News-Record.com

Yes. The improvement of academic performance for those that are not at the top of the class helps everyone. Public Education is not just for the elite, it is for everyone. If we can find a way to get the middle and the bottom of the class excited about education, you will not have to worry about the top of the class. They will be motivated to stay on top. We are where we are now becauuse too much time was spent on the children at the top of the class.

I disagree, the top needs to be challenged to compete in a world economy. These are the ways that will be our doctors/lawyers/money makers. They will pay the most in taxes and support the rest. Our top students have been ignored for years as they help teach others, have to teach themselves; not to mention that the standard for the top performers is a joke in many schools. Look at the AP scores in many of our schools. These are suppose to be college courses and at many schools the passing percentage is in the teens; yet they make a's in class... give me a break!

IB too obviously.

Joe, You are wrong again on this one.

"They will be motivated to stay on top." Joe S

I totally disagree. These students do not stay motivated. They become bored and are left unchallenged. Their young minds are left hungry for more knowledge.

I completely agree with Debora. Teachers now use our bright students to teach the slow students. This happens all the time at many schools, i.e., cooperative learning. Bright students are seated purposely next to slow learners. Our children aren't being paid to teach. These parents are paying the taxes so for their children to be taught in public school, not to be used as pawns in the NCLB game.

I do not believe that the smart students should be used to teach the slower students. For top students, competition plays a part in their education. Often times, students will do thier best to stay at the top of the class. I have noticed that some teachers, not all, are reluctant to encourage students to seek thier maximum potential. Much of this seems to be that "what is good enough for me is good enough for you". If the tacher went to Slippery Rock Teachers College, that's good enough for the student. A top student is more likely to teach themselves than an average student. The question is where do we start first? I say it is the middle of the class. You imply that it is the top of the class. Of course, the answer is "all of the class". As big as our system is, we could try more than one approach to learning and see which one is best.

"We are where we are now because too much time was spent on the children at the top of the class." Huh? I also disagree with this. We are where we are in public education because we have focused on the lowest common denominator, getting every student to a minimal achievement level. A huge majority of school resources are spent upon lower achieving students, and very little money is spent upon high potential students, nor is there a suffcient focus on these students. If we did not have programs such as IB and Early College, advanced learners would be muddling through watered-down AP courses. The Fordham Institute's conclusion that pursuit of NCLB goals has led us to unintended consequences is not without some merit. We spend a sufficiently large percent of our national GNP on public education to promote learning and achievement at all learning levels, if the money was spent effciently and effectively.

Simply, the objective of public education has evolved into attempting to achieve equal outcomes in education. And, they have been somewhat successful in that effort if you compare our students' educations with those of the rest of the civilized world.

The porportion of students that cannot read and write is way too high for our complex society. It is in the best interest of all citizens to have a greter porportion educated in skills that can be used in our society. This may take some sacrifice by the families that are well-off. Studies show that the reason children of rich families do so well in school is that they have better teachers than poor children have. As long as education is paid by taxpayers, this inequality should concern us. Many people want to use public tax money to provide a tailored private school experience for their children. These families should send their kids to private school or home school them.

If we had a fire department that gave one kind of service to rich families and another kind of service for other families, there would be an outrage.

Let's even the playing field. We can do this without hurting anybody.

I believe we are where we are because school systems are being asked to do so much more than simply educate children. If children could show up ready to learn, then schools could focus on educating. Schools have become the social workers and family substitutes to many who cannot provide this. In GCS, with over 90 languages spoken, we spend money to support teaching English as a second language along with all the other efforts that support these families. I'm not saying these efforts shouldn't exist or be served, but to what extent do we require schools to provide all of these additional services? Unfortunately, the pie does not get bigger but the needs do. Where do we draw the line? If a child is not reading ready by the time he or she enters kindergarten they are already so far behind. Is the answer to send surrogates into these homes to help these children become reading ready?? While these problems have always existed they were not as prevalent as they are today.

Class sizes also play a big factor. Requiring one teacher to teach to 30 or more individuals is sometimes too much to ask when the range of academic need varies greatly. Suggesting homogeneous classrooms based on academic ability results in discrimination charges. Social promotion may not be the best answer for students. One answer may lie in more team teaching even at the elementary level. Kids could be assigned to a regular classroom and teachers, but then move during the day based on academic need. This happens to a certain extent with Advanced Learners but maybe the answer is for all children to receive this type of tailored teaching. There could be milestones for students to reach to move within a given grouping so there is always the possibility of moving up (or down) as needed. It is a scheduling nightmare, though.

Many teachers are not qualified to or capable of teaching to such varied levels of need within a given classroom. Others truly have a gift for helping those within one of these academic subgroups -- those with the most academic need, or those who are gifted, or those in the middle. Unfortunately, these teachers do not have the option of solely teaching to their ideal population. This is true even for teachers of GCS's top academic learners in the AL-VSN program who teach both VSN students and "regular classroom" students. Some are happy and capable of doing so, others would prefer to solely work with gifted students who they feel they can benefit the most. I have seen at our elementary students teachers who excel at motivating and turning around some of our most academically needy students, but who don't "click" with other students who already perform well. It's a disservice to the teacher and the gifted student to be placed together. It's also a disservice to not give this teacher more academically needy students the opportunity to benefit. Better matching students with teachers is another answer.

Student behavior and the lack of support many times from parents (I remember as a kid being more scared of my parents for getting into trouble than my teachers; I don't believe this to be the case today in many instances) contribute to more time taken away from education. I witnessed many days where the administration at my child's middle school spent their entire day doing nothing other than dealing with disruptive students and their angry parents/guardians. Also many great teachers are not prepared to handle discipline problems and leave (or never enter) the system.

Families with top academic performers typically value education and send their students prepared and ready to learn. But these are the very students who bear the brunt of the impact of all of these other "distractions" taking place in the classroom. Many of the rules designed to keep the majority of students “in line” do nothing but stifle the intellectual and creative style of many top learners.

Even in some of the top academic classes, children aren't being challenged and become bored. Bored students may then act out more and contribute to the problem.

The entire middle school experience needs to be revamped across GCS as a whole. I have witnessed my own daughter's LOVE of learning sapped right out of her during her middle school years directly because she was not being challenged. Except for maybe two or three teachers in three years, she was not excited about being in school; something she used to always look forward to. I am only hoping that her high school years (and our continued involvement as her parents) will reinstill her love of learning. Thankfully she will be at a smaller H.S. where she will receive much more one-on-one attention and form closer and more positive relationships with her teachers. In some of the larger schools this may be less likely to happen.

Finally, the level of community and parent support in schools needs to be beefed up tremendously, particularly at the middle school and high school levels. Parent's level of involvement drops dramatically between elementary and middle school and this actually may be when the schools and students need more involvement, not less. Many GCS schools lack basic tools to educate children. The County Commissioners and local business/foundations/families all need to step up to support education. Only when we as a community put more than words into our county's education will things improve.

All children need access to the types of accelerated/experiential learnng that happens in AL. Let's face it. Access to AL is more about having parents who know how to prep their children for the test, who have influence within the school (mothers who don't work outside the home) and who have access to information about how they can get their child into AL. I know because my child is in AL and that's what I did. How many elementary schools actually share information about how AL works with kindergarten parents so they know how it works? Sure there is an AL plan buried on GCS' website- but who knows its there or what it means? If parents were given the information up front- the #s of AL students would increase. I believe every child can learn what they are taught- that academic ability has less to do with some "natural" talent a child has- let's stop playing games with children and teach everybody!

"Access to AL is more about having parents who know how to prep their children for the test, who have influence within the school (mothers who don't work outside the home) and who have access to information about how they can get their child into AL. I know because my child is in AL and that's what I did."

Our experience is just the opposite. We were approached by the school staff who encouraged us to have our child participate in AL services.

I believe that the AL department is making an effort to more widely disseminate information on AL services - see https://www.gcsnc.com/depts/al/news.htm.

jwg- I really appreciate your comment- but even school staff approaching some parents is not true equity. It still leaves a lot of parents out. In order to level the playing field all parents need to be given information about AL and other beneficial programs so they can make decisions for themselves. This academic information is important becuse it can determine honor/AP for middle school/high school and college entrance and access to a middle class lifestyle. How can we hold parents totally accountable for their children's education and use such harsh language toward parents (as some have) and say they doing their job when schools don't necessarily set things up so ALL parents have the information they need? In my opinion, word of mouth often leaves a lot of parents/children out of the loop-when the "rules" are open and public instead of closed and private then our schools will be able to effectively tack the many gaps that exist-

Dear Anonymous,
Don't the children still have to qualify for AL? At one time it was a test in 2nd grade plus teacher recommendation, then it was a test in 3rd grade, plus teachers could recommend those that they thought could do the work. It was thought that this would raise the minority participation. I'm not sure what 'word of mouth' has to do with it. A parent can't just choose to put their child into this program, there are levels of achievement to qualify. I do agree that many that could afford to have paid for private testing to see if their child would qualify.

At our elementary school, all families are made aware of the AL services. I don't believe this to be the case at all GCS schools and that is one of the major problems with AL -- consistency in the quality of service. There are some schools who provide an outstanding level of service because of the staff in place; others that either don't have the resources or the appropriate staff. The knowledge and support of AL by the school administration also is a factor in the level of service and communication provided to parents.

Again, families must play a proactive role in learning about these programs. Meetings are made available but many times few, if any, show up.

Additionally, some schools are reluctants to recommend students for VSN services because it means potentially losing their top scoring students who may attend Lincoln. This is particularly true if the student in non-white because high test scores of non-white students are coveted. What gets lost in all of this is what is best for the child, rather than what's best for the school (one of the detriments to NCLB and AYP). The sending school needs to get credit for qualifying and sending students.

"The porportion of students that cannot read and write is way too high for our complex society. It is in the best interest of all citizens to have a greter porportion educated in skills that can be used in our society. This may take some sacrifice by the families that are well-off. Studies show that the reason children of rich families do so well in school is that they have better teachers than poor children have. As long as education is paid by taxpayers, this inequality should concern us. Many people want to use public tax money to provide a tailored private school experience for their children. These families should send their kids to private school or home school them."

Joe, please provide some documentation for your claims. How is it that rich children do well in school because they have better teachers? How is it that rich people get the best teachers? Is that a shortcoming of the school district or is it an intentional action? How is it that people want public schools to provide a tailored private school experience for their children? Is that what you see IB and AP programs being? Absent some evidence, your comments seem to be wild accusations.

I am in total agreement with Joe: "The porportion of students that cannot read and write is way too high for our complex society. It is in the best interest of all citizens to have a greter porportion educated in skills that can be used in our society. This may take some sacrifice by the families that are well-off. Studies show that the reason children of rich families do so well in school is that they have better teachers than poor children have. As long as education is paid by taxpayers, this inequality should concern us. Many people want to use public tax money to provide a tailored private school experience for their children. These families should send their kids to private school or home school them." A tailored education means using connections/resources to pick your child's school, teacher, access to AL/VSN, access course/classes/tracks in middle school (honors/AL), access to special schools (Early College/IB/AP)- check the income bracket of students in those programs. I am an educated parent myself and I am totally aware of what my lifestyle affords me to do for my child- time to do homework and other activities with them, access to information or people in the know, money for educational enrichment materials/programs. I talk to a lot of parents who are not in my income bracket and most of them are totally unaware that these opportunities exist- not because they don't care about their children-they just don't know (or aren't in the right economic/educational bracket to have access to that kind of information) and they say they were not told by their school. Why is AL placement made to seem difficult? Instead of parents having to hunt and peck for info- just tell us parents up front (starting in kidergarten) and without the educational jargon what AL is, how our child can reach AL status, how we can help as parents and what impact AL might have later in our children's educational careers. Don't just tell parents about the hoop our children have to jump through and how pretty it is, tell us about how to pick up our speed and how to jump higher so more of our children can make it through too. Let's cut the Darwinist approach and open to doors to more opportunity.

NCLB is a great start toward improving education for the poorest performing students because it makes public how students are performing- school cannot hide behind their desks and say they are doing what they are not. Though it needs to be funded more, I am for any accountability that requires open reporting so that parents like me who are not in schools everyday can see more of what's going on.

The last time that I looked, rich and middle class parents paid taxes (actually most or all of the taxes) that support public education, and as such, those parents have every right to expect that their children get the best public education that they can get. If those parents are more involved in their children's educational experience, then they should be given salutes, not barbs. It may be true that a parent has to actively attempt to manage their children's experience in public education, but after all it is their children. I fail to see what the relevance is of the parents' income brackets for children in advanced programs. Advanced learning classes are based upon merit, not affirmative action. All that I hear is moaning and wailing that the main problem with public schools is the lack of involvement of parents in their children's schools.

And, to say that those parents should send their children to private school is rediculous. Those parents pay good money in taxes and have an equal right to have their children educated. If you want to force them out of public schools, then refund their property taxes.

I fail to see to what purpose parents who make more money and are involved in their children's educations are being made to be villains. Studies show that you want those children in public schools as they help other students to succeed. That was the very argument that the BOE made regarding the HPCP. A school system that doesn't have some opportunities for its advanced learners will soon fall of its own weight.

This conversation by Joe Stafford and the Anonymous, that agreed with Joe, seems to be providing support for a process that is being implemented within GCS now. It is known as the Haberman process, and it is designed to "weed-out" potential administrators and teachers that believe that parents are important to success in a child's education, but rather it is a province of the school. This is a dangerous tack as it is the continuation of public education's efforts to replace parents in the growth and development of children. Read the recent post by Paul Daniels on another strand regarding the Haberman, which is currently being used in our schools. Is this the reason that some people want to get the children of involved parents out of the school system? So, is it to get the children and their rich, meddling parents out of the school to private school and home school, but have them keep paying taxes to support the system? That's fine with me, if we want to have a voucher system that allows parents to choose their childrens' schools and pay for it with their taxes.

"My understanding of the testing process comes from my conversation with a principal. The principal told me that the test penalized those who provide answers indicating that parents or parental involvement were a solution to any of the problems raised in the scenarios. The principal then told me a story about an who applicant failed the test because the applicant was supplying answers that indicated parental involvement and responsibility were necessary to resolve the issues raised. The applicant failed the test. The same applicant, after learning that these were the "wrong" answers, took the test again and supplied answers which did not reference parents or parental involvement but which stressed schools, programs, etc. The applicant passed the test the second time.

This approach to hiring is completely misguided. Any school system which does not believe that parental involvement and responsibility is not only important, but also required for students to do well is destined to fail. If a child comes to school without any indication of what is expected of him with regard to discipline or work ethic, how, pray tell, are teachers and administrators supposed to turn out a responsible member of society. Parents and students must take responsibility for the student's education. Schools can only do so much without them."

Joe, is that what you support?

If you drive out the middle class parents and consequently their chidren dont you lose the opportunity to have diverse schools?

This theory doesnt make sense to me.

Parents are critical to a child staying on the right track and thriving. However, some childrens do not have involved parents. Some have only one parent and he/she may not have a clue on how to help thier child. That child has to have a good chance to becoming a Doctor, Lawyer, Teacher or whatever.

From 1930 to 1940, we made progress in education than any 10 year period in our history. Many of the parents could not read or write but the children still got a good education.

I want parents to be involved. I was involved in my children's education. I do not want to have a system wherein if you don't have involved parents, the chance for success is "zero".

We have some High Schools that are 90 percent minority. Few males got to college. Those that do often have trouble doing the work. At A & T only 23% of the males graduate in four years. I could blame it on their parents, but I won't.

Minority schools have less experienced teachers than non-minority schools. That is a fact. Good teachers in minority schools often, but not always, become principals, work for the central office or decide to move out of the central city because the live in the suburbs.

I estimate that inter-city schools have about 50% good teachers, 30% marginal teachers and 20% poor/bad teachers.

Compare this with majority schools with about 70% good teachers, 20% marginal teachers and 10% bad/poor teachers.

This means that a majority student in the surburbs gets good teachers for 9 years in a 13 year span compared to a inter-city child that gets good teachers for 6 or 7 years. This is a huge difference.

We tried to help the problem by putting in "MISSION POSSIBLE" teachers. But there has been no reports on how it is working. Outside of a students "will to learn", good teachers is the most important factor. Far more important that involved parents.

I may be wrong, but what I want to see is a minority school filled 100% with excellent teachers. We could just try a couple of schools. My bet is that major improvment would soon be evident.

First of all, the assumption that all students in AL are from wealthy families and that their parents are influential is not true. Traditionally, students have been screened for AL through their grade level reading and math test scores. Notice I used the word screened---not selected. After being screened---there is further, more specific testing done. In addition, teachers fill out a rateing form that examines how the student handles certain tasks in class. Students have to qualify for AL services. Once in a great while a student who demonstrates excellent abstract thinking skills and problem solving ability, whose test scores may have been low, may be recommended on the basis of performance. Merit does not mean money. There are plenty of students in AL whose parents live very modestly. However, these same children perform at an exceptional level.

First of all, the assumption that all students in AL are from wealthy families and that their parents are influential is not true. Traditionally, students have been screened for AL through their grade level reading and math test scores. Notice I used the word screened---not selected. After being screened---there is further, more specific testing done. In addition, teachers fill out a rateing form that examines how the student handles certain tasks in class. Students have to qualify for AL services. Once in a great while a student who demonstrates excellent abstract thinking skills and problem solving ability, whose test scores may have been low, may be recommended on the basis of performance. Merit does not mean money. There are plenty of students in AL whose parents live very modestly. However, these same children perform at an exceptional level.

"I want to see a minority school filled 100% with excellent teachers..."

Wasn't this the purposed of Mission Possible??? Which by the way was not Terry Grier's idea but a group of leaders associated with ABC who suggested this to Grier and many of the BOE members in 2004. One person was told by the Chairman of the BOE that this would not work. Andrews was the school that was being discussed. Well if this wouldn't work at Andrews why did we then have the cleverly named "Mission Possible"? Many of Grier's "innovative"ideas came from parents who continually wrote or talked to BOE members, not from Grier's brain.

Joe, you cannot get any teachers to remain in schools where discipline and respect is not enforced. Even the best dedicated teachers burn out. I am not saying that this is only a problem in minority schools. It's a problem in many of our schools.

I have a friend who teachs middle school in Leland, NC. She said that it was easier to teach school in Harlem, NC. The students were much better behaved and the teachers were valued and had a voice. Having a union up north helped in this situation.

NC is a right to work state. You cannot force teachers to remain in a school where they don't want to be.

Sorry meant to type "Harlem, NY" not "NC"

"you cannot get any teachers to remain in schools where discipline and respect is not enforced" --Anon X

AMEN!!!

Yes, Anon X, the purpose of Mission Possible is to recruit and retain "highly qualified" teachers. I taught at an MP school and was completely disgusted with the way the money was being used. Only teachers of math and language arts were provided with extra salary. What about teachers of other subjects? Very unfair in my opinion. Those of us who were paid MP money were also expected to take on more and more meetings and workshops to "improve" our teaching ability. If we were "highly qualified" in the first place, why would we need extra training? Ridiculous.

The MP school where I taught had all of these extra funds, but the children were walking around with broken zippers on their pants and old, dirty shirts. Why? Because Standard Mode of Dress (SMOD) was in place. And the students were wearing the same clothing every single day. When I asked the school Social Worker for some money to buy shirts for the students, he told me "no money". Again, ridiculous.

This same school did have an AL group of students, however, it was extremely difficult to provide more challenging projects for them. The class I had was not 100% AL. Lower performing students were mixed into the class and some of their behavior issues really held everyone behind.

Mission Possible schools are a in a mess!!! I was HQ in the subject areas I taught but was not given the bonus money that other teachers received because I teach special education. Excuse me, but if we are making gains and my kids are counted toward AYP scores then why would I not be eligible for additional money. I was denied money to help buy items for my classroom, so where is all of this MP money going! My resource class had 13 children. Too many, why are we continuously giving these students the short end of the stick. I could not manage behaviors and teach 13 different categories of kids. If GCS wants the MP community of learners to excel they are going to have to create meaning classroom experiences for the students. Such as going on field trips, I can’t tell you how many times I have made references to places, people, ideas, and my kids give me the “huh” face. These kids are not exposed and many of them would exit special education if they could connect events from the classroom to actual experiences.