, counting on the school to fill in the gaps. (Query: is this kind of neglectful parent likely to step up if the school steps back?) Some parents simply can't. A parent who works swing shifts or multiple jobs isn't going to be much help with homework or after-school supervision. In the case of English fluency, it's hard to learn an additional language as an adult, especially if you are working full-time (or multiple jobs), which makes it harder to take advantage of classes (and if you work something like fast food or retail, those employers are notorious for not providing consistent, predictable schedules, or schedules with any meaningful advance notice.

Some parents are slackers, yes. But it's not their kids' fault.

Why sin't the homework done at school? Kids in US are in school 2-3 hours longer than in many European plus aftercare. 20-30 minute homework should fit into this time.
It his hard for many Latinos because they might be illiterate in Spanish. They can't make the connection to Carlos Rosario should teach Spanish to Spanish speaker along with English. Maybe they do, but I haven't heard.
I am not truly bilingual and I can "wing it". Tell me what you want me to tell the parents, and I'' explain it to them. Almost every school has at least one native Spanish speaker. In Europe it's norm that teachers speak other main languages. Here it's called "effort/ burden". Yes, effing burden to have to know more than one language. And it's not like Spanish sneaked up on them, and it's not like Spanish is hard. I had never heard the language growing up, yet picked it up here after 2 semesters.
So you have teachers who can't learn squat themselves teaching kids. You need to know about 2000 words to be able to speak another language. What's "Salmon' in Spanish? What's "park" in Spanish? Half the words are almost the same. Burden my butt? Your teachers are burden.

Anonymous wrote:Another benefit of aftercareis that it can keep kids in a safer environment and might be able to prevent other issues like joining a gang.

Some successful models like Geoffrey Canada’s school in Harlem required full-day participation and year-round attendance.

But once kids reach a gang joining age, they are no longer going to aftercare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So am I right that the question is "should we feed hungry children if it doesn't increase their test scores?"

Ok, my question is how many of these children are truly "hungry"? I hate to be crass, but we all know that low income kids are much more likely to be obese, and I have worked in schools with low income children, and I have seen many of them (talking about upper elementary kids) bring their own lunches to school instead of pack. It's obvious that some of these kids are packing their own lunch because I have seen lunches that consist of a ziploc bag of sugary cereal and oreos. Obviously this does not apply to all kids, but I will say that in my experience of working with low income kids, I have never encountered a situation where I thought the kids were going hungry.

PP, have you heard of "food insecurity"? It is possible to be both overweight and food-insecure. Here's a good summary: https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/food-insecurity/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My city moved to free school lunch for all this year, and some schools are also offering a dinner option during aftercare. I work for a non-profit that offers afterschool programming (college application support) to high school students and we may also be able to offer free meals. It seems like studies are showing a positive effect, but there's no magic solution-and it seems like the people in power want to fund magic not incremental progress.

For the curious-other wrap around services include health care, support for parents applying for benefits, GED classes for parents, last year a few schools that had installed washers and dryers for student and parent use where getting a lot of attention.

I teach third grade and have 24 students. On any given day I would say 2 or 3 get the school lunch. It’s very unpopular. I don’t think any get the breakfast.

Do you teach at a Title 1?

NP: My child's school population is slightly more than half low-income kids. On any given day about 80% get school lunch and breakfast is also popular. My daughter is picky, so school lunch doesn't always work for her, but overall I have found it to be decent quality. We aren't low-income but do qualify as low/mod and being able to get her a lunch for $1.66 is really helpful to me.

Anonymous wrote:So am I right that the question is "should we feed hungry children if it doesn't increase their test scores?"

Ok, my question is how many of these children are truly "hungry"? I hate to be crass, but we all know that low income kids are much more likely to be obese, and I have worked in schools with low income children, and I have seen many of them (talking about upper elementary kids) bring their own lunches to school instead of pack. It's obvious that some of these kids are packing their own lunch because I have seen lunches that consist of a ziploc bag of sugary cereal and oreos. Obviously this does not apply to all kids, but I will say that in my experience of working with low income kids, I have never encountered a situation where I thought the kids were going hungry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My city moved to free school lunch for all this year, and some schools are also offering a dinner option during aftercare. I work for a non-profit that offers afterschool programming (college application support) to high school students and we may also be able to offer free meals. It seems like studies are showing a positive effect, but there's no magic solution-and it seems like the people in power want to fund magic not incremental progress.

For the curious-other wrap around services include health care, support for parents applying for benefits, GED classes for parents, last year a few schools that had installed washers and dryers for student and parent use where getting a lot of attention.

I teach third grade and have 24 students. On any given day I would say 2 or 3 get the school lunch. It’s very unpopular. I don’t think any get the breakfast.

Do you teach at a Title 1?

Anonymous wrote:Never heard of all that and if they do, good. It only benefits the kids. If you want it for your kid, move to one of those schools.

That's because your kids don't attend a Title 1 school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eating three meals a day and having after school activities seemed to make a difference with my children.

Did you or the school provide them?

I don’t think who pays for it makes a difference.

Of course it does. When you pay for them, the school has more money for other priorities.

When the mission of one institution, like schools, is expanded to include what should be the mission of other institutions, like social services, then it becomes difficult to allocate the money fairly. Because, obviously, preventing starvation is always more important than new textbooks or smaller classes. So when can we work on those other, educational priorities, when the social service basics could, conceivably, consume most of the institutions funds and time if allowed to?

Then you should work on increasing funding for social services.

Why is this kind of thing always the response?

The only way I know how to work for that is electing people who care about it and lobbying my elected officials.

We have decided as a country that we don't give two shits about social services, we only care about lower taxes and test scores. So, those people who do care found a work-around by using test scores as the rationale for adding needed social services to the schools. That these services are needed still doesn't change the fact that they are not helping improve our schools' focus on education.

This is like saying that if I am told to bring $10 for lunch, but then told some other people don't have lunch money so we'll all contribute $5 so they can have $5 for lunch, too, what's the difference? We all have lunch, even if it's a crappier lunch. I would like to have $10 for lunch, and I would like their $10 for lunch to come from some other pot of money so we can all have good lunch.

If the schools get $15 million, I would like to spend $15 million on core educational priorities. Find the $3 million necessary for social services somewhere else, and if we can't, then let's all admit we don't care about people and take up a charitable collection.

Because it's the answer. If you want social services to do it instead of the schools, then social services need to have the money to do it. If you don't want the schools to do it, and social services don't have the money to do it, what you end up with is nobody doing it. And that's not what you want, right? It's not what I want.

Anonymous wrote:I understand that there are no easy answers here but what has happened is that increased budget towards these programs has resulted in a mediocre environment for achievement. The push is not for excellence or merit, the push is let's cater to the ones at the bottom and we don't care about the ones in the middle or the top, well they have parents who can take care of them. This is what drives me mad, I would like to hear more about spending on programs which make kids competitive, foster an environment for learning.

I thought that was the point of all of these programs: to make the kids competitive and foster an environment for learning.

Anonymous wrote:I understand that there are no easy answers here but what has happened is that increased budget towards these programs has resulted in a mediocre environment for achievement. The push is not for excellence or merit, the push is let's cater to the ones at the bottom and we don't care about the ones in the middle or the top, well they have parents who can take care of them. This is what drives me mad, I would like to hear more about spending on programs which make kids competitive, foster an environment for learning.

+1. If the point is not learning, then what is the point of sending my kids anyway? Why do I have to worry about things like taking my kids out for a two-week vacation if the minimum educational standards are all we're going for? Seems like it would give the teacher time to work with those who need help.

I understand that there are no easy answers here but what has happened is that increased budget towards these programs has resulted in a mediocre environment for achievement. The push is not for excellence or merit, the push is let's cater to the ones at the bottom and we don't care about the ones in the middle or the top, well they have parents who can take care of them. This is what drives me mad, I would like to hear more about spending on programs which make kids competitive, foster an environment for learning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eating three meals a day and having after school activities seemed to make a difference with my children.

Did you or the school provide them?

I don’t think who pays for it makes a difference.

Of course it does. When you pay for them, the school has more money for other priorities.

When the mission of one institution, like schools, is expanded to include what should be the mission of other institutions, like social services, then it becomes difficult to allocate the money fairly. Because, obviously, preventing starvation is always more important than new textbooks or smaller classes. So when can we work on those other, educational priorities, when the social service basics could, conceivably, consume most of the institutions funds and time if allowed to?

Then you should work on increasing funding for social services.

Why is this kind of thing always the response?

The only way I know how to work for that is electing people who care about it and lobbying my elected officials.

We have decided as a country that we don't give two shits about social services, we only care about lower taxes and test scores. So, those people who do care found a work-around by using test scores as the rationale for adding needed social services to the schools. That these services are needed still doesn't change the fact that they are not helping improve our schools' focus on education.

This is like saying that if I am told to bring $10 for lunch, but then told some other people don't have lunch money so we'll all contribute $5 so they can have $5 for lunch, too, what's the difference? We all have lunch, even if it's a crappier lunch. I would like to have $10 for lunch, and I would like their $10 for lunch to come from some other pot of money so we can all have good lunch.

If the schools get $15 million, I would like to spend $15 million on core educational priorities. Find the $3 million necessary for social services somewhere else, and if we can't, then let's all admit we don't care about people and take up a charitable collection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I wish that people who sign up to teach or work in schools with a known high percentage of Spanish speakers would attempt to learn Spanish as well. Sign up for language classes. Use Rosetta Stone. Hell, use Duo Lingo - it's better than nothing.

let me gently and delicately add that once again, the effort/burden is on the school staff. Why? I have a decent working knowledge of Spanish (I can overhear and understand, read/remember some vocabulary words from a few years of long-ago high school Spanish and immersion in school environment), but it's been discussed at meetings that unless you are truly bilingual and fluent, you may not "wing it" especially when it comes to student information. Expected to use parent liaison or contracted services. Can't the parents learn enough English to safely communicate? Where's the compromise?

Some do. Some don't. What's your plan for the kids of parents who don't?

This. Yes, there are probably some parents who are slacking off, counting on the school to fill in the gaps. (Query: is this kind of neglectful parent likely to step up if the school steps back?) Some parents simply can't. A parent who works swing shifts or multiple jobs isn't going to be much help with homework or after-school supervision. In the case of English fluency, it's hard to learn an additional language as an adult, especially if you are working full-time (or multiple jobs), which makes it harder to take advantage of classes (and if you work something like fast food or retail, those employers are notorious for not providing consistent, predictable schedules, or schedules with any meaningful advance notice.

Some parents are slackers, yes. But it's not their kids' fault.

Anonymous wrote:

I wish that people who sign up to teach or work in schools with a known high percentage of Spanish speakers would attempt to learn Spanish as well. Sign up for language classes. Use Rosetta Stone. Hell, use Duo Lingo - it's better than nothing.

let me gently and delicately add that once again, the effort/burden is on the school staff. Why? I have a decent working knowledge of Spanish (I can overhear and understand, read/remember some vocabulary words from a few years of long-ago high school Spanish and immersion in school environment), but it's been discussed at meetings that unless you are truly bilingual and fluent, you may not "wing it" especially when it comes to student information. Expected to use parent liaison or contracted services. Can't the parents learn enough English to safely communicate? Where's the compromise?

Some do. Some don't. What's your plan for the kids of parents who don't?