Responses by people who know nothing about education.

[JJU33]

Hey guys, I am a special education teacher and I recently posted a response "in my opinion" about No Child Left Behind and how it is effecting my disabled students. So, I thought I would share something with you from a few days ago. I responded to a post on another forum about No Child Left Behind and some idiot responded to my post by taking a shot at teachers who apparently, should be "fired". Here is his direct quote copied and pasted:

From: Tired of Complaining

"I suggest that you leave the teaching profession because all you guys do is complain.You have been funded out the butthole to do your jobs but just can't stop being a government stooge wanting your protected jobs.
This is bull****************. Teachers should be fired just like anybody else in the private sector who isn't or cant do their jobs. Whether you are a nurse, doctor, teacher, or nasa rocket scientist, you need to be accountable for doing your job. Nobody should get a pass to under perform."

If you want to read the whole post and what other idiots had to say, here is the link: http://www.speakout.com/forum_main.asp?Forum=Education
Just click on No Child Left Behind

Josh

[Unregistered]

Hey Josh,
I am a student @ CSU-Pueblo in Colorado and I would just say to consider the source. I am a full time musician persuing a music ed K-12 certificate and am lucky to have much experience with private students and am a personal friend of my field experience teacher; he has me conduct the band, work with the rhythm sections (I play electric and double bass professionaly) and am a non-traditional student, to say the least.
This person sounds like someone who has been fired in the past or maybe recently! He has no clue about school financing or budgets for music programs or anything else, apparently. I would take the high road (he probably is a right-wing republican); there is no reason to stoop to the level of even letting this upset you in the least. I see bumper stickers that say "Leave every child behind - support Bush/Cheney".
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even the clueless...how do you think we got in the mess we are in today!
John

[Stuart Little]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.....who the h*ll was that retarded fool? SHAME ON HIM/HER.

[Unregistered]

Are you suggesting that teachers should NOT be accountable for their teaching?

Don't get me wrong: I am a secondary level English teacher, who has no love of the NCLB. In fact, because of the NCLB, I may vote for a Democratic president for the first time in my life (shudder) :) Yet I still believe that we should be responsible for our performance.

[Unregistered]

Unfortunately, I am voting against NCLB this year. And what that means is:
NOT BUSH!!

[Unregistered]

Josh, NCLB is a big fat joke! It doesn't make much sense to put a bunch of politicians and NO educators on a committee to revamp education. This is a sad statement about our government!

[Unregistered]

It is a mistake to think that the NCLB is Bush' pet project. A lot of people on both sides of the fence supported it, including Bush' opponent in the last election. I'm a big supporter of it myself, although I think it needs tweaking.

[Unregistered]

If you recall, our current prez, the education president, pushed the NCLB program by citing the outstanding gains made in Texas under his enlightened administration.

Then it came out that the schools in Texas had been selectively testing the students in high school by not allowing the language learner Hispanics to move on to the Junior Year when the tests were given. As a result, the drop out rate of Hispanics soared along with the test scores. Just the beginning of a system based on deceit.

[Unregistered]

The NCLB has widespread support among a lot of people. It isn't just a Bush or Republican thing.

Besides, the NCLB should stand on its own merits. I support it.

[Unregistered]

The NCLB has widespread support among a lot of people. It isn't just a Bush or Republican thing.

Besides, the NCLB should stand on its own merits. I support it.

Racism and class determined poverty also have widespread support. Neither are necessarily a Bush or Republican thing either.

But then you may support those too, although it's not as popular to admit. Pretty much the same outcome though.

[Unregistered]

How is the NCLB racist? If anything, our interest in staff development has come about because of NCLB pressures to improve our teaching. Before the NCLB we had no pressure to improve at all.

I work in a low-performing, mostly Hispanic, school, before and after the NCLB. The NCLB has really helped us, in my opinion. The recent staff development has raised our scores, and for the first time I think we are beginning to provide a quality education for the students.

[Unregistered]

Congratulations. For your progress, I give you and your fellow educators all of the credit, along the families of your students and of course the students themselves. I give the Federal Government the credit it deserves:

[Unregistered]

How is the NCLB racist?

http://www.hiddengap.org/

[Unregistered]

Your complaint is with California, not the NCLB.

[Unregistered]

Congratulations. For your progress, I give you and your fellow educators all of the credit, along the families of your students and of course the students themselves. I give the Federal Government the credit it deserves:

The NCLB was the catalyst for much of our education reform. Therefore it deserves that much credit.

[Unregistered]

How is the NCLB racist? .

http://resultsforamerica.org/education/toolkit_critique.php

It doesn't sound like you really want the answer to that question. If you're a "true believer" you won't accept any evidence. If you're simply uninformed about the criticisms of NCLB, this site will give you a quick analysis of the problems inherent.

Education as an adjunct of the federal government was a bad idea before the budget slashing current administration. Now it's so obviously a bad idea to any advocate of racial equality as to hardly bear discussion. Current federal efforts at bankrupting the monetary system are nearly complete. The failure to do the same with the school systems is a testimony to the efforts of educators, school boards, and states. The obvious agenda of the NCLB is a two tiered system. It is made to reward those who already have much and take from those who do not. The results speak for themselves.

California is not the only state where this disparity has grown in the last five years. Nearly every state has had the same experience. Texas is far worse. The situation has simply been better documented in California. But again, if you've already made your choices, no amount of stastics or factual evidence will change your mind.

[Unregistered]

Here is a typical statement made in the article:

“What happens is you create a situation where there are so many schools failing that there is no support for them. The administration likes to talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations and how this law fights that. But what about the hard bigotry of high expectations without adequate resources?”

As a result of our new drive to increase test scores, we took in training from a private firm. There was some expense involved, but the state paid for it all. Many of us took the training to heart and improved our teaching, and test scores. How much money does it cost me to implement this training? ZERO.

Those who implemented the training increased their test scores. Those who didn't, didn't.

It is all about attitude. Those that have risen to the challenge have improved. Those who complain about accountability are the first to refuse to cooperate. So what right do they have to complain?

So let me ask you: What level of accountabilty should you, as a teacher, face in your job? What should be the penalty for a school that does nothing to improve?

[Unregistered]

What should be done to schools that do not improve is actually covered by law in California? If a school continues to fail their API after 3 years, under certain circumstances, the school can be taken over by the state. Administrators can lose their positions and teachers also face consequences.

Our school has steadily increased its test scores. There are many complex reasons why a school improves or fails to do so. Although I cannot prove it, my experience tells me that the main reason why our school has improved is because of the neighborhood. More upscale homes, fewer poor and migrant families have changed the complexion here.

I have been here long enough to have experienced the opposite situation. When our neighborhood was going downhill, so were our test scores.

I hope this partially explains my attitude toward comparing students and schools as if they were stocks and bonds or pork belly futures. Too often the teachers with the hardest job have been criticized and penalized. As the studies cited above indicate, the disparity is growing. As the gulf between the haves and have nots in America widens, so does the gulf between the have and have not schools. If the government intervenes on behalf of the poor, it will be a great shock to me. I fully expect the politcos to go on putting the money where the votes are.

In the meantime, I will continue to work among the downtrodden, praise the courage of those who choose to do so, and defend those who want to reintroduce some reworked explanation of the innate superiority of the wealthy.

[Unregistered]

Another nut job, trying to make us uncomfortable. These people should find a church and turn off their brains!

[Unregistered]

What should be done to schools that do not improve is actually covered by law in California? If a school continues to fail their API after 3 years, under certain circumstances, the school can be taken over by the state. Administrators can lose their positions and teachers also face consequences.

But that is just California. If every state had real consquences for failing schools, we wouldn't need the NCLB.

I am not particularly fond of federal power. But there are some states that continually let schools (and children) fall behind without consequence.

So how do you feel about California's law? Do you support state take-overs of schools?

Our school has steadily increased its test scores. There are many complex reasons why a school improves or fails to do so. Although I cannot prove it, my experience tells me that the main reason why our school has improved is because of the neighborhood. More upscale homes, fewer poor and migrant families have changed the complexion here.

One of the best things to come from the increased consquences is our attention to teaching methods aimed at English learners. At this time, our English learners have nearly caught up with the others. They can be taught, and they can succeed. So I don't like blaming low scores on them.

I have been here long enough to have experienced the opposite situation. When our neighborhood was going downhill, so were our test scores.

In my opinion, the biggest factor in student achievement is teaching, not socio-economic conditions. Test scores dropped because the teachers never ratcheted up their techniques.

And the lower the test scores, the easier it is to increase the scores and meet AYP. No one is saying that a school in Compton has to outperform the school in Beverly Hills.

I hope this partially explains my attitude toward comparing students and schools as if they were stocks and bonds or pork belly futures. Too often the teachers with the hardest job have been criticized and penalized. As the studies cited above indicate, the disparity is growing. As the gulf between the haves and have nots in America widens, so does the gulf between the have and have not schools.

I have heard this before, but I find it hard to believe that the gulf that exists now is greater than that found in the 1950s.

If the government intervenes on behalf of the poor, it will be a great shock to me. I fully expect the politcos to go on putting the money where the votes are.

It seems to me that your negative view of the NCLB stems from your overall attitude towards our government. In that case, how would any federal education law satisfy you? Why dismiss it outright?

In the meantime, I will continue to work among the downtrodden, praise the courage of those who choose to do so, and defend those who want to reintroduce some reworked explanation of the innate superiority of the wealthy.

I think we can greatly overcome many of our problems if we quit dreaming about a day when the poor have it as good as the wealthy. Schools in wealthy districts will always be better simply because the parents have the extra income to support the schools. Do we want to tell wealthy people that they cannot support their local schools?

I guess this is one of the reasons why people want to get rich -- to move to areas that have better schools. This is just part of the reward system.

[Unregistered]

Quote:"I have heard this before, but I find it hard to believe that the gulf that exists now is greater than that found in the 1950s."

You are correct. The widening gap between rich and poor is between 1973 and today. There was a great leap forward for the poor in the 1960's. Remember the War on Poverty? Since 1973 the balance has shifted again, this time not only against the poor but against the middle classes.

I do not doubt your personal sincerity on this issue. My experience is that teachers, as a group, are compassionate people. However, we must be realistic and honest about the growing disparity.

Do I think the rich should be told to support not only their own schools but all schools equally? Absolutely! I believe the wealthy have a responsibility. .

During the 60's, the government took an active role to try to even out the playing field. The disparity then, as now, was largely based on skin color. White Americans responded to government efforts by moving out of the busing range, creating "white islands" with "private schools" within the state system of public education.

Now we have a federal government that plays to the fortunate. As an advocate for children, I see absolutely no reason why the children in my school should be denied the basic necessities for a healthy life. There are children in my classroom who experience blackouts every few minutes (undiagnosed epilepsy?). Few come to school with food in their bellies or a decent nights rest. Many have never seen a dentist and have known pain for so long they do not even know it. How is it fair to test them to see how they compare to the pampered children across the tracks?

If the purpose of government is not to provide for the health of its children, then what possible use is it to us?

I do not oppose the NCLB. I find it ridiculous. The men who brought it to us purposely ignore the needs of underfinanced schools. If they would fund the schools and the programs that serve the poor children, I would be happy to hold up the yardstick that they give us to compare the incomparable. If they have no intention to eliminate the disparity in funding, they should ignore us completely. To demand equal performance without equal funding is inhumane and hypocritical.

[Unregistered]

You are correct. The widening gap between rich and poor is between 1973 and today. There was a great leap forward for the poor in the 1960's. Remember the War on Poverty? Since 1973 the balance has shifted again, this time not only against the poor but against the middle classes.

The shift most likely occurred due to bussing, when the middle class began moving to the suburbs to escape having their kids bussed to poor districts.

But I see the situation improving, not the other way around.

I do not doubt your personal sincerity on this issue. My experience is that teachers, as a group, are compassionate people. However, we must be realistic and honest about the growing disparity.

I think we need to quit using the disparity as an excuse to not accept personal responsibility. The amount of learning that takes place inside a classroom is greatly controlled by the teacher. If a teacher fails to teach well, the studens are naturally not going to learn much. So it is largely up to us?

And we CAN do it. I have seen it done many times. We have teachers on our campus that teach better than the vast majority of teachers in richer districts, and their students perform fairly well on state tests.

Do I think the rich should be told to support not only their own schools but all schools equally? Absolutely! I believe the wealthy have a responsibility. .

Well, they are already taxed in a higher bracket than anyone else. I was referring to private donations. How can we compel the wealthy to support schools outside their district? If someone wants to donate gym equipment, he will naturally do it for a school in his own area. Isn't that normal human behavior?

During the 60's, the government took an active role to try to even out the playing field. The disparity then, as now, was largely based on skin color. White Americans responded to government efforts by moving out of the busing range, creating "white islands" with "private schools" within the state system of public education.

Not only White Americans, but wealthier Black Americans and Hispanic Americans moved out as well. This isn't about race, but rather money. Who can blame them? I live in a nicer neighborhood than I teach. I chose this neighborhood (mostly blue-collar, but some white-collar) because it has fairly good schools. It would be stupid to jeopardize the future of my kids to prove a point.

Now we have a federal government that plays to the fortunate. As an advocate for children, I see absolutely no reason why the children in my school should be denied the basic necessities for a healthy life. There are children in my classroom who experience blackouts every few minutes (undiagnosed epilepsy?). Few come to school with food in their bellies or a decent nights rest. Many have never seen a dentist and have known pain for so long they do not even know it. How is it fair to test them to see how they compare to the pampered children across the tracks?

Because we cannot use these excuses to give them substandard educations, which is exactly what was taking place in the past and which prompted the NCLB to take action.

The students you are discussing are at a disadvantage. By not making the schools accountable, we are turning the disadvantage into a liability. Something must be done. So far, the NCLB is the best thing the Federal governnment has done to rectify the situation... at least in principle.

You tend to think (correct me if I am wrong) that if these schools were given tons of money, the situation would improve. I doubt it. The teachers are not going to teach better if they are paid better. A bad teacher at $24,000 a year is a bad teacher at $60,000 a year. And since the main ingredient of learning is the teacher, the situation would not get any better.

Now, you could attract better teachers with higher salaries, but then you run into the tenure problem.

If the purpose of government is not to provide for the health of its children, then what possible use is it to us?

Well, read the Constitution. It lays out the responsibilities of the Federal government fairly clearly. (Yes, I realize that education does not fall within the boundaries of the Federal government.)

I do not oppose the NCLB. I find it ridiculous. The men who brought it to us purposely ignore the needs of underfinanced schools. If they would fund the schools and the programs that serve the poor children, I would be happy to hold up the yardstick that they give us to compare the incomparable. If they have no intention to eliminate the disparity in funding, they should ignore us completely. To demand equal performance without equal funding is inhumane and hypocritical.

Again, performance is based largely on teaching skill. And it costs nothing to implement good teaching practices. The real disparity isn't economics, but rather teaching skill.

Let me give you an example: A few years ago, I used to call on volunteers (raised hands). I then received training (from a private company, but funded by the state) that taught me that calling on raised hands is a good way to leave struggling students behind. Since then, I have changed my teaching practices and my students' performances have increased significantly.

How much does it cost me to call on non-volunteers randomly? Nothing.

How much does it cost my school for me to teach my students a learning objective at the beginning of the session? Nothing.

How much does it cost my school for me to employ guided practice before turning students loose on independent work? Nothing.

Not one of the teaching practices I employ costs a dime. So if I was given an extra (say) $2000 at the start of the semester, what would I do with it that make my students peform higher?

[Unregistered]

Again, I have three students who have blackouts due to what I believe to be undiagnosed epilepsy. My own polls indicate that over 70% of my students are malnourished. They grow and go to school near highly toxic chemicals. The water is no longer recommended for drinking, but they go on drinking it. Many students are in pain because of no dental care. I could go on and on, but I am repeating myself anyway.

Obviously a child who has severe physical problems in not going to be able to perform as well as a well cared for child.

Within my own classroom, I deal with the problems of each child to the best of my ability. I do not make any excuses for poor performance. If I see a child who is not concentrating, I try to figure out why, I don't just flunk him. That's why I know so much about my students' problems. There are many teachers who have no clue as to the suffering of their students. I don't blame them, they're not paid to be the guardians, merely to instruct.

But just because I don't accept low performance, does not mean I am going to go about preaching the joys of federal education programs. Because I find the NCLB a lies based upon false statistics does not mean I don't teach to the standards. I AM the no child left behind in my room. The government, for the most part, just gets in the way and not only does not help, they hinder.

You say that the wealthy have a right to ignore the plight of the poor. Yet the federal government continues to put aside the taxes for the wealthy. No more taxes on wealth being passed from multi billionaires to sons and daughters who have never worked a day in their lives! Meanwhile health care clinics are closing and food programs are closed. The vast majority (possibly up to 90%) of corporate accounts are in the Cayman Islands to avoid taxation, with the approval of the government. Meanwhile our breakfast program and head start programs are closed for lack of funding.

I can excel at my job without buying into the party line. Basic assumptions are often in error. For example, selfishness has nothing to do with "normal human behavior". It is learned. And it is about race. The strides that were made in the 60's have largely been undone yet we continue to spread the myth of equality. You are correct to point the finger at "white flight" . However, it took the federal government to intervene to stop segregation.
The government that gave us NCLB not only does not stand up to racism, it caves in to the craven behavior to curry votes from the influential while ignoring the needy.

My family moved into a working class neighborhood with primarily minority groups as our neighbors. I made this choice so as "to avoid jeopardizing my children's education." I did not want my children to grow up with the smug, selfish notions of class and race found in the exurbs. I am proud to say my children all graduated university and are dedicating themselves to trying to help the people who need help instead of just padding their portfolios. You see, there are many Americans who define "a good school" as one where people do not seek to separate themselves from lower incomes, test scores, or racial identities. For us, "a good school" is one where people of all backgrounds seek to assist those who need assistance.

[Unregistered]

My family moved into a working class neighborhood with primarily minority groups as our neighbors. I made this choice so as "to avoid jeopardizing my children's education." I did not want my children to grow up with the smug, selfish notions of class and race found in the exurbs.

If that is what you wanted for your children, you have that right. I want my children to go to schools that feature the best learning environments, so I chose my neighborhood correspondingly. You have your priorities; I have mine.

I am proud to say my children all graduated university and are dedicating themselves to trying to help the people who need help instead of just padding their portfolios. You see, there are many Americans who define "a good school" as one where people do not seek to separate themselves from lower incomes, test scores, or racial identities. For us, "a good school" is one where people of all backgrounds seek to assist those who need assistance.

I see. So you would have no problem sending your kids to school in the same district you complain about? After all, if cultural identity and multi-ethnicity is really the most important aspect of an educational environment, then the kids who go to the tough, yet multi-ethnic, inner-city schools really have it the best, right?

There is major gang violence in the district where I work. Schoolyard fights are common. Why would I place my own children in such an environment when I have the financial means to avoid it? If they were hurt, either physically or academically, who could I blame other than myself?

[Unregistered]

Within my own classroom, I deal with the problems of each child to the best of my ability. I do not make any excuses for poor performance. If I see a child who is not concentrating, I try to figure out why, I don't just flunk him. That's why I know so much about my students' problems. There are many teachers who have no clue as to the suffering of their students. I don't blame them, they're not paid to be the guardians, merely to instruct.

When you say "the best of my ablility," are you talking about teaching, or just handling the problem? If you are talking about teaching, how do you know that you are teaching the best that you can? You don't think you can improve?

[Unregistered]

But just because I don't accept low performance, does not mean I am going to go about preaching the joys of federal education programs. Because I find the NCLB a lies based upon false statistics does not mean I don't teach to the standards. I AM the no child left behind in my room. The government, for the most part, just gets in the way and not only does not help, they hinder.

So let's talk specifics: How is the NCLB actually hindering your ability to teach a standards-based curriculum?

[Unregistered]

I can excel at my job without buying into the party line.

The problem is that you think the NCLB is a party line. Since you associate the NCLB with Republicans, you are not going to like it no matter what it says. And since you have categorically dismissed it, this shows up in your attitude.

That is why I say it is all about attitude. Rather than complain about the NCLB and Bush, why not just give it the ole' college try?

Basic assumptions are often in error. For example, selfishness has nothing to do with "normal human behavior". It is learned.

You make a lot of statements that I think are suspect. Selfishness shows up in animals all the time. In fact, we have to work hard to teach our children not to be selfish. To so say that selfishness is learned behavior is truly bizarre in my view.

Now, I could be wrong. But any study that shows that people are naturally gregarious is going to have some serious explaining to do.

And it is about race. The strides that were made in the 60's have largely been undone yet we continue to spread the myth of equality. You are correct to point the finger at "white flight". However, it took the federal government to intervene to stop segregation.
The government that gave us NCLB not only does not stand up to racism, it caves in to the craven behavior to curry votes from the influential while ignoring the needy.

I think you are simply wrong if you think the desire to move to better neighborhoods is relegated to the White race. Ask anyone living in the inner city and they will tell you, "I would love to get the Hell out of here!"

For this reason I do not point the fingers at those who left for the suburbs. They were doing what any normal person would do in that situation. We should have expected it when we wrote the bussing laws.

Bush may be a weak president (I am no big fan of his), but I am pretty sure of his sincerity in trying to help those who attend schools in poorer districts. Anyone that tries to solve the educational problem in this country is going to come under a lot fire. But I'm simply not that cynical.

[Unregistered]

You are cyncical, you are just cynical about different ideas then I am. Your view of minority neighborhoods is deeply cyncical. Those of us who choose to live here and send our children to school here to not see our homes in the same negative, dangerous light that you do. On the other hand, the so called "safe" neighborhoods and schools that you extol are abhorrent to us.
I invite you to attend an AME Church or a Chicano event so you can see something about the people you are so cynical about that will change your point of view.

You are also wrong about your assumptions of my politics. I have no more love for the Democrats than the Republicans. One side pretends to care,the other doesn't even pretend.

You see, I am cynical about men who love power. You seem to give those men credit for all that is good in schools. They are your heroes, not mine. My heroes are the ordinary men, women, and children who struggle to make the world a better place from the bottom up, not from the top down. That is because I believe in democracy, not heirarchy.

[Unregistered]

You are cyncical, you are just cynical about different ideas then I am. Your view of minority neighborhoods is deeply cyncical.

The very people that live in those neighborhoods will tell you it is rough. Crime statistics bear it out. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

You have decided that you are willing to tolerate the gang problems and street violence for some higher ideal. Good for you. But don't try to convince me that those neighborhoods are not tough environments for learning. (One of the reasons it is tough to find teachers willing to stay on the job there.)

Those of us who choose to live here and send our children to school here to not see our homes in the same negative, dangerous light that you do. On the other hand, the so called "safe" neighborhoods and schools that you extol are abhorrent to us.

We can compare the crime statistics if you wish.

I invite you to attend an AME Church or a Chicano event so you can see something about the people you are so cynical about that will change your point of view.

I am sure those events are fun and enlightening. But that doesn't make the area a safe place to live and, most importantly, the schools a good learning environment.

Some of the arguments bandied around here are almost psychotic. Teachers that teach in these neighborhoods complain night and day about how rough and challenging it is. They ask over and over how we can expect the kids in these schools to perform in such a rotten environement. But as soon as someone (especially a White person) decides to leave the area and seek something better, they fall all over themselves talking about how great it is.

Is an inner-city school a good learning environment? Yes or no? Let's settle it.

But it doesn't even matter. I haven't taken you to task for the choice you made, so what's the beef?

You see, I am cynical about men who love power. You seem to give those men credit for all that is good in schools. They are your heroes, not mine. My heroes are the ordinary men, women, and children who struggle to make the world a better place from the bottom up, not from the top down. That is because I believe in democracy, not heirarchy.

Let's not talk in slogans.

Nothing I have said indicates that I give all the credit for what is right in education to anyone in power. I have said nothing about heroes. I have simply said that I think the NCLB is a good law, but its effectiveness is based on how seriously we take it and how much effort we expend to meet the challenge.

[Unregistered]

The disconnect happening in this discussion boils down to people who cherish safety versus people who cherish ideals. No need to argue the details. As long as two parties are arguing from these opposing points of view there can be no agreement.

Being very male, I tend not to care much about safety. I'd rather not wear a helmet on the escalator just because there's an actuarial table somewhere that says I might get hurt. Similarly, I'd much rather take the chance of going down in the airplane than having to be searched by the junior gmen.

The lady who wants to protect her children from crime statistics is going to do whatever it takes to move to the little safe suburbian island. The guy who wants his kids to grow up in the "real world" is going to choose the city.

Problems arise when the safety people begin to legislate their needs.

By the way subarbanites: check your crime statistics. What are the chances of a white woman or child being harmed by crime? Now check the automobile accident statistics caused by all this moving to suburbs. You've got a one in two chance there. So "safety" is really an allusion. You are going to die and so are your kids. From our perspective, all you have to choose is how to live with the time you are given.

Personally, I admire a guy with guts enough to put his ideals before his, or his kids, safety. But I understand the fear that motivates women (and feminized men) to try to find someplace where bad things don't happen (Columbine?)

[Unregistered]

Oh, give me a break! I'm not talking about the safety of myself, but of my kids. (I work in the high crime area, remember?) And it isn't just safety -- I am also considering the future of my kids. As a parent, I want them to succeed in life and I make choices to ensure their success.

If you like to place your kids in harm's way and jeapordize their future to live to some high ideal, that is your decision. But don't try to trivialize that which is most important to me, the welfare of my children.

[Unregistered]

By the way subarbanites: check your crime statistics. What are the chances of a white woman or child being harmed by crime? Now check the automobile accident statistics caused by all this moving to suburbs.

My kids don't ride with me when I go to work. So much for your argument.

By the way, I love the "We're all going to die anyway" rationale. That one is a hoot.

[Unregistered]

OUr public school system is pathetic. the teacher as paid to much for how poorly they teach. If you want to know why our youth in a bad state look at those teaching them 8 hours a day. Private schools are the only place where true learning is show aside from teh few teachers who do care about there students.

[Mildred]

The person who brought up the point about safety versus ideals has given me some things to think about. Nations are often moved by irrational fears, just as individuals are. The only way out of this trap is to recognize the fear, pinpoint where it is coming from and not let it control our desicions.
I read a review about "King Kong" last week that made the point that this is a metaphor for racial fear. I thought that was a silly idea but after reading here I started thinking about it. I think racism is still a big problem in the U.S. Maybe the only people who don't recognize that are the ones who have insulated themselves by moving into the artificial world of the suburb. For example, a young man who was dating my daughter claimed he was not a racist. But then he explained that he had never met a black person in his entire life! He lives within miles of an African American community but grew up in the suburbs where parents routinely gave their kids the keys to the family car with the instructions not to leave the city limits. This seems to me a little like burying our heads in the sand. A dear friend of mine just moved into the downtown area of D.C. We were shocked. His explanation was very similar to the one I read here. He wants to expose his children to a school experience with other races and cultures. He says that although it is true that the test scores are generally lower, students who want a good education can recieve one here just as well. Anyway, I am thinking about this subject now, so thank you all for bringing it up. It seems most people do not even want to talk about these things. So keep this discussion rolling, please.

[Unregistered]

OUr public school system is pathetic. the teacher as paid to much for how poorly they teach. If you want to know why our youth in a bad state look at those teaching them 8 hours a day. Private schools are the only place where true learning is show aside from teh few teachers who do care about there students.

Das rite. I whent to privit skool and i are verry smart two.

[Unregistered]

He says that although it is true that the test scores are generally lower, students who want a good education can recieve one here just as well. Anyway, I am thinking about this subject now, so thank you all for bringing it up. It seems most people do not even want to talk about these things. So keep this discussion rolling, please.

Excellent point, Mildred. We tend to discuss schools as if they are churning out product, when in fact, regardless of test scores, many so called "failing schools" have a good percentage of students who go on to universities and are high achievers. My children went to a school in a difficult area with low test scores. But they were placed in Honors classes and they, and their classmates, all received Grade A educations.

I also think your insight about people avoiding certain topics is very astute. You can tell more about the state of a society or individual by the topics they avoid (taboos) then the ones they choose to discuss.

Think outside the box!

[Unregistered]

The person who brought up the point about safety versus ideals has given me some things to think about. Nations are often moved by irrational fears, just as individuals are. The only way out of this trap is to recognize the fear, pinpoint where it is coming from and not let it control our desicions.

Not all fears are irrational. Did you bother to consider that notion? If the fear is well-founded, of course you should let it control your decisions. To not do so could place you as Darwin Award finalist.

I read a review about "King Kong" last week that made the point that this is a metaphor for racial fear. I thought that was a silly idea but after reading here I started thinking about it. I think racism is still a big problem in the U.S. Maybe the only people who don't recognize that are the ones who have insulated themselves by moving into the artificial world of the suburb.

There is nothing artificial about the suburbs. The city where I live is a community as well. I don't live among robots. My next door neighbor is a roofer. My other neighbor is a civil engineer. They are real people, just like everyone else.

This year we decided to go door-to-door Christmas caroling. And as we went from door-to-door, we were greeted by friendly neighbors. How is it artificial?

I think we are witnessing a lot of stereotyping in this thread, and most of the stereotyping is aimed at those who live in the suburbs.

For example, a young man who was dating my daughter claimed he was not a racist. But then he explained that he had never met a black person in his entire life! He lives within miles of an African American community but grew up in the suburbs where parents routinely gave their kids the keys to the family car with the instructions not to leave the city limits. This seems to me a little like burying our heads in the sand. A dear friend of mine just moved into the downtown area of D.C. We were shocked. His explanation was very similar to the one I read here. He wants to expose his children to a school experience with other races and cultures. He says that although it is true that the test scores are generally lower...

Generally lower?? DC test scores are THE lowest in the entire country. And it isn't even close. While Mississippi, the second-lowest, has only 17% proficient in math, DC has only 7%. Seven percent!!

A 7% proficiency is indicative of something terribly wrong, either with the community or the school system. Why would anyone place their kids in such poorly performing schools or in such a community?

[/quote] students who want a good education can recieve one here just as well.[/quote]

Not if the teachers aren't providing one.

The notion that all schools are created equal, and that the only difference in education one receives depends purely on the student, is ridiculous. (That logic might hold at the college level, where student motivation supercedes instructional quality.) Some schools have their act together better than others. And the student population is more dangerous at some schools than others. Care to disagree?

[Unregistered]

I do disagree. The reason why test scores are lower in D.C. than in your suburban community are social. They are not the teacher's fault. The social ills that the teachers in the city are up against impact every social service, from police to animal control. Everyone knows that the single greatest determinate for educational success is family background.

I know for a fact, based on extensive personal experience as a teacher and an educator that an individual student with high motivation can recieve a first class education in an economically depressed area. The safety issue is a whole other story, one based largely on perception.

People who flee the city because of fear of violence are responding to deep seated racial and class stereotypes. Even if it is marginally more dangerous to stand one's ground instead of abandoning those who need us the most, it is still the right thing to do for those who care about racial equality. If you choose to participate in "white flight" do so. But trying to justify your flight morally by attacking the schools you abandoned and the teachers and families who have taken a stand there is a bit low.

[Unregistered]

I do disagree. The reason why test scores are lower in D.C. than in your suburban community are social. They are not the teacher's fault. The social ills that the teachers in the city are up against impact every social service, from police to animal control. Everyone knows that the single greatest determinate for educational success is family background.

When your students are only scoring at 7% proficiency, then the system has broken down at many levels.

But at least you seem to acknowledge that these communities have some serious problems.

I know for a fact, based on extensive personal experience as a teacher and an educator that an individual student with high motivation can recieve a first class education in an economically depressed area.

This is not a fact, but an observation based on a very limited scope. While a few students may have managed to obtain a quality education in some instances, that is far from being the norm. Teaching does matter, and if a school employs sub-par teachers then the students will suffer unless they are extraordinarily motivated.

The safety issue is a whole other story, one based largely on perception.

When a person gets shot, that isn't a matter of perception. The crime statistics in the neighborhood where I work are significantly more troublesome then were I live. Those people who were stabbed are not illusions for us to ponder; they were actually stabbed.

The school where I work is significantly more violent than the school my kids attend. That isn't a matter of perception; the violence is very real and tangible.

People who flee the city because of fear of violence are responding to deep seated racial and class stereotypes.

That in itself is a stereotype. Why would you stereotype all people who move into the suburbs this way? I thought as teachers we weren't suppose to be engaging in such stereotyping.

Even if it is marginally more dangerous to stand one's ground instead of abandoning those who need us the most, it is still the right thing to do for those who care about racial equality. If you choose to participate in "white flight" do so. But trying to justify your flight morally by attacking the schools you abandoned and the teachers and families who have taken a stand there is a bit low.

I moved into the suburbs because living in a relatively violence-free neighborhood among friendly people makes me and my family happy. Sorry that you cannot respect my decision. But making you happy means nothing to me, so your attempts to instill White Guilt in me have failed.

As long as you maintain the ridiculous notion that violence is only a matter of perception, and that all schools are equal, I won't take your arguments very seriously.

[Unregistered]

First, it IS a fact that people graduate from underperforming schools and go on to be highly placed in prestigious universities. That is what I claimed based on personal knowledge. It is a fact because i have the diplomas to prove it. Schools with higher scores simply reflect the higher living standards of the students who attend them. It is a disservice to the many students who excel in these "underperforming schools" to paint them places of abject failure with substandard teachers.

Second, and again, I don't blame anyone for choosing to live in the suburbs and I don't do guilt, not white or any other kind. I simply am pointing out the misconceptions about inner cities as unsafe, undesirable areas. You made the remark that the people who live here would choose to live in the suburbs if they could and that is simply not true.

Third, if you check the crime statistics in South Central L.A.and compare them with Beverly Hills, you will find no significant difference in violent random crimes against women and children. The victims are almost always young men because of gang activity. The perceptions of an area like South Central L.A. as a dangerous place come from the media and are overblown. The continued focus on violent crime in non white areas is part of the underlying racism which encourages people to move to suburbs, gated security areas, etc. Historically and currently, white people have actually little to fear from people of color. Unfortuneatly, it is not been true the other way around. Stop getting your information from the media and look at the actual crime statistics and you'll get a different impression.

[Unregistered]

First, it IS a fact that people graduate from underperforming schools and go on to be highly placed in prestigious universities. That is what I claimed based on personal knowledge. It is a fact because i have the diplomas to prove it.

It is a fact that some malnourished students went on to succeed, but that doesn't make malnourishment a good idea. Using your logic we could end the free school lunch program, since some students who didn't get a free lunch went on to succeed anyway.

Unlike you, I am not going to use the exception-to-the-rule as a basis for my choice of schools. The fact that SOME students went on to succeed despite attending a low-performing school doesn't make my kids' attendance in such schools a good idea.

Think: Probability.

Schools with higher scores simply reflect the higher living standards of the students who attend them. It is a disservice to the many students who excel in these "underperforming schools" to paint them places of abject failure with substandard teachers.

First of all, I never labelled students who excel in these schools abject failures, and I have no idea why you would claim I did. In fact, I am even more impressed by their ability to succeed in such circumstances.

Second, a high standard of living alone doesn't produce test scores. High standards of living instead tend to produce:

1. Lower crime.
2. More local funding of schools (which attracts better teachers).
3. More parental involvement in the school and at home.

And those are the reasons I chose to live in my neighborhood.

Second, and again, I don't blame anyone for choosing to live in the suburbs and I don't do guilt, not white or any other kind. I simply am pointing out the misconceptions about inner cities as unsafe, undesirable areas.

If they are desirable, people wouldn't leave them.

How can you call any area where people flee "desirable?" Doesn't that refute the definition of the word?


You made the remark that the people who live here would choose to live in the suburbs if they could and that is simply not true.

If they had the financial means, most probably would seek something better. But that is just my opinion -- I don't think either of us know for sure.

Third, if you check the crime statistics in South Central L.A.and compare them with Beverly Hills, you will find no significant difference in violent random crimes against women and children.

Well, Beverly Hills had in 2004:

No reported murders.
No reported rapes.
Five reported aggravated assaults.

Hmmm... that means a police officer on an eight-man police force would respond to a violent crime call less than once every year.

http://beverlyhillsmi.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

If you want to go on pretending that Beverly Hills is as violent as South Central LA, then I cannot stop you. But you can quit trying to convince me, because I'm not buying it.

In the area where I live, we had three murders this year. But all three occurred in the northern-most area, which adjoins the area where I work. I live in the southern part of the city, where violence is relatively rare.

The victims are almost always young men because of gang activity. The perceptions of an area like South Central L.A. as a dangerous place come from the media and are overblown.

Back in the 90's, the city where I work featured a murder rate that averaged one-per-day. It has abated to some extent, but there were still 70 murders last year.

You are trying to convince me that the school in which I work is just as safe as the school my kids attend. How would you know this without knowing which schools I am referrring?

I know both schools. You don't. I made the decision to move to the suburbs based on my own experiences and observations, which count far more to me than your statistics (which you have yet to quote).

[Unregistered]

The previous post should stand as a remarkable example of the delicacy of our polictically correct language. The culture has been skirting the underlying issue for so long that people have forgotten that the issue exists. Of course, recent events in New Orleans brought the reality back into focus. But amazingly, the children of the people who fled the cities that their grandparents built still refuse to acknowledge the ugly reality. It's racism. Just because you've built a little island of white on the outskirts of this reality does not make it dissappear.

I don't begrudge you your "safe" existence in your "good" schools. But your arrogance toward the people you so carefully discuss in polite euphimisms continues to amaze. I'm not going to argue this point with you anymore. I never expected you to acknowledge that life in the inner cities has real value intrinsically. But haven't you ever wondered why your "safe" "educated" children spend every available moment trying to get in touch through their music and their art?

[Unregistered]

But amazingly, the children of the people who fled the cities that their grandparents built still refuse to acknowledge the ugly reality.

The ugly reality is that the neighborhood in which I live is a nicer neighborhood than where I work. And since you are not familiar with the two neighborhoods, you cannot disagree.

I don't begrudge you your "safe" existence in your "good" schools.

But you do. You have personally attacked me for the decisions I made, and have continually refused to acknowledge the fact that I may have good reasons for moving into the neighborhood that I did.

To you, there can only be one reason: I must be racist, because you can only view decisions according to that one criteria. If I stated anywhere in here that I liked Wonder bread because it tastes better, you would probably claim that I only like it because it is white.

I value safety for my children and their ability to succeed above all. Rather than respect my values, you instead tried to paint my schools as equally dangerous so that you could focus again on race. But I know my school and the schools my children attend better than you do. Therefore, you have no basis for questioning my decision.

But your arrogance toward the people you so carefully discuss in polite euphimisms continues to amaze.

Such as? Quote me and I will respond.

I'm not going to argue this point with you anymore. I never expected you to acknowledge that life in the inner cities has real value intrinsically.

Does life in the suburbs have real value intrinsically?

If not, what does that say about your ability to stereotype and denigrate?

If so, then what is wrong with moving into the suburbs?

I await your response.

But haven't you ever wondered why your "safe" "educated" children spend every available moment trying to get in touch through their music and their art?

I don't recall mentioning my kids in this fashion. What exactly are you talking about?

[Unregistered]

On second thought, maybe you'd better stay in suburbia.

[Unregistered]

If that is the best response you can post, then why should I argue with you anymore?

[Unregistered]

There is nothing instrinsically wrong with moving to the suburbs, obviously. Secluding oneself there and ignoring the plight of the poor is wrong from a Christian perspective and most other moral positions. Living in the suburbs and displaying contempt for the poor (and for the schools that serve them) is too much like "let them eat cake" for my tastes.

[Unregistered]

There is nothing instrinsically wrong with moving to the suburbs, obviously.

But we were told that the mere act of moving to the suburbs was, in itself, racist.

Don't I teach the students in the inner city every day? How is that ignoring their plight?

I think some of you have a real problem acknowledging reality. If the test scores in a certain area are abysmal, something's wrong. If the crime rate in an area is high, that's a problem. If you cannot come to grips with such ideas, then that is your weakness, not mine.

[Unregistered]

I think some of you have a real problem acknowledging reality. If the test scores in a certain area are abysmal, something's wrong. If the crime rate in an area is high, that's a problem. If you cannot come to grips with such ideas, then that is your weakness, not mine.

There is a problem. A host of them and the causes are social, economic, historical among others. And yet there are those who seek to level blame at the victims instead of looking for solutions. Blaming the teachers or the schools for the test scores is like blaming the police for the crime rate. What we who live and work in these areas object to is people who pass judgement without seeking to understand or help.

[Unregistered]

There is a problem. A host of them and the causes are social, economic, historical among others. And yet there are those who seek to level blame at the victims instead of looking for solutions.

That is similar to blaming those who moved to the suburbs instead of seeking solutions, right?

You should try your own medicine.

Insulting people who seek a better life is hardly a solution to the problem, but that has been the mode of argument in this thread. Where are your solutions? I don't see any. I cruised the entire thread and I don't see anyone attempting to solve anything.

As you may notice, I never said anything derogatory towards those who live and work in depressed areas. But I did point out that the communities have serious problems. We can all argue over the causes, but until the problem is solved I think I will send my kids to school in a safer area. Sorry if my concern for my kids' welfare bugs you.

[Unregistered]

I cruised the entire thread and I don't see anyone attempting to solve anything.

As you may notice, I never said anything derogatory towards those who live and work in depressed areas.

Post #22"Not only White Americans, but wealthier Black Americans and Hispanic Americans moved out as well. This isn't about race, but rather money. Who can blame them? I live in a nicer neighborhood than I teach. I chose this neighborhood (mostly blue-collar, but some white-collar) because it has fairly good schools. It would be stupid to jeopardize the future of my kids to prove a point"

Like many whites who live in exurbia, you are completely unaware that your assumptions about the innate superiority of your lifestyle IS the new racism. We don't want to live in your neighborhood, we simply want the goverment (in particular the school systems) to walk the walk on equality, beginning with funding.

I read through the posts, and there are solutions being offered here. There are teachers who have chosen to take a stand by living and working in the neighborhoods that white America has basically abandoned without a backwards glance.

Jumping in your Hummer and driving over here to teach our kids is only a boon to us if you are respectful of our neighborhoods, our families, our culture, and most of all, our children. Your superiour, condescending attitute is an insult to the downtrodden, forgotten, mostly black or brown people.

Stop hanging around with the Christmas caroling, portfolio enriching neighbors and watching the Fox News and start talking to some of the people you are afraid of and you might learn something about the real America.

Suburbia is not real because it is sustained only by the hypocrisy of a world where a few live off of the suffering of the many. Your war in iraq is only the most obvioius,latest example of decimating a people you consider your inferiors so you can squeeze the last drops of oil to sustain your highblown lifestyle, one which is in and of itself a betrayal of all of the common people of the earth.

Pick up any one of Martin Luther King's speechs (especially about Vietnam) and try to imagine what he would say to you on this day. What have you chosen to do on the day off you've been given to honor his struggle for equality?

[Unregistered]

Like many whites who live in exurbia, you are completely unaware that your assumptions about the innate superiority of your lifestyle IS the new racism.

Define "superior." The crime here is lower. So that does that make it better to me? Yes.

This is about free choice. Those who want to live the area near where I work are free to do so. I don't knock their choice. I just don't want them to knock mine.

We don't want to live in your neighborhood, we simply want the goverment (in particular the school systems) to walk the walk on equality, beginning with funding.

But that is a completely separate issue.

I read through the posts, and there are solutions being offered here. There are teachers who have chosen to take a stand by living and working in the neighborhoods that white America has basically abandoned without a backwards glance.

Jumping in your Hummer and driving over here to teach our kids is only a boon to us if you are respectful of our neighborhoods, our families, our culture, and most of all, our children. Your superiour, condescending attitute is an insult to the downtrodden, forgotten, mostly black or brown people.

I get in my car (not a Hummer) and I drive to work. I work the day, and while I am there I do the best damn job I can. Then I go home. I don't discuss politics with my students. I don't get involved in their family lives. I don't judge them. I teach them the best I can, and I take the full brunt of the responsibility when they fail to demonstrate proficiency. (Which is far more than I can say about some of the people in here.)

What I think is condescending is the attitude that somehow we should expect lower scores from these students.

Stop hanging around with the Christmas caroling, portfolio enriching neighbors and watching the Fox News and start talking to some of the people you are afraid of and you might learn something about the real America.

The people in my neighborhood don't represent Real America? Is that what you are saying?

Those I go caroling with are real Americans. They are Americans no less and no more than anyone else in this country. I think YOU are the one that has the condescending attitude. Why would you make such derogatory comments towards people you haven't even met?

Your post is an outstanding example of stereotyping. I thought the educated were supposed to be above that type of behavior.

Suburbia is not real because it is sustained only by the hypocrisy of a world where a few live off of the suffering of the many. Your war in iraq is only the most obvioius,latest example of decimating a people you consider your inferiors...

At this point you are ranting, so I'm not going to read any further.

[Unregistered]

Wow,these last few posts are a perfect example of the gulf between the races! White America found the solution to integration- Suburbia! That's okay, we didn't really want you as neighbors either.

[Unregistered]

If it's okay, then why is everyone complaining?

[Unregistered]

We've given up on ever shaking the "separate" but we're still waiting for the "equal".

Don't you think it would be better for everyone concerned if you found yourself a job closer to home?

[Unregistered]

The people in my neighborhood don't represent Real America? Is that what you are saying?

If by "Real America" you mean people devoted to rampant consumption without a thought to the consequences and a near total disregard for the suffering of humanity, (based on your description) your neighborhood is the textbook definition.

[Unregistered]

If by "Real America" you mean people devoted to rampant consumption without a thought to the consequences and a near total disregard for the suffering of humanity, (based on your description) your neighborhood is the textbook definition.

And how do you know the people in my neighborhood are like that? (Watch for the stereotyping.)

[Unregistered]

Don't you think it would be better for everyone concerned if you found yourself a job closer to home?

Where is the logic in your statement?

[Unregistered]

Do you really believe that all of the opinions you' ve been sharing here are "logic"?

Your inability to see the emotional foundations of your statements is clear evidence of a closed system of belief. Until you recognize that your perspective is limited by your shared values (prejudices) you will not be able to recognize values that conflict or disagree with your own. Of course, you will deny this or say that all people are similarly bound (another form of denial). Your explanations have one thing in common, they all add up to: "I'm okay, everyone else (outside of my little circle) is wrong." I was born into the same value system you were (modern, white America is a really a unique place with a unique set of values.) But I have spent my life traveling, living with other cultures, learning other languages, trying to see things through the eyes of others. You have obviously spent your life building up your defenses and your rationale. The suburbs are a fitting metaphor for the closed system of thought that spawned them. The people and places you are afraid of are not really frightening because of crime, but because they are alternative value systems. You need to run them down or discount their value in order to continue with the illusion that your values are the only important ones. Castles made of sand, melt into the sea, eventually.

[Unregistered]

Until you recognize that your perspective is limited by your shared values (prejudices) you will not be able to recognize values that conflict or disagree with your own.

I think you've nailed the root cause behind the current state of American racism, which, as the responses to Katrina freshly proved, is alive and thriving.
We all need to take a good, hard look in the mirror and admit the prejudices that most people are in deep denial about. The euphismisms have thrived for so long that most people don't even recognize them anymore.

[Unregistered]

The suburbs are a fitting metaphor for the closed system of thought that spawned them.

Only if you stereotype the people that live there, which is exactly what you are doing.

And that is the one thing that stands out in this thread -- that stereotyping is all fine and dandy as long as it is done to those you dislike.

You don't know my neighbors. You know nothing about my neighborhood.

But I have spent my life traveling, living with other cultures, learning other languages, trying to see things through the eyes of others. You have obviously spent your life building up your defenses and your rationale.

Then why did I choose to teach in the inner city?

You need to run them down or discount their value in order to continue with the illusion that your values are the only important ones.

But don't you assume the same thing when you write...

But I have spent my life traveling, living with other cultures, learning other languages, trying to see things through the eyes of others.

Maybe to someone else the most important thing is to raise their kids safely. Unlike you, I allow each person to set priorities that reflect their own value system.

[Unregistered]

Maybe to someone else the most important thing is to raise their kids safely. Unlike you, I allow each person to set priorities that reflect their own value system.

What a silly response. This entire conversation began as a response to your stereotyping inner city neighborhoods. Of course I'm stereotyping the suburbs! That is simply to let you know that just because you believe that your white lifestyle is superior (raise kids safely?) does not mean that is the only point of view.

By the way, the fact that you drive down to our neighborhoods does not give you the right to run them down on the internet or at your little white parties. You are not doing us a favor by coming here to work, especially with your attitudes which are so harmful to our children. Believe it or not, we don't want you here, and not because of where you live or the lack of melanin in your skin, but because you really believe you are better than your students.

Get a job in the suburbs (if you can, I realize you have to have an "in" to work in the priviledged schools who get all the money).

[Unregistered]

What a silly response. This entire conversation began as a response to your stereotyping inner city neighborhoods. Of course I'm stereotyping the suburbs! That is simply to let you know that just because you believe that your white lifestyle is superior (raise kids safely?) does not mean that is the only point of view.

So stereotyping is fine? Is that what you are saying?

How much do you really know about the neighborhood I live in? How much do you know about the people who live in my neighborhood?

I chose to live where I do because I feel it gives my kids the best chance of succeeding. I know the area where I work. I know the area where I live. I can make a much better comparison between the two than you can.

In my opinion, the place where I live is a better place to live than the area where I work. That is my OPINION. And I base my opinion on not only waht I see, but what the data suggests. What kind of evidence do you have that I am wrong in my opinion, other than the stereotypical attitudes some have towards people who live in the suburbs?

By the way, the fact that you drive down to our neighborhoods does not give you the right to run them down on the internet or at your little white parties.

Gee, I thought I had the right to express my opinions in this forum.

Now, show me any statement I made and then prove that statement wrong. Go for it. Just don't paraphrase my comments; quote me verbatim.

You are not doing us a favor by coming here to work, especially with your attitudes which are so harmful to our children.

You have no idea of how effective I am as a teacher. You cannot point to a single person that you has been harmed by my employment in my district. You can only guess based on stereotypes of what you think all people in the suburbs are like.

Believe it or not, we don't want you here...

Who is "WE," kemosabee? Who are you speaking for? Where is "here"? Do you know a single soul in the area where I work?

and not because of where you live or the lack of melanin in your skin, but because you really believe you are better than your students.

Actually, I am one of the few teachers in here that legitimately thinks her students can do well on standards-based content and who makes no excuses if they fail to perform. Look at my other posts in this forum. You will see tons of examples where I stick up for the kids time after time, no matter where they live.

To you, helping inner city kids means moving into the inner city. To me, it means teaching them. I think my way is more effective.

[Unregistered]

Honey, you are soooo white. I don't need a stereotype machine to figure that one out. You are a walking sterotype and you id yourself every time you open your mouth or touch your keypad. And cry all you want, all we're asking for is for you to stop judging and try to learn something about the people you look down on before you try to teach their children.

[Unregistered]

To you, helping inner city kids means moving into the inner city. To me, it means teaching them. I think my way is more effective.

This keeps getting further off of the point. It doesn't matter where you live, but believing that the suburbs is somehow unquestionably better because higher test scores and perceptions of safety is problematic. These statements reveal the underlying feelings of "superiority" of the priviledged. Once again, live in the suburbs if you want to. But don't expect others to be impressed because you "brave the dangers of the lower classes" to drive downtown to teach. If you don't think the students and their parents aren't sick of uppity teachers looking down their noses just because they belong to a more priviledged class, you are living in a dream world. The truth is that you'd jump ship in a minute if you could get a job in your little island of white in a sea of brown.

[Unregistered]

For those of you who have no teaching experience; I can tell you this. Teaching is much more different than any other field of work. Teachers complain more now days than ever before for many reasons. The first is that parents have become dependent on teachers to teach children simple things that should be taught at home. We also must be reponsible to the government, parents, students, school board, and other teachers. Teachers do more work without pay than any other job/career that maybe paid and in many states are underpaid.

If you think teaching is easy then I would say to you try it and find out.

[Unregistered]

Honey, you are soooo white. I don't need a stereotype machine to figure that one out.

Gee, being white is somehow bad? Sounds pretty racist to me. But, hey...

[Unregistered]

This keeps getting further off of the point. It doesn't matter where you live, but believing that the suburbs is somehow unquestionably better because higher test scores and perceptions of safety is problematic.

What is this PERCEPTIONS of safety? I can point to the statistics. I can also point to my own personal observations.

So if you are so sure that the neighborhood that I live in is just as dangerous as the area where I work, show me the evidence. (That might be rather hard since you don't know where I work and live.)

I have asked numerous times in here for the opposition to show me that I am wrong in my perceptions of my own neighborhood and my own workplace. But I never get any responses. All I get are stereotyped notions of what living in the suburbs, and the people that live in the suburbs, must be like.

Describe the people that live next door to me. Describe the people that live on my block. Since you seem to know so much about them, go ahead. Let's see it! (Oh, make sure you tell us how you know.)

But will you respond? No. You will just make another observation of something you know nothing about, namely my neighborhood and my work area.

These statements reveal the underlying feelings of "superiority" of the priviledged. Once again, live in the suburbs if you want to. But don't expect others to be impressed because you "brave the dangers of the lower classes" to drive downtown to teach.

We have a deal. You quit crying and sniveling over my decision to live in the suburbs, and I won't mention anything about being brave and courageous for driving into the inner city to work.

Deal?

If you don't think the students and their parents aren't sick of uppity teachers looking down their noses just because they belong to a more priviledged class, you are living in a dream world.

Oh ho! Now you know the parents of the kids I teach!

I deal with the parents of my students all the time. You don't.

The truth is that you'd jump ship in a minute if you could get a job in your little island of white in a sea of brown.

And you know this how?

[Unregistered]

This keeps getting further off of the point. It doesn't matter where you live, but believing that the suburbs is somehow unquestionably better because higher test scores and perceptions of safety is problematic.

What is this PERCEPTIONS of safety? I can point to the statistics. I can also point to my own personal observations.

So if you are so sure that the neighborhood that I live in is just as dangerous as the area where I work, show me the evidence. (That might be rather hard since you don't know where I work and live.)

I have asked numerous times in here for the opposition to show me that I am wrong in my perceptions of my own neighborhood and my own workplace. But I never get any responses. All I get are stereotyped notions of what living in the suburbs, and the people that live in the suburbs, must be like.

Describe the people that live next door to me. Describe the people that live on my block. Since you seem to know so much about them, go ahead. Let's see it! (Oh, make sure you tell us how you know.)

But will you respond? No. You will just make another observation of something you know nothing about, namely my neighborhood and my work area.

These statements reveal the underlying feelings of "superiority" of the priviledged. Once again, live in the suburbs if you want to. But don't expect others to be impressed because you "brave the dangers of the lower classes" to drive downtown to teach.

We have a deal. You quit crying and sniveling over my decision to live in the suburbs, and I won't mention anything about being brave and courageous for driving into the inner city to work.

Deal?

If you don't think the students and their parents aren't sick of uppity teachers looking down their noses just because they belong to a more priviledged class, you are living in a dream world.

Oh ho! Now you know the parents of the kids I teach!

I deal with the parents of my students all the time. You don't.

The truth is that you'd jump ship in a minute if you could get a job in your little island of white in a sea of brown.

And you know this how?

By the way, I have some more bad news for you. I drive new car. Try to get some sleep tonight anyway.

[Unregistered]

This keeps getting further off of the point. It doesn't matter where you live, but believing that the suburbs is somehow unquestionably better because higher test scores and perceptions of safety is problematic.

What is this PERCEPTIONS of safety? I can point to the statistics. I can also point to my own personal observations.

So if you are so sure that the neighborhood that I live in is just as dangerous as the area where I work, show me the evidence. (That might be rather hard since you don't know where I work and live.)

I have asked numerous times in here for the opposition to show me that I am wrong in my perceptions of my own neighborhood and my own workplace. But I never get any responses. All I get are stereotyped notions of what living in the suburbs, and the people that live in the suburbs, must be like.

Describe the people that live next door to me. Describe the people that live on my block. Since you seem to know so much about them, go ahead. Let's see it! (Oh, make sure you tell us how you know.)

But will you respond? No. You will just make another observation of something you know nothing about, namely my neighborhood and my work area.

These statements reveal the underlying feelings of "superiority" of the priviledged. Once again, live in the suburbs if you want to. But don't expect others to be impressed because you "brave the dangers of the lower classes" to drive downtown to teach.

We have a deal. You quit crying and sniveling over my decision to live in the suburbs, and I won't mention anything about being brave and courageous for driving into the inner city to work.

Deal?

If you don't think the students and their parents aren't sick of uppity teachers looking down their noses just because they belong to a more priviledged class, you are living in a dream world.

Oh ho! Now you know the parents of the kids I teach!

I deal with the parents of my students all the time. You don't.

The truth is that you'd jump ship in a minute if you could get a job in your little island of white in a sea of brown.

And you know this how?

By the way, I have some more bad news for you. I drive new car. Sorry about that.

[Unregistered]

Sorry for the multiple posts.

[Unregistered]

Gee, being white is somehow bad? Sounds pretty racist to me. But, hey...

Another silly question. Of course there's nothing wrong about being white. Nobody can help the amount of melanin in their skin.

On the other hand, the set of values that you uphold and preach here need to be challenged. Just because history has rewarded lighter skinned persons does not give those person a right to pretend superiority.

The statement was made to point out that your ideas are a direct result of your being born into a racist society and that you have chosen to flaunt your advantages rather than investigate the possibilities of egalitarianism. When you write about the superiority of life in the exurbs, neighborhoods created to segregate by race and economic class, your words are blatantly loaded with the politically correct racism that has become a cliche.

[Unregistered]

By the way, one of the markers for being "white" in the sense of accepting all of the notions of the power structure, is the unquestioning belief in statistics.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." Twain

The crime statistics for inner city neighborhoods simply reflect a higher arrest rate. Anyone who thinks that people in the suburbs break the law less frequently than people in the cities needs to get out more.

I've lived in both places and served in community law enforcement enough to know that the neigborhoods that sell the image of "safety" under report criminal activity to keep their real estate values high. Meanwhile, inflated crime statistics from the barrios and ghettos convince the gullible to spend money on expensive real estate, security systems, ect. while fueling the only growing industry in the U.S., the prison system. Crooked politicians justify their own crimes by appearing "tough on crime" which basically means cracking down on young, black and brown men.

Remove the crime statistics that are gang against gang, and even these skewed figures that make you feel so "safe" come into alignment to reveal the real picture: all things considered, you're just about as safe in the city as you are in the suburbs.

[Unregistered]

The crime statistics for inner city neighborhoods simply reflect a higher arrest rate. Anyone who thinks that people in the suburbs break the law less frequently than people in the cities needs to get out more.

You didn't read my post very carefully. Again:

What is this PERCEPTIONS of safety? I can point to the statistics. I can also point to my own personal observations.

Keep in mind that I am also talking about the school environment. I am intimately familiar with both schools, and in my opinion the school that my children attend is safer.

Now, if you have the evidence to show that my observations of my particular school sites are wrong, by all means post it. I have asked numerous times, and I will ask again.

I've lived in both places and served in community law enforcement enough to know that the neigborhoods that sell the image of "safety" under report criminal activity to keep their real estate values high.

Oh, give me a break! The notion that people refuse to call the police because they want to keep their real estate values high has to be one of the dumbest explanations I have ever seen. If a person gets their car broken into, they are going to call the police if they think it will do any good. If anything, those in the inner city are probably less likely to call the police, because they are more likely to think the police won't help them. Can't prove it, but that is my hunch.

And how do you really know why they supposedly don't call the police? You couldn't ask them, because you never would have spoken to them about the crime. And I can just see people telling you, "We didn't want to drive our property values down."

I am amazed at the logical conniptions some of you will sink to avoid acknowledging hard reality.

Remove the crime statistics that are gang against gang, and even these skewed figures that make you feel so "safe" come into alignment to reveal the real picture: all things considered, you're just about as safe in the city as you are in the suburbs.

Which city? Which suburbs? Are you talking about cities in general, or the area where *I* work? The school MY children attend?

I don't care about what takes place on average. I care what takes place where I work, and where my kids go to school. And on these issues, I am far more knowledgeable than anyone else in this forum.

[Unregistered]

On the other hand, the set of values that you uphold and preach here need to be challenged.

Okay, let's begin:

I uphold the safety of my children above all.

Okay, challenge it. Show me how my values are wrong.

[Mildred]

I'm still reading. You are both to be commended for at least engaging in dialogue about a subject most Americans are formed by but refuse to discuss.

Maybe one of the causes for the suburbs is that women are, by nature, concerned with safety over social justice. I've heard the woman who lives in the suburb state this unequivacally, and I am grateful that the man who lives in the inner city acknowledges her feelings about this while disagreeing with her rationale.

Also, I'd like to point out that there are trends developing of suburbanites moving back to the cities. Hint: excellent real estate values in areas experiencing gentrification.

The perspective about crime stats is interesting. I don't think he is saying that citizens who live in the suburbs don't report crimes. Rather that the stats don't are under reported by the municipalities. I experienced this also when I was attending college in the Midwest during the 1970's. While the news was all over the crime wave in Denver, our college town ran riot every night. I never saw one riot, murder, suicide, or burglary make it to the news. Why? I guess the University, who bascially were "the" business in town, didn't want the parents bringing home their children home. This was during the Vietnam War and children were suffering from the worst sort of despair and the news was even more managed than it is now.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to commend you both for being willing to discuss the issues which shape us but people are so in denial about. Someday,I pray that the widening gulfs between the races in America will begin to close again. This can only happen when people stop hiding behind political correctness and begin to air their differences.

Keep it up! I admire you both.

[Unregistered]

Maybe one of the causes for the suburbs is that women are, by nature, concerned with safety over social justice.

But this assumes that social justice can only be achieved if one moves into the city. But one can be concerned about social justice and still live in the suburbs. One way to achieve social justice is through good teaching. In fact, it is probably the best way to achieve this goal. Yet, if anything, I am chastised for driving into the inner city to teach.

Keep in mind that I don't teach in the inner city necessarily for altruistic reasons. I think kids need good teaching in every school, not just the inner city. I figure that as long as I do a good job, what difference does it make? A person with all the right social justice motives doesn't do the kids a bit of good if he doesn't teach well.

I've heard the woman who lives in the suburb state this unequivacally, and I am grateful that the man who lives in the inner city acknowledges her feelings about this while disagreeing with her rationale.

He might acknowledge my reasons, but he doesn't respect them. Because in his world, good people must do those things *he* considers worthy. I don't buy that one bit. I think people should set their own priorities. To some people, it is more important to live amongst "the people." To others, it is sending their kids to the best schools. I respect both.

The perspective about crime stats is interesting. I don't think he is saying that citizens who live in the suburbs don't report crimes. Rather that the stats don't are under reported by the municipalities. I experienced this also when I was attending college in the Midwest during the 1970's. While the news was all over the crime wave in Denver, our college town ran riot every night. I never saw one riot, murder, suicide, or burglary make it to the news. Why? I guess the University, who bascially were "the" business in town, didn't want the parents bringing home their children home.

Actually, he specifically referred to arrest rates and statistics, not public perception. Read the following:

The crime statistics for inner city neighborhoods simply reflect a higher arrest rate. (my emphasis)

Besides, things have changed. For example, when the football coach gets in trouble, the local press is all over him. This was not generally true in the 1970s, when the press protected local interests. The local press doesn't care about protecting property values -- they want viewership.

But this doesn't matter if one looks at official statistics. Unless a police force is corrupt, arrests are recorded.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to commend you both for being willing to discuss the issues which shape us but people are so in denial about. Someday,I pray that the widening gulfs between the races in America will begin to close again.

And what will close it? In my opinion, good teaching. And that is what I do.

[Unregistered]

"A person with all the right social justice motives doesn't do the kids a bit of good if he doesn't teach well."

If your pedagogical foundations hold that underlying motives are irrelevant, then I'd be interested in knowing if those notions are purely personal or is there a school of thought that denies the importance of ideals.

" Because in his world, good people must do those things *he* considers worthy."

You are speaking from the emotions of hurt feelings. Sorry about that, but the point has always been a defense of the inner city which you dismiss so blithely. Turning the arguement around so that you are the person under attack is simply juvenile.

"And what will close it? In my opinion, good teaching. And that is what I do."

We'll have to take your inflated opinion of your abilities with a bit of salt since you just finished informing us that your earlier diatrabe about "safe" neighborhoods is purely subjective. If you're going to retreat into the world of "because I said so" you're going to be alone in there.

At the end of the day, "good teaching" which apparantly you define as meeting the standards set by the state, will have little or no effect on the lives of the students in financially depressed areas of the permanent underclass in America. But of course, it does allow teachers to come and go without investing themselves in the problems the children they teach live and grow in.

If you haven't gotten the point yet, (and clearly you haven't) you've managed to wall yourself in pretty efficiently. Not exactly Teresa of Calcutta, eh? You'd probably visit the hospices and teach them times tables while they're starving in front of your eyes (self blinded as they are).
The problem isn't the walls around the community you retreat to every night. The problem is the walls around your heart which render you incapable of the simplest acts of empathetic kindness.

I don't blame you for being afraid. Your continued response to that fear is something that sooner or later you will have to take responsibity for.

[Unregistered]

If your pedagogical foundations hold that underlying motives are irrelevant, then I'd be interested in knowing if those notions are purely personal or is there a school of thought that denies the importance of ideals.

I expressed my opinion. If you have evidence to show that underlying motives are more important than the actual product, feel free to post it.

You are speaking from the emotions of hurt feelings. Sorry about that, but the point has always been a defense of the inner city which you dismiss so blithely.

I am more interested in teaching them; you are more interested in not hurting their feelings.

We'll have to take your inflated opinion of your abilities...

Are you a good teacher? By what measure?

...with a bit of salt since you just finished informing us that your earlier diatrabe about "safe" neighborhoods is purely subjective.

I am not sure what diatribe you are talking about. I never stated any diatribe against the inner city. I said very clearly that I know both neighborhoods (better than you do, that's for sure) and from what I have seen, and from what statistics support, the suburbs are a better place to live for what I hold personally dear.

Maybe the inner city is better for someone else. That's their call. I don't go around knocking their decision, so why knock mine?

At the end of the day, "good teaching" which apparantly you define as meeting the standards set by the state, will have little or no effect on the lives of the students in financially depressed areas of the permanent underclass in America.

Sorry, but that is nuts. Look at the skills and concepts that appear throughout the state content standards. If students can demonstrate proficiency on those standards, then they will be given the best chance available to succeed.

The only other alternative is to wait until true social justice comes around. In the meantime, what is going to happen to these kids?

But since you seem to think the state content standards are unworthy, point out a few state content standards and explain why the skills and concepts in them are really not necessary. Let's see some examples.

By the way, the phrase "permanent underclass" is just code for "there is no hope, so I am absolved of any blame for my failure to teach them."

But of course, it does allow teachers to come and go without investing themselves in the problems the children they teach live and grow in.

Describe "investing yourself" and tell us exactly how that helps students achieve their life goals. I am tired of this mumbo-jumbo being passed off as a means of achieving success for these kids. Tell us your method; I've told you mine. And none of your abstract bumper-sticker baloney; give us a real tangible process (ha!) and describe how it will put more money in their pockets when they grow up. (Let me guess: our kids don't need money because it is a tool of the bourgeoisie, right?)

[Unregistered]

If you want to invest yourself in your students lives:

1. How many of the children in your class come to school malnourished?
2. How many have tooth problems that require dentist care?
3. How many undiagnosed chronic illnesses or learning disabilities?
4. How many suffer from neglect because one or both parents are imprisoned?
5. How many are currently safer in school than in their own home?

Now, I'm not suggesting you should take an interest in these vital areas of the lives of the children who you see every day. Just that teaching them to do long division might not be meeting all of their needs. Nothing wrong with teaching them long division either. But stop pretending your meeting their needs or even care enough to try. If you can go in every day, do your little minimum effort, collect your pay, and go back to the suburbs with a clear conscience, more power to you. But stop looking for people to admire you for it, because it would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful.

[Unregistered]

You mean I have to care about children to be a teacher?

It's not enough to just make my A.P.I?

[Unregistered]

If you want to invest yourself in your students lives:

1. How many of the children in your class come to school malnourished?
2. How many have tooth problems that require dentist care?
3. How many undiagnosed chronic illnesses or learning disabilities?
4. How many suffer from neglect because one or both parents are imprisoned?
5. How many are currently safer in school than in their own home?

I asked for you to describe what you DO to invest in their lives, and all I get are some questions.

What is your PLAN??? What are you going to actually do to help these kids succeed?

Maybe some of your kids need dental care. Are you going to fix their teeth? Are you going to pay for their dental care to fix the problem? What exactly, pray tell, are you going to do about their dental problems?

I have the answer: Nothing. There isn't a **** thing you are going to do about their dental problems. So quit pretending you are really helping them by acting concerned.

I teach them long division because education is the best chance they have of making it in the future. I am a teacher, not a dentist. I can focus on acting concerned about their teeth, or I can focus on teaching them useful skills and concepts. I choose the latter, because I focus on those things I can control.

Now, do I feel bad when I hear of their misfortunes? Of course. But that doesn't stop me from focusing on teaching them, because ultimately it is quality instruction that will leave the most lasting legacy from their academic careers.

If you can go in every day, do your little minimum effort, collect your pay, and go back to the suburbs with a clear conscience, more power to you.

What is this "little minimum effort" baloney you are talking about? I work my tail off, and I hold myself accountable any time they fail to succeed. (Do you?)

You don't have to be Mother Theresa to do a good job. I try my hardest to teach my best because I am a professional. That is what professionals do. And nothing ticks me off more than to see people not caring to do their best, or defending those that fail to do their best.

But stop looking for people to admire you for it, because it would be laughable if it weren't so pitiful.

Is it any worse than expecting people to admire you for your sincerity, when in fact your sincerity is no solution to the kids' problems?

Again, what are you going to do to help these kids become successful?

[Unregistered]

You mean I have to care about children to be a teacher?

It's not enough to just make my A.P.I?

Do your students make API?

[Unregistered]

If all you can do to help the children who are suffering from so much neglect is teach them math, then fine. You are qualified to discuss that issue. You may not judge them on any other level and you certainly should not complain about the difficulties of teaching them.

There are educators who try to make a difference in their students' lives. At our site, each teacher "adopts" anywhere from one to many students and makes sure they have dental care or other needs mentioned above taken care of. We have found professionals to help, taken up collections, and in many instances, paid for the services out of our own pockets.

We have followed out students into college and careers, helping them every step along the way. We provide a nurturing atmosphere that makes a difference in the lives of students. Now, even the students who used to cause problems feel part of a community and try to contribute rather than tear down.

I don't tell you about this to boast or make you feel guilty. But if you can't be part of the solutions. keep your opinions about our community and our children in the back of your math book.

[Unregistered]

If all you can do to help the children who are suffering from so much neglect is teach them math, then fine. You are qualified to discuss that issue. You may not judge them on any other level and you certainly should not complain about the difficulties of teaching them.

I *don't* complain about the difficulties in teaching them. I don't find them that difficult to teach. They can learn any of the standards-based lessons I deliver, so why would I complain? They also don't misbehave.

There are educators who try to make a difference in their students' lives. At our site, each teacher "adopts" anywhere from one to many students and makes sure they have dental care or other needs mentioned above taken care of. We have found professionals to help, taken up collections, and in many instances, paid for the services out of our own pockets.

Many, as in possibly a dozen? How many teachers are on your staff? Is paying out-of-pocket expenses expected of every teacher?

Is your school having a hard time keeping teachers on its payroll?

Sorry, but I was not hired to raise someone else's kids. I have my own kids to care for. How can we expect to hire enough talented professionals to teach in the inner city if we expect them to dig into their own pockets to take care of someone else's kids?

We have followed out students into college and careers...

You can fix their teeth, but if you don't teach the basic skills and concepts they need for future success it won't matter.

I provide the instruction that allows them to go to college. That is why I ask if your kids make API. How successful are you in teaching EVERY kid in class standards-based content?

[Mildred]

The great dialogue continues, and who would think to find such refreshing ideas in such an ill named post?

To the teacher who is participating in the proactive programs to help students from the underclass, I applaud you and your colleagues. I gather from your success stories, that you have seen the positive results on test scores, but more importantly on lives that have become successful.

To the teacher who just wants to do a good job teaching math and then go home, well, my goodness, isn't that what you were hired to do? And if you are doing a good job then you have as much right to be proud as the next person. Any teacher who can take a class full of boys and girls with all sorts of disabilities and disadvantages and all levels of math skills and send them out at the end of the year with all their skills intact has nothing to feel defensive about.

I am glad that the teacher who voluneers so much time and income to helping underpriviledged students made the point at the beginning that there is no guilt to those who just do their jobs. We teachers need to be supportive of anyone who devotes themselves to the challenges of helping those children abandoned by society. Whether you do it by just good instuction or helpiing to ease their other needs, I, for one, thank and applaud you.

We should never assume that just because a teacher cares about his students physical and emotional needs she is ignoring good teaching, and vice versa.

I became a teacher because of all the teachers who helped me along the way. I couldn't have made it out of the cycle of poverty without their help.Keep up the good work.

[Unregistered]

Let's go back:

If all you can do to help the children who are suffering from so much neglect is teach them math, then fine.

You don't sense the sarcasm in the above statement?

Here's another:

But if you can't be part of the solutions.

I *am* a part of the solution, because education is the most powerful tool my kids will have to become successful in the future. And contrary to what you think, the others in this thread do not respect my stance.

Whether you do it by just good instuction or helpiing to ease their other needs, I, for one, thank and applaud you.

What do you mean by "or helping to ease their other needs..."? Sorry, but it is not an "or" situation. We were not hired to choose between the two -- we were hired to teach. That is why I continously ask if their kids make API (notice they never respond). If a teacher fails to teach, they cannot make up for it by turning into a social worker.

You can fix a child's teeth, but if the child fails to learn grade-level content they are likely doomed.

[Unregistered]

What do you mean by "or helping to ease their other needs..."? Sorry, but it is not an "or" situation. We were not hired to choose between the two -- we were hired to teach. That is why I continously ask if their kids make API (notice they never respond). If a teacher fails to teach, they cannot make up for it by turning into a social worker.

You can fix a child's teeth, but if the child fails to learn grade-level content they are likely doomed.

This assumption of your that you are the only teacher in the world who performs her job well is wearing a bit thin. Nowhere in any of these posts have the teacher(s) who have been arguing for taking care of student needs suggested that this concern substitute for good teaching. You sound as if you are attacking the teachers who try to help the children they see every day perform better by making sure they are well fed and not in pain. Your obsession with ranking yourself high by tearing down other teachers is becoming an all out attack on any goodness outside of Lisa world. You used to be a contributer. More and more you are just a detractor. Nobody but you on this site know how well you teach or don't. And your opinion of yourself just isn't relevant to anyone else. Either try to understand something besides the insides of your own head, or keep your moronic, self inflated mumblings to yourself.

[Unregistered]

This assumption of your that you are the only teacher in the world who performs her job well is wearing a bit thin.

Do your students make API?

Naturally, no one is going to argue against social welfare if the students are being well taught. But when I ask that question repeatedly and I don't get an answer, I begin to wonder why.

Nowhere in any of these posts have the teacher(s) who have been arguing for taking care of student needs suggested that this concern substitute for good teaching.

They have repeatedly argued that good teaching is not as important as social welfare. Here's one:

At the end of the day, "good teaching" which apparantly you define as meeting the standards set by the state, will have little or no effect on the lives of the students in financially depressed areas of the permanent underclass in America. But of course, it does allow teachers to come and go without investing themselves in the problems the children they teach live and grow in.

Little or no effect? Permanent underclass? You don't see how the poster is dissing the importance of good teaching?

Remember how this argument started. I was initially attacked because I chose to live in the suburbs. Many in here stated that my teaching was essentially worthless because I didn't "care" enough about my students. Some even prodded me to quit my job, never minding my effectiveness as a teacher.

The inner city has always struggled to attract good teachers. I am a good teacher that is willing to drive into the inner city and teach. However, to many in here it is better that I leave a vacancy to be filled by (hopefully) someone with a purely altruistic mission, never minding their teaching skill. To me, that is a disastrous outlook.

You sound as if you are attacking the teachers who try to help the children they see every day perform better by making sure they are well fed and not in pain.

Not once (not even ONCE) has any of my detractors even mentioned that they successfully teach their students. Why is that?

It can't be modesty, because they brag about how much social welfare they perform. But they never mention their teaching successes. Even when I ask, they don't respond.

So how well are they actually teaching grade-level content to every kid in class?

Unlike you, I don't assume that they are doing a good job teaching simply because they perform social welfare. The act of caring alone does not make a great, or even good, teacher. Their students either understand the quadratic formula and how to use it, or they don't.

[Unregistered]

Yes, and unlike you, I don't assume you are doing a good job just because you claim to be a great teacher.

Perhaps you are unaware of the history of minorties in the United States or consider it irrlevant that American Indian children were beaten for speaking the language of their parents. Maybe those teachers were jim dandy at math skills, but they were a disaster to the children.

Maybe you are unaware of the struggle for African Americans to acquire an education in an environment that does not, consciously or unconciously, enforce racial stereotypes to the detriment of the children.

I'm happy that you made your A.P.I. Sorry if I'm not impressed by it, but it simply isn't enough. Your attitudes are fine for teaching little suburban children why they are inherently superior. But that same attitude of inherent superiority wrecks havoc amongst students who are struggling to get an education and create a sense of self worth in a society that degrades them on every front, including the ignorant teachers who never question the racist waters they swim in and expose our children to.

[Be Just]

"People who imagine that history flatters them (as it does, indeed,snce they wrote it) are impaled on their history like a butterfly on a pin and become incaplable of seeing or changing themselves, or the world. That is the place in which it seems to me, most white Americans find themsleves. Impaled. they are dimly,or vividly, aware that the history they have fed themselves is mainly a lie, but they do not know how to release themselves from it, and they suffer enormously form the resulting personal incpherence."
James Baldwin, "The White Man's Guilt," Ebony, August, 1965

[Unregistered]

I'm happy that you made your A.P.I.

But you didn't, right? That is becoming quite clear. And your excuse is...?

Sorry if I'm not impressed by it, but it simply isn't enough. Your attitudes are fine for teaching little suburban children why they are inherently superior.

This is getting stupid. I am being compared to teachers who beat their Native American students and those who teach racial superiority.

Some teachers in this forum make me laugh. They fall all over themselves with congratulations about how much they care for their students, but their students fail to make API.

[Unregistered]

"People who imagine that history flatters them (as it does, indeed,snce they wrote it) are impaled on their history like a butterfly on a pin and become incaplable of seeing or changing themselves, or the world. That is the place in which it seems to me, most white Americans find themsleves. Impaled. they are dimly,or vividly, aware that the history they have fed themselves is mainly a lie, but they do not know how to release themselves from it, and they suffer enormously form the resulting personal incpherence."
James Baldwin, "The White Man's Guilt," Ebony, August, 1965

Interesting quote. Do your students have the reading comprehension skills that would enable them to glean the meaning of such a quote? Probably not.

I can guess that the back of your car is plastered with bumper stickers, but your students continously fail to make API. I can walk through a school parking lot and peg those whose students perform miserably on standardized tests. I just look for the bumper stickers.

[Be Just]

Sorry I dont' get the big deal about making your A.P.I. Are you the lone ranger at your school that you feel you have to be blowing your A.P.I trumpet all the time. You act as if making your A.P.I is the golden fleece or something. I've never not made my A.P.I. But what does that have to do with anything? Telling people on the internet your credentials is ridiculous because anyone can claim anything here, that's why the ideas must stand on there merits and not lean on this phoney appeal to authority (like just making your A.P.I. the minimum standard, makes you an authority.)
Get over yourself, Lisa. You're not the only teacher in the U.S. to have made the minimum standards for your job last year. And even if you were, it doesn't make you an authority. That's the beauty of this medium,your ideas and only your ideas stand here naked and unadorned. so quit trying to impress us with your teeny little A.P.I and write something worth reading for a change.

[Be Just]

Oh, and by the way, I just finished scaffolding that Baldwin quote with my Far Below Basics Language Arts Class. I take the challenging students and help them excel. If you really care, I'll send you some of their persuasive essays on the subject of the new racism in America. Oh, but then you'd have to post your email address, or, God forbid, at least a Username, and then we might all find out the truth about the wondrous A.P.I. that is your badge to belittle and judge other teachers.

[Unregistered]

If you really care, I'll send you some of their persuasive essays on the subject of the new racism in America.

It sounds like you are more concerned about the political content of their essays then the actual writing skill used to create them.

Like I said... bumper stickers.

[Unregistered]

[quoete]Oh, but then you'd have to post your email address, or, God forbid, at least a Username, and then we might all find out the truth about the wondrous A.P.I. that is your badge to belittle and judge other teachers.[/quote]

Let's see... because I live in the suburbs I am called racist... and then I am accused of judging other teachers. Uh-huh.

You're not the only teacher in the U.S. to have made the minimum standards for your job last year.

But there are a lot of them that didn't. Look at the test scores. How do you explain the large numbers of kids with low test scores if making API is so easy?

Telling people on the internet your credentials is ridiculous because anyone can claim anything here...

Hmmmm....

I take the challenging students and help them excel.

[Unregistered]

Be Just, thanks for stepping in here with some relevant quotes and comments. Apparantly you are taking on the challenging jobs and making a success of it. More importantly from our perspective, as I've been arguing here, you appear to be sensitive to the culture of America's underclass and the racism we struggle against which now passes as political correctness.

Teaching in America has been the province of white women with solidly conservative values, though often with a sugar coating of liberalism. The real solution to our problem is for more people of color to join the teaching profession. Though I believe it is possible for white people to transcend their racist mindset, it requires a reflective mind and an education beyond the mainstream. I'd given up trying to make any headway on this website when you came into the picture.

I know there are teachers out there who are not simply spouting the propaganda of the system while hiding behind standards, but outside of my school site, I haven't met any. Maybe you are the exception. I'd like to hear more of your curriculum. But from the lady who thinks that any ideas outside of her little suburban white world belong on the bumper sticker, you need to read a book.

[Be Just]

Thanks for the kind words. I do agree that so much is determined by the books we choose to read. Teachers who have gone to school in past 15 years in my home state of California have recieved some classes to teach how to think outside of one's native culture. Too many older teachers, or teachers of skill like math and technology, are functionally illiterate sociologically.

[BigDaddyTeacher]

Though I believe it is possible for white people to transcend their racist mindset, it requires a reflective mind and an education beyond the mainstream.

Interesting sentence (and yes, I picked it out from the middle of the post because it was relevent to me). I was reading a book aloud to some 4th graders, and we came across a reference to a minstrel show. Try defining that to 28 10 year-olds without being a little scared!



I do agree that so much is determined by the books we choose to read.

Up to a point, I would agree. I read mostly science-fiction, fantasy, and mysteries, with the occasional 'real-world' book thrown in to keep me grounded. Does it follow, then, that my imagination is more developed than those who choose to not read these genres? I tend to use those types of books in my classroom, especially with the students who have never picked up that type. Or, should I focus on having them read what everyone else is reading?

[Be Just]

Thanks for your comments, Big Daddy Teacher. I always enjoy reading your posts. I think the first step to surpassing our inherited bigotry is acknowledging that it exists.

I wouldn't presume to tell you what to read. I will say that Richard Wright and James Baldwin are delightful reading and a very good place to begin learning what it means to grow up nonwhite in America.

It isn't about color, by the way. Corporations and government agencies love to boast about their sensitivity to the needs of the underclass by hiring a few wealthy people with a certain skin cast. Thus the tired old maxim, "Some of my best friends are...."

One of the men I most admire once quipped, "I was born white, but I got over it." I took that to mean he learned to see beyond the smug superiority that marks an individual or an institution as racist. Another way to look at this is along the lines of the old saw: "If you look around the poker table and don't see the poker player, it's you."

If you think racism is a problem solved in the 1960's you are still a racist. In that case, it is time to start working on the problem. Reading is an excellent place to begin.

I hope you find this helpful and not insulting. That might be another good litmus test, come to think of it.

[Be Just]

Big Daddy, since you're a sci-fi buff, have you devoured Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" and Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed"?

Both are sci-fi books with a theme about growing beyond one's cultural milieu. I've used them both as textbooks in college classes on Critical Thinking, which is, I think, what we're talking about here: learning to think beyond the box we were born into. No?

[Unregistered]

If you think racism is a problem solved in the 1960's you are still a racist.

Not to be judgmental, or anything. :D

[Unregistered]

Not to be judgmental, or anything. :D

Making judgements is the responsibility of intelligent persons. Being judgemental (or decrying real judgement as such) is the province of the ignorant.

[Unregistered]

You don't even really know the people you are labeling, yet you claim you are not judging. (And labeling is exactly what you are doing.)

I have an idea: Let's quit labeling people we don't even know.

[Dr. Chen]

Labeling? Isn't that another word for "judging"? Funny how the only time anyone ever objects to it is when they're on the wrong end.

Maybe you can explain how communication in this medium, i.e. in print alone, without any other contact, can be accomplished without making judgements.

Or perhaps you object to others drawing conclusions about your overall stance based upon the words you choose to represent you.

Why can't you simply accept correction instead of crying out about being judged? Is it really so difficult for you to imagine that you might be affected by the stain of racism?

Instead of playing the hurt victim, why not consider the possibility that your words on this site have revealed the contempt you harbor deep inside and all can see it displayed here. If you cannot accept the possibility that you are part of a racist culture, you are clearly trapped in denial. For another to point that out to you may be painful, but it is not mere name calling just because it hurts your feelings. There is far more at stake here than your feelings. If those who judge you by your words are even partly correct in the analysis of the intent behind your words, then you have much to gain by investigating new ways of thinking about your relationship to the people you have been taught to fear and disdain.

[Unregistered]

Labeling? Isn't that another word for "judging"? Funny how the only time anyone ever objects to it is when they're on the wrong end.

Tell it to the person who wrote:

Oh, but then you'd have to post your email address, or, God forbid, at least a Username, and then we might all find out the truth about the wondrous A.P.I. that is your badge to belittle and judge other teachers.

We move on...

Maybe you can explain how communication in this medium, i.e. in print alone, without any other contact, can be accomplished without making judgements.

Easy. Don't call people racist simply because they choose to live in a certain area of town. Or because they feel that the school in the suburbs is safer for their kids.

Or don't call people racist at all unless you really know them.

Why can't you simply accept correction...

How have I been corrected? No one has backed up any of their responses with a shred of evidence. Instead, we got statements about Beverly Hills being as violent as South Central LA (which I refuted with actual statistics). Calling people racist is the only method they have.

So let me ask again: Who in here can demonstrate/show/prove/support the statement that the school I chose to place my kids is as dangerous as the place where I work?

Go ahead, Dr. Chen. Since you decided to stick your nose in it, why not try and back up their claims? I have asked them repeatedly and received nothing.

And you won't be able to. Because all you have in your argumentation arsenal is the ability to insult. But go ahead and prove me wrong.

Is it really so difficult for you to imagine that you might be affected by the stain of racism?

Show me the evidence that I am racist.

If you cannot accept the possibility that you are part of a racist culture, you are clearly trapped in denial.

We are all part of a racist culture. So are you. But that doesn't make you racist, nor me.

[Dr. Chen]

We are all part of a racist culture. So are you. But that doesn't make you racist, nor me.

Actually, it does. If you join a violent, street gang, you become, by default, a person of violence.

But we were born into a racist "gang" or culture. If you accept that premise, as you apparantly do, then we are, as you suggest, by definition, "racist".

Now the issue becomes whether you accept your complicity or deny it. Once you accept that you are indeed a racist, as I have about myself, then you can begin to take control of the situation.

Although we cannot change the circumstances of our birth, we need not succumb to them. Recognize that the statements you have made are those of a racist by cultural identity and you will have made your first step out of denial and into a more enlightened understanding of the world we live in.

[Unregistered]

Actually, it does. If you join a violent, street gang, you become, by default, a person of violence.

But we were born into a racist "gang" or culture. If you accept that premise, as you apparantly do, then we are, as you suggest, by definition, "racist".

Hold it right there. You have employed a fallacy. Using an analogy as a premise is bad logic. You have not connected violence with racism, nor a street gang with the general population. Until you establish such a connection, your logic is caca.

By the way, "a person of violence" is not the same as a "violent person." The accountant for a street gang may be the meekest person on the block. In fact, he may not even be aware that he is working for a gang. After all, the mere inclusion in the activities of the gang is, according to your logic, all that is needed to label the person "violent." And this is where your analogy breaks down because by the same token "a person of a racist culture" is not an equivalent statement to "a racist person."

And why did you use the street gang as your analogy when we all belong to a violent culture?

Your analogy suffers another flaw: The street gang member joined voluntarily. If members were chosen at birth and had no choice but to join, then calling them "violent" would be not only unfair but meaningless. What reasonable person would use the term "violent" to describe such a person?

[Be Just]

That last post was a mastery of evasion. Pick apart the details and thereby avoid the main point entirely. You might as well spell check the Declaration of Independence while denying equality.

May we take it then that you refuse to consider the possibility that you are a a racist by any definition?

[Unregistered]

Ha ha. That's rich, Be Just.

It should be obvious by now that the suburbanite has no intention of altering her postition. Why should she? As long as American society is divided by the issue of race, the haves can continue to ignore any responsibility for their complicity in the suffering of the have nots.

[Dr. Chen]

I have also noticed that, apart from the young, discussion alone rarely moves persons from culturally entrenched positions such as attitudes toward race. As the subject evinces, the defensiveness concerning the mere terminology has become an impediment to any hope of clarity. Like others here, I continue to hope for change. And yet, as the last writer pointed out, there is little motivation for change from the members of the class that benefits directly from continued hostility toward the underclasses.

[Unregistered]

Easy. Don't call people racist simply because they choose to live in a certain area of town. Or because they feel that the school in the suburbs is safer for their kids.

Or don't call people racist at all unless you really know them.

One more time, here, nobody here has called you a racist because you live in the suburbs. Did you get it this time? I'll say it one more time: you are not a racist because you live in the suburbs. So please, stop playing the victim.

The only issue about the suburbs was your automatically assuming that your neighborhood is superior because it is white. You have gone so far as to state that people of color would rather live where you do if they could afford it.

Where you live does not,necessarily make you a racist. Your motives are what make you a racist. And whether you are concsious of it or not, your motives are quite transparant to the rest of us here.

[Unregistered]

The only issue about the suburbs was your automatically assuming that your neighborhood is superior because it is white.

I never said that, or anything even remotely similar to that. Quote me verbatim if you disagree.

[Mildred]

I never said that, or anything even remotely similar to that. Quote me verbatim if you disagree.

"Not only White Americans, but wealthier Black Americans and Hispanic Americans moved out as well. This isn't about race, but rather money. Who can blame them? I live in a nicer neighborhood than I teach. I chose this neighborhood (mostly blue-collar, but some white-collar) because it has fairly good schools. It would be stupid to jeopardize the future of my kids to prove a point."

This quote, and others can be found on page 3 of this thread.

While I too find this quote high-handed and myopic, I'm not sure I can agree entirely that it is necesarily racist.

We might get further in this discussion, a really fruitful one in my opinion, if we did avoid labeling. Have you ever known anyone who publicly admitted to racism in this modern time? It has become a perjorative that even people with sheets over their heads deny.

Perhaps we might continue this discussion by simply discussing ways to make education more equitable in neighborhoods abandoned by two generations of middle class America. Whether the motives behind this abandonment are racial or security will be probably not be solved here.

[Unregistered]

"Not only White Americans, but wealthier Black Americans and Hispanic Americans moved out as well. This isn't about race, but rather money.[/quiote]

That's right -- this ISN'T about race. The earlier label "White Flight" is racist because it assumes that only white people want to move into nice neighborhoods. Black Americans and Hispanic Americans have the same ambitions to improve their lot in life. It is insulting to them to think, on account of their race, that they don't mind living in rough neighborhoods.

When a Black athlete signs a multi-million dollar contract, do you think they have no ambition to move into upscale neighborhoods? Was O.J. Simpson living in the same neighborhood he grew up? Of course not.

[quote]Who can blame them? I live in a nicer neighborhood than I teach. I chose this neighborhood (mostly blue-collar, but some white-collar) because it has fairly good schools. It would be stupid to jeopardize the future of my kids to prove a point."

Nowhere did I say, or even suggest, that this neighborhood is better BECAUSE white people live in it. I clearly stated that I chose the neighborhood because of the quality of schools, not that the schools have large numbers of white students.

You ASSUMED, but what do they say about what happens when we ************-u-me?

[Unregistered]

I have also noticed that, apart from the young, discussion alone rarely moves persons from culturally entrenched positions such as attitudes toward race. As the subject evinces, the defensiveness concerning the mere terminology has become an impediment to any hope of clarity. Like others here, I continue to hope for change. And yet, as the last writer pointed out, there is little motivation for change from the members of the class that benefits directly from continued hostility toward the underclasses.

So many words, yet you refused once again to answer any of my questions, even after I prodded you.

[Unregistered]

All of your responses Assume that your words are not loaded with racist tone and underlying meaning.

For example, you seem totally unaware that you chose the most notorious examples of an African-American male who denys his race. O.J. married a white woman and then beheaded her and her white lover. His only connections to the community of his birth were during his trial. As soon as the trial was over, he abandoned his people again. He is the poster boy for the white superiority model that you reek of.

The white myth that you so typically espouse, that all African Americans follow this model and that as soon as one our our people have the financial means he or she seeks to become "white" has, like all other racist notions a sad grain of truth in it. The media is quick to pick up the OJ's and the Michael Jacksons. I would suggest you pick up a book about one of our genuine role models to help you see outside of the stereotyping that peppers your every argument.

If you follow the life of Muhammad Ali, Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta, Malcolm, Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta and many others, you will find examples of people who remained true to the call of duty that all oppressed people must either live up to or seflishly deny.

I don't expect you to awaken from the racist notions you are unable to admit to, but I hope the others who read and contribute here will continue to see you as a prime example of what infects so many Americans.

[Unregistered]

"The [suburban] man is a man without a city -- in short a barbarian. Small wonder that bathtubs and heating systems and similar apparatus play such a large part in his conception of the good life. These are the compensations that carry him through his perpetual neurosis." -- Lewis Mumford, "The Wilderness of Suburbia" (1921)

"For literally nothing down ... you too can find a box of your own in one of the fresh-air slums we're building around the edges of American cities ... inhabited by people whose age, income, number of children, problems, habits, conversations, dress, possessions, and perhaps even blood type are also precisely like yours. [The suburbs] are developments conceived in error, nurtured by greed, corroding everything they touch." -- John Keats, The Crack in the Picture Window (1957)


"We can say then that we have found suburbia.... [I]t is a state of mind, compounded of demoralization, fear, the numbing of intellectual faculties and the self-loathing that accompanies a dim awareness of all this." -- Robert Goldston, Suburbia: Civic Denial (1970)


"House, house, house, house, strip mall, supermarket, parking lot. House, house, house, house." -- Stuart Klawans' review of subUrbia, in The Nation (1996)

[Unregistered]

For example, you seem totally unaware that you chose the most notorious examples of an African-American male who denys his race. O.J. married a white woman and then beheaded her and her white lover. His only connections to the community of his birth were during his trial. As soon as the trial was over, he abandoned his people again. He is the poster boy for the white superiority model that you reek of.

Your logic is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any minority who leaves for better neighborhoods is no longer a minority in your eyes, so no matter which example I propose you can always wheel that argument out.

For example, my sister lived a few doors down from Cowboys star Roy Williams. This is definitely a well-to-do neighborhood and mostly white. Now, according to your logic this example does not count since Roy Williams cannot be truly black since he moved into a white neighborhood.

All you have to do is look at the places where Black Americans, White Americans, and Hispanic Americans move when they become wealthy. Moving into rich neighborhooods is not a white thing, it is a part of the American dream. That is just the reality of the situation.

If you follow the life of Muhammad Ali, Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta, Malcolm, Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta and many others, you will find examples of people who remained true to the call of duty that all oppressed people must either live up to or seflishly deny.

Muahamad Ali lives on a huge ranch in Michigan. That is hardly remaining true to his roots. How many of his ranching neighbors do you guess are Black? If anything, Ali is a prime example of what I am talking about.

And how many people really have the drive to live up to this ideal? You are naming six or seven people. South Central Los Angeles has over a million people, so how can you assume that even more than a tiny percent would be able to deny their ambitions so as to remain in the city no matter how much money they made in the future?

[Unregistered]

Well I think you've worn me down. In the end, at least on this thread, the two views remain separate, though not necesarilly equal.

Unhappily, our nation remains a place largely segregated by race. Apparantly, those who have found refuge from the issue in the suburbs have their rationale fully developed and will brook no questioning of their motives. I had hoped for something better, but we shouldn't be surprised. The story of how middle class America moved from the turbulent 60's to the somnambulant 2000's is, if nothing else, a testament to the remarkable adaptability and hardiness of racial attitudes.

[Unregistered]

I had hoped for something better, but we shouldn't be surprised.

Tell it to Muhammad Ali. Apparently he wasn't any more interested in living in the inner city than I am. Couldn't explain your way out of that one, could you?

And no one ever did tell me whether or not Roy Williams is doing something wrong by moving into a nice, upscale neighborhood. I ask a simple question, I don't get a simple answer. I don't get an answer at all.

The problem is that too many are quick to use the racist label on people they don't even know. I explained that, based on my observations, the school my kids attend provides a better learning environment than the school where I work. I also stated that I preferred living in the suburbs because I like the neighborhood more than the area where I work.

Too many in here are too unwilling to admit that I might be right, or at least have the right to form my own opinion.

Now, some of you have taken it upon yourself to provide extra social services for some of the students in your classes. Fine. But don't try and make that a standard for every teacher out there to be considered worthy of respect. I am not responsible for the upbringing of the students in my class; that's the parents' job. I have my own kids to take care of, and that's enough.

However, that doesn't prevent me from doing the best teaching job I can. And that is what I am paid to do.

Apparantly, those who have found refuge from the issue in the suburbs have their rationale fully developed and will brook no questioning of their motives.

Who knows my motives more... you or me? Who are you to question my motives when you don't even know me?

[Unregistered]

Here's a woman who judges entire neighborhoods and protests when her motives are questioned.

[BigDaddyTeacher]

Sorry this is so late - I've been on vacation!

Thanks for your comments, Big Daddy Teacher. I always enjoy reading your posts. I think the first step to surpassing our inherited bigotry is acknowledging that it exists.

I wouldn't presume to tell you what to read. I will say that Richard Wright and James Baldwin are delightful reading and a very good place to begin learning what it means to grow up nonwhite in America.

It isn't about color, by the way. Corporations and government agencies love to boast about their sensitivity to the needs of the underclass by hiring a few wealthy people with a certain skin cast. Thus the tired old maxim, "Some of my best friends are...."

And, there's always that great line from Steve Martin's movie, "The Jerk;"
'I was born a poor black child..."


If you think racism is a problem solved in the 1960's you are still a racist. In that case, it is time to start working on the problem. Reading is an excellent place to begin.

I hope you find this helpful and not insulting. That might be another good litmus test, come to think of it.

Never insulting. If reasonable adults cannot discuss hot topics with a clear head, well, where would we be?


Big Daddy, since you're a sci-fi buff, have you devoured Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" and Ursula Le Guin's "The Dispossessed"?

Both are sci-fi books with a theme about growing beyond one's cultural milieu. I've used them both as textbooks in college classes on Critical Thinking, which is, I think, what we're talking about here: learning to think beyond the box we were born into. No?

Both are excellent books, esp SISL. Even had my oldest boy read that one (14). Personally, I think any book that makes one think about themselves and society is a good read. Sadly (?) my current reading vice leans towards classic Star Trek novels. :D

[Be Just]

Big Daddy, thanks for bringing a cool head and some humor into this.

Since you've been honest enough to confess, I started Patrick O'brian's novel #1 last summer and am finishing #20. I'm going to start over when I'm finished, this time with some historical and geographical guides to help me understand.

I don't think broad mindedness is as simple a measure as what books we read for enjoyment. It is more a state of mind, like an evolutionary leap we take some time in our lives and then can never go back again.

I'm willing to bet you had experiences that made you rethink your perspectives on more than one occasion; you learned to care and respect for humanity.

I remember as a kid telling my brother how lucky we were to be born to the best parents with the true religion in the greatest country. That was before the divorce, the loss of faith, and Vietnam. As low as I felt, I remember looking into the eyes of a vlllager child and seeing the fear and pain and realizing that whatever differences existed were paltry.

So some folks have found compassion and the larger view and some are still stuck in childish the view that puts ME IN THE CENTER. There are no bad people or good people, I think, just people who haven't learned compassion and people who have. For whatever reason, the world often rewards the narrow thinking that allows uncomplicated people to get the ruthless work done.

So, long story short, I don't care what degrees you have or what books you read, if you have a heart big enough to care then you're at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Enjoy the view!

[Mildred]

I'm still thinking about this discussion and one person who thinks the suburbs are safer and nicer than the inner cities.

There must be a thin line here. Is it really racist for white people to want to live and raise their families in Mayberry or Lake Woebegone rather than New Jack City? I think that's what it boils down to, the image of home that we carry in our dreams.

Perhaps it is something deeper than racism that makes us want to separate ourselves from the suffering of the world.

Some argue that the dream world of the suburbs can only exist through the exploitation of the rest of humanity. Like the shopper who blithely buys her cellophane wrapped steaks without ever considering the slaughterhouse, we live in a kind of make believe world where we don't want to consider either our potential responsibility to the have nots, or our possible complicity in keeping them have nots.

I'm willing to accept that on a purely intellectual level, but we don't make our major life decisions on a purely intellectual level.

I can't really blame the lady for wanting to go caroling in a wonderland of lights without having to be reminded that there are millions of starving children we are ignoring to have our fun. If that is selfishness, than maybe we are selfish creatures. Don't all people want to live this dream life free from even the thought of suffering? Are we really so bad for trying to find some happiness?

[Unregistered]

I'm still thinking about this discussion and one person who thinks the suburbs are safer and nicer than the inner cities.

Actually, I said that the suburb where I live is better for my family than the inner city where I work.

There must be a thin line here. Is it really racist for white people to want to live and raise their families in Mayberry or Lake Woebegone rather than New Jack City? I think that's what it boils down to, the image of home that we carry in our dreams.

You're absolutely right. Our family values the kind of neighborliness, lawfulness, and cleanliness of the area in which we live. We also value the school environment where my kids attend school.

Now, that may not be a big deal to other people. To each his own.

Perhaps it is something deeper than racism that makes us want to separate ourselves from the suffering of the world.

It's called ambition. The students in my class (hopefully) have the ambition to become successful so that they won't have to live where they do now. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Remember The Jeffersons? They moved "on up," because George became a successful dry cleaner. I don't recall too many people objecting to his moving to Manhattan. In this forum he would be called by some a traitor who "buries his head in the sand" and "ignores the plight of the suffering."

Some argue that the dream world of the suburbs can only exist through the exploitation of the rest of humanity.

Sure, if they buy into Marxist ideology. The truth is that those who moved into the suburbs did what they needed to do to become successful. The idea that the people who moved into the suburbs must own sweat shops, or be slumlords, is just a stereotype. My neighbor the electrician is hardly an abuser of the poor. How do I abuse the poor by teaching them math?

Like the shopper who blithely buys her cellophane wrapped steaks without ever considering the slaughterhouse, we live in a kind of make believe world where we don't want to consider either our potential responsibility to the have nots, or our possible complicity in keeping them have nots.

Can anyone describe my complicity in keeping them have nots.

By driving into the inner city every day to teach, describe how I am supressing their ability to succeed.

There are a lot of ideals being described here, but almost no tangible connections. We just say things like "our complicity in keeping them have nots," without any details on what this complicity entails. What do the people in the suburbs DO that prevents people in the inner city from succeeding?

I can't really blame the lady for wanting to go caroling in a wonderland of lights without having to be reminded that there are millions of starving children we are ignoring to have our fun.

Why not extend that ideal to everyone. Going to Disneyland? You are guilty of ignoring the plight of the poor. Have a nice meal at Chili's? You are starving people in the inner city.

Somewhere up there, Pol Pot is smiling. This is exactly the kind of ideal he was describing when he turned Cambodia into a peasant dreamland.

I have a better idea: Each family should do what it has to do to make it in the world. And when it does, it should be proud of what it accomplishes and enjoy the fruits of its success. And in no way should it feel guilty for problems it had no involvement in creating.

By the way, I realize you were trying to understand my side, but I still think you get caught up too much in what I call "emotional intangibles." We can think about the poor all day, but that isn't going to enrich them. We can feel guilty about the steak we are eating, but that isn't going to feed them.

I focus my efforts on teaching them. I don't do it for altruistic reasons; instead I do it to show everyone how well I can teach. But what difference do my motives make? If they learn algebra, then that is the best thing I can do for them. And that is a helluva lot more than most can say.

[Unregistered]

Remember The Jeffersons? They moved "on up," because George became a successful dry cleaner. I don't recall too many people objecting to his moving to Manhattan. In this forum he would be called by some a traitor who "buries his head in the sand" and "ignores the plight of the suffering."

This must be a math teacher. Her sources for complex sociological issues are based exclusively on sitcom reruns. I'm guessing that's where she learned about Marxism too.

[Unregistered]

I focus my efforts on teaching them. I don't do it for altruistic reasons; instead I do it to show everyone how well I can teach. But what difference do my motives make? If they learn algebra, then that is the best thing I can do for them. And that is a helluva lot more than most can say.

No wonder you are so uncomfortable about discussing your motives: "I do it to show everyone how well I can teach"? That does explain quite a few of your earlier postings. I truly hope you are not over 30 and still focused on this infantile need for recognition.

Incidentally, I wouldn't embarass you by pointing this out except you have the gall to go on .."that is a helluva lot more than most can say." Really? Most? You consistently make remarks lumping" experienced teachers", "veterans", and "most". The dark side of your need for recognition is your need to tear down those around you.

You are in no position to judge the majority of people in our profession. Your subjective experiences would be inadequate for that even if they weren't so tragically colored by clinical narcissism (a grandiose view of one's own talents with an overwhelming need for attention from others, usually without regards for and often at the expense of others.)

[Unregistered]

This must be a math teacher. Her sources for complex sociological issues are based exclusively on sitcom reruns. I'm guessing that's where she learned about Marxism too.

My reasoning was based on the REACTION to a sitcom, not the sitcom itself. If had mentioned how the characters in the sitcom had reacted to George's advancement, then you would have a point. But it wasn't, and you don't.

[Unregistered]

No wonder you are so uncomfortable about discussing your motives: "I do it to show everyone how well I can teach"? That does explain quite a few of your earlier postings. I truly hope you are not over 30 and still focused on this infantile need for recognition.

Just about every professional likes to stand out in the crowd. I am just stating what everyone knows.

When a person buys a new car, they show it off. Sure, they will never admit that they drive the car to demonstrate how they were able to purchase a new one, but that motive is always there.

But you again missed the most important point: The motive is not what is important. Instead, you focus on motive because that allows you to take the argument to the personal level. Instead of discussing my contributions in terms of actual results, you resort to personal attacks.

Incidentally, I wouldn't embarass you by pointing this out except you have the gall to go on .."that is a helluva lot more than most can say." Really? Most? You consistently make remarks lumping" experienced teachers", "veterans", and "most". The dark side of your need for recognition is your need to tear down those around you.

When I say "most" I am referring to the public in general. Take a snapshot of the population and ask yourself, "How many of these people do more for the advancement of the people around them then a math teacher who teaches very well?

The dry cleaner? He gets their shirts clean, but little else.

The waitress? She gets her customers their food, but little else.

Clearly these people have no need to apologize, so why should a math teacher who teaches in the inner city apologize for her contributions, no matter her motives?

And will you answer this question? Probably not.

Let me ask you another question: Why is my motive for teaching so important to you?

[Unregistered]

While I am at it, how about answering some basic questions I asked before, but no one has bothered to answer:

Can anyone describe my complicity in keeping people in the inner city "have nots"?

By driving into the inner city every day to teach, describe how I am supressing their ability to succeed.

[Unregistered]

Important, no. Interesting, yes. In a sick way.

Rarely does such blatant narcissism display such obstinacy. Call an adult on their childish pridefullness, and inevitably you get a blush and a murmured apology. You, on the other hand, are so blissfully unaware of your own faults and so clearly obsessed with those of others that you continue to reveal yourself without the least shred of modesty. Sure, there are many who run down others to build themselves up, but not many are so unashamed of such blatantly inappropriate behavior. I'm just enough of a voyeur to find your persistent braggadocio mildly entertaining.

[Jack Furr]

So what's the BEEF here?? What does it matter as to motives?? Everyone has their own agenda and motives make no difference. The interesting part here is that anyone responded to an unregistered user who obviously takes pot shots from dark corners. Hey if you are still lurking take a shot at this. I also teach mostly poor black kids who need it, and why(??), I dunno, I AM GOOD at it. And someone has to. Examine my motives, take me apart, examine my gramatical errors and have some fun.:rolleyes:
Jack Furr
20 year vet
and PROUD of it
:D

[Unregistered]

Hello, Jack Furr, welcome to the discussion.

So, do you really think motives are irrelevant?

Are you disdainful of the people you teach? Do you consider yourself superior to them? Are you also better than other teachers? Are you better than the person who prepares your meals or does your laundry?

Would you want to send a child you loved to be taught by teachers who believe that your child is less deserving because of the color of her skin?

So, do you really believe motive has no bearing?

[Jack Furr]

Reply to unregistered Lurkers who take cheap shots at others.
BUT in this case:
Your belief is of no concern to me. You (collectively) cannot understand or know my motives, my feelings, belief system, or reasons for being. It should be enough to be. Don't try to read between the lines, there's nothing there.
I can, therefore I teach. Your opinion has no bearing on my reality.
Thanks a bunch!
:rolleyes:

[Unregistered]

Rarely does such blatant narcissism display such obstinacy. Call an adult on their childish pridefullness, and inevitably you get a blush and a murmured apology. You, on the other hand, are so blissfully unaware of your own faults...

Stop right there.

Answer my question: Why should my motives have anything to do with this discussion? I have asked twice now, and have yet to receive a response.

Are you disdainful of the people you teach? Do you consider yourself superior to them? Are you also better than other teachers? Are you better than the person who prepares your meals or does your laundry?

No one has suggest otherwise.

You are very good at jumping to conclusions and reading people's comments in twisted ways.

I have nothing but respect for my students. In fact, my faith in their abilities has landed me in numerous arguments in this forum. One of the strongest reasons I have for basing my teaching on state standards is the belief that they deserve the same lesson content that the rest of society receives. And I also don't buy the baloney that we should teach them something easier -- they can handle the rigor just as much as anyone else.

I am very good at teaching science and math, and my students do learn both. When they advance to the next level, they are well prepared. You have yet to show me why my motives are more important than the education my students receive. I asked, and asked, and asked... and yet nothing.

Furthermore, you continually equate "not altruistic" with "racist." I didn't get involved in teaching for altruistic reasons, but that doesn't make me a Klansman (or Klasnswoman, I suppose). Yet you continually try to make this bizarre connection between the two.

[Be Just]

Well, I think you are sincere in asking these questions. I don't doubt your claim that you are good at teaching math concepts. Nor do I consider that a trivial accomplishment.

I, for one, take issue with your dismissiveness toward others.

The latest example of that disrespect is your comment about the laundry worker and the waitress. Similar discounting of other teachers and the neighborhoods of the underclasses have brought the same response from myself and other commenters.

My point is simply that no matter what contributions you make to others, especially children, they can easily be negated by unconcious remarks that stem from an attitude of assumed superiority.

This is why your motives are important. Unquestioned attitudes of disdain toward groups or individuals are far more obvious than most people assume. I believe that statement that most of communication is non-verbal and unintended. You are not very careful with your language. It would take someone who is very much more careful than you have been here to hide underlying attitudes of disdain which are deadly to the hearts and minds of children already badly scarred by a society that ranks them from birth for aspects of their persons which are beyond their control.

Finally, I agree with Mildred that calling you a racist is going to far. But I do see how some of the language you have used could be hurtful to those who have been victimized by racism since birth.

[Unregistered]

Clearly these people have no need to apologize, so why should a math teacher who teaches in the inner city apologize for her contributions, no matter her motives?

The latest example of that disrespect is your comment about the laundry worker and the waitress.

Who cares? Again, what difference does my attitude towards the dry cleaner and waitress have in this discussion?

I did say they have nothing to apologize for. They provide a service, and that's it.

Similar discounting of other teachers and the neighborhoods of the underclasses have brought the same response from myself and other commenters.

Okay, show me the untrue statements I made about the underclasses in this thread.

My point is simply that no matter what contributions you make to others, especially children, they can easily be negated by unconcious remarks that stem from an attitude of assumed superiority.

Negate? So the advanements my students make in math are negated by comments made in an online message forum?

This is why your motives are important. Unquestioned attitudes of disdain toward groups or individuals are far more obvious than most people assume. I believe that statement that most of communication is non-verbal and unintended. You are not very careful with your language. It would take someone who is very much more careful than you have been here to hide underlying attitudes of disdain which are deadly to the hearts and minds of children already badly scarred by a society that ranks them from birth for aspects of their persons which are beyond their control.

Gee, and they still managed to score well in math. I don't see how, seeing that I have terribly scarred them for life with my supposed attitude.

You don't know me. You don't know how I interact with my kids. Here's a clue: I don't talk politics in my classroom. I don't get into discussions about poverty, and homelessness, and hopelessness, and all the other myriad psycho mumbo-jumbo that is often presented to kids. Instead, I teach math. I stick to what I was paid to do, because I see the teaching of math the most helpful to their future.

You assume too much. You assume that because you don't like the things I say in this forum, then I must be callous towards my students.

How many of you could teach in the suburbs if you needed to? Seriously, ask yourself a question, "Could I walk into a suburban classroom and teach the kids inside that classroom without scarring them for life?"

Before you say "yes," consider some of the horrid things some of you have said about those that live in the suburbs. Based on the logic presented in here, it should be impossible for some of you to teach in the suburbs because you have such inner disdain for the people living there. Naturally, your disdain would transcend to the kids.

To me, that is patent nonsense. Yet, that is what the logic in this thread dictates.

Finally, I agree with Mildred that calling you a racist is going to far. But I do see how some of the language you have used could be hurtful to those who have been victimized by racism since birth.

Okay, present the words I stated that are so hurtful. Let's see the horrible examples of outrageous statements I have made in this forum about living in the innery city. And then I will point out a comment made about people who live in the suburbs and we will see who is the nastiest. Game?

[Real Live WI Teacher]

The disconnect happening in this discussion boils down to people who cherish safety versus people who cherish ideals. No need to argue the details. As long as two parties are arguing from these opposing points of view there can be no agreement.

Being very male, I tend not to care much about safety. I'd rather not wear a helmet on the escalator just because there's an actuarial table somewhere that says I might get hurt. Similarly, I'd much rather take the chance of going down in the airplane than having to be searched by the junior gmen.

The lady who wants to protect her children from crime statistics is going to do whatever it takes to move to the little safe suburbian island. The guy who wants his kids to grow up in the "real world" is going to choose the city.

I enjoyed your post to this point....

Problems arise when the safety people begin to legislate their needs.

By the way subarbanites: check your crime statistics. What are the chances of a white woman or child being harmed by crime? Now check the automobile accident statistics caused by all this moving to suburbs. You've got a one in two chance there. So "safety" is really an allusion. You are going to die and so are your kids. From our perspective, all you have to choose is how to live with the time you are given.

Is pulling statistics out of your nether regions part of male thing, too?

How 'bout if you check your accident statistics. It's double in urban areas over suburban. The farther you get from the "inner-city" the lower the incidence. The issue with this comparison is red-lining by insurance companies in the typically "poor" and "racial" urban areas due to the much higher accident rate. (graphs? studies? research? try here http://www.uctc.net/access/25/Access%2025%20-%2006%20-%20THE%20ACCESS%20ALMANAC.pdf)

Gosh, by your reasoning now it seems like the choice on where to live precedes the choice on how you and your kids will die: crime or auto accident.

I don't admire anyone who puts themself or self-rationalizations above the safety of children. I'm not saying that urban life is what others are cracking it up to be, either way. But the statement made about child safety was irresponsible.

Safety first. Kids first. You may obviously be more comfortable with the ideals of being last, take your 'allusions' and idyls there with you-- behind the kids please.

[Unregistered]

P.C. racism is still racism.

[Unregistered]

NCLB has forced needed change and brought about interest and debate over how to resolve the "GAP" in education.

Fact: Underachieving schools must provide enrichment classes for students. Thsi means even if we catch them up, they still lose out.

Background: Our school is 95% hispanic/mexican/latino. 98% free lunches. They are ELL and come from families that cannot manage to get out of our poor little town. The east side of San Jose or the west side of Fresno look like heaven from here to our kids. Our non hispanic popluation is either the old timers" who were raised here or imports from large urban areas looking for a quieter life.

Teaching here is a mission. I once complained to a friend that God might as well send me to the most violent country on earth to work with kids that need me. Laughing, my friend pointed out that apparently God already had sent me there.

I am VERY proud that what I do makes a difference in this world. I am very INSULTED that anyone thinks it is easier to teach my students than middles class or well to do white kids. WHAT???? I do know my parents are easier to deal with. Unlike parents in places like Clovis and Saratoga,my kids parents are not people educated by people LIKE ME, who then go out and make a lot of money, pay no attention to their own kids and then insult the teacher and school when there is a problem.

I know one thing for sure, my parents appreciate my efforts and so do my students. I do not worry about being shot at school, but that I will gain too much weight from the goodies my students and parents send me.

I make $30,000.00 less every year than a teacher with comparable training (100+ units pass my BA and 23 years of experience)in wealthier areas...but if ONE of my kids goes on to college, I KNOW it was partly because of me. How could I leave? What kind of selfishness would that require of me?

We have more than 12 teachers who went through our "lousy" schools, went on to college and came back to help make a difference and work along side of me as a colleague rather than a student. We lose a lot of teachers because of money and sometimes the family wants "more" than our town can offer.

Back to the topic (thanks for letting me rant a bit)

Consequences of NCLB...

Our kids do English three periods a day and math for two periods. There is no time for social studies or science. Then they reach the high school. In their second year they are tested in Life Science. They did not have science (except isolated events) in kindergarten, first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth grade.

As their Biology teacher, I am supposed to be teaching "students know enzymes are proteins that catalyze biochemical reactions without altering the reaction equilibrium and the activities of enzymes depend on the temperature, ionic conditions and the pH of the surroundings"....OH PLEEEEEEEASE !!!! My students have never even heard the words "ionic, enzymes, catalyze, equilibrium, pH".

Does anyone really expect that with up to 9 years of very little science instruction they can then catch up in high school? Before NCLB I used below grade level materials and set objectives and played catch up and did a pretty decent job of making up for science gaps. Now with an ever widening science gap, I am forced to use grade level materials that are impossible for the students to understand on their own. I cannot assign a lot of homework, because I have to use multiple strategies to help the students comprehend the topic as their GRADE LEVEL STATE STANDARD book explains it. Believe me, if I could have them work out of a 7th grade text at first then move up to the high school one, it would be more successful.

But NCLB has everyone running scared and they literally threw away all the books that were not correlated to the high school standards. There are no materials to help to close the gap. They simply made a good teacher's job harder...because they have to force other teachers to do as they should....

I leave school about 6pm to 7pm each day. I am required to be here at 7:30 am, but am usually here a little earlier. I do up to a 12 hour day at least 4 days a week and grade papers on weekends. I go to evewry home football, basketball and track event because my kids ask me to go watch them. How do I say no? I work on the School Site Committee, Library Committee and work as a "Facilitator" which is someone who helps other teachers learn bettter strategies for achievement. I am the department chair and oversee the science classrooms and their supplies. For my extra duties I get about 130 dollars more each month.

I do not have a single paid day off. I do not get paid for any holidays. There is no overtime. I did have 2 weeks PAID vacation, paid holidays and overtime when I worked for mimimum wage 25 years ago. People do not seem to realize that teachers have a contract for 7.5 hours a day for 183 or so days. PERIOD.

So take your three week PAID vacations, Xmas, Easter, Labor Day, 4th of July, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, President's Day etc. salaries and hire a tutor if your kid does not make it. If you are not reading to your kids every night, you **** as a parent. If you do not spend 10 minutes talking to your kids and checking their homework, you *** as a parent. Teachers are doing the parents' job as well as their own everyday.

They average american does not know squat about what goes on in education. They think because they went through school as a student they know how it all works. Well, I drive a car, but I cannot build one. I certainly do not write to mechanics blogs and complain about what I do not know squat about.

well, its 6 pm and I still have labs to prepare for and papers to grade.

whatever............

[Unregistered]

Does anyone really expect that with up to 9 years of very little science instruction they can then catch up in high school? Before NCLB I used below grade level materials and set objectives and played catch up and did a pretty decent job of making up for science gaps.

You can teach some below-grade-level lessons that are absolutely necessary to learn the grade-level content. Consider the concept of pH. Who says you cannot teach the students a lesson on what pH means? Certainly not the Feds or the state.

Believe me, if I could have them work out of a 7th grade text at first then move up to the high school one, it would be more successful.

Who needs a textbook to teach the subskill? You're a biologist; you know what pH indicates. So teach them. Just make sure you teach them the grade-level content at some point down the line.

I do not have a single paid day off. I do not get paid for any holidays. There is no overtime. I did have 2 weeks PAID vacation, paid holidays and overtime when I worked for mimimum wage 25 years ago. People do not seem to realize that teachers have a contract for 7.5 hours a day for 183 or so days. PERIOD.

Again, we are splitting hairs. What is the difference between a 183-day contract with eight weeks paid vacation and a 223-day contract with no paid vacation? It's a matter of semantics.

So take your three week PAID vacations, Xmas, Easter, Labor Day, 4th of July, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, President's Day etc. salaries and hire a tutor if your kid does not make it.

Yes, all those who are not teachers are rich. Only teachers feel they are overworked and underpaid.

By the way, if you don't enjoy going to the games, then pass on them. Just say, "Sorry, but I simply don't have the time."

If you are not reading to your kids every night, you **** as a parent. If you do not spend 10 minutes talking to your kids and checking their homework, you *** as a parent. Teachers are doing the parents' job as well as their own everyday.

A typical parent comes home at 6 pm after a hard day's work. He's tired, just as you are. So try to understand their situation as well.

[Real Live WI Teacher]

Poster #141, I had to re-check which thread I was in, and hope you realize you aren't allowed to post here anymore... the title is "responses by people who know nothing about education," and you don't qualify.

Thanks for your post, it offered good insight, personal truth, and some common sense. I was inspired :)

[Real Live WI Teacher]

P.C. racism is still racism.

Acerbic ignorance is still ignorance.

Blind denial is still denial.

Righteous hypocracy is still hypocracy.

Flowery poison still kills.

liberal artifice is still mental masturbation.


And your point was connected to....?

[Unregistered]

Having recently completed certification and licensing to be allowed to teach in the state of Pennsylvania, I was astounded to see the low level of discourse from those purporting to be teachers. Since I do not wish to paint with too broad a brush, let me first state that not all of the posts I have read thus far have disappointed me. However, many of the posts amounted to little more than name calling and personal attack against the original offending post. While the original post was poorly written and the person who complained about "whining teachers" did not seem to have been well educated; that person did raise what I consider to be a valid point which needed to be addressed. This person's lack of expressive ability might be solely his or her own fault; but it might also be attributed to those who should have taught him or her better. In addition, those who occupy the classroom in the position of teacher but who have ceased to teach, merely going thru the motions and collecting a paycheck, do not deserve to be in the classroom. Please note: this is not a blanket condemnation of all those in the teaching profession; it is only an acknowledgement that some of the people who wear the title of teacher are not living up to the standards which we should all demand of one another in this nobel calling. I trust that this posting will spur on my fellow teachers, to raise their level of discourse beyond the name calling which I have read, and to offer more thoughtful and thought provoking replies to the statement that teachers who do not do their job deserve to be fired. In any profession, I would consider it a tautology that anyone who fails to do the duties required by that profession should be dismissed. I trust that my ability to express myself is better than that exhibited by the original, poorly educated, critic. I would also hope that others with more experience in the field of teaching will have some constructive recomendations as to what can be done to police our own ranks in reguards to those who fail to teach and thus disgrace our profession.

[Unregistered]

Josh, NCLB is a big fat joke! It doesn't make much sense to put a bunch of politicians and NO educators on a committee to revamp education. This is a sad statement about our government!

Do, please, remember that George Bush gave a free hand to senator Ted Kennedy in developing this piece of legislation. Thus it is both the Democrats and the Republicans who have failed us on this. As a Libertarian I am neigther an apologist for Bush nor for his opponents. In fact, as long as we only switch back and fourth between these two failing parties, we will continue to get the same lame policies. If you want real change; VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

[Unregistered]

While it is possible that I may be getting off on a tangent here, I would like to ask the following question. Where, in the constitutation of the United States of America, is there any authorization for the federal government to be involved in education?

[Unregistered]

Where, in the constitutation of the United States of America, is there any authorization for the federal government to be involved in education?

It's in the same paragraph that allows the Federal government to collect income taxes. :D

I see little wrong with the NCLB, as written. The NCLB sets clear goals for student proficiency. The problem is that, rather than meeting the challenge, we instead have blamed the law that created the goal.

My only beef is that our state does not test history and science at all grade levels. This has created a situation where those two disciplines are being ignored in the classroom.

[RondaGP]

I've really enjoyed following this debate. Thank you all.

To the inner city teacher who resides in suburbia,
I was disappointed that some of comments directed at you got nasty because unfortunately, I think it caused you to perceive many of the points people were tying to make as personal attacks. I wanted to participate in the discussion while making it clear I'm not trying to attack you, only further explain the concern.

For credibility, quick background:
I teach high school.
I've worked in a downtown Oakland public high school, a non-public school in a residential treatment facility for troubled youth, and the high school for a small Northern California town.
I lived in Oakland for about 7 years, moved to small Nor Cal town to be close to my grandmother (and parents), but I miss the Bay Area and desperately want to move back to SF or Oakland (and no one I know there has any desire to move out)
I studied Race Relations and Education at UC Berkeley and currently working on my masters.
I believe teachers absolutely need to be accountable but don't believe they are to blame for problems schools are facing today.
I believe NCLB is detrimental to our education system on many levels and believe very few understand what it actually says or the real objectives.


When I say "most" I am referring to the public in general. Take a snapshot of the population and ask yourself, "How many of these people do more for the advancement of the people around them then a math teacher who teaches very well?

The dry cleaner? He gets their shirts clean, but little else.
The waitress? She gets her customers their food, but little else.

Clearly these people have no need to apologize, so why should a math teacher who teaches in the inner city apologize for her contributions, no matter her motives?
Along with other comments, this perfectly illustrates how you feel about those with a different profession as yours, making an assumption that their job is somehow less important than yours.
I don't think you realize just how many people in the service industry do far more "for the advancement of those around them", unpaid on their own time, through community service, political activism, or other social causes that, judging by earlier posts you made, you clearly don't support or participate in (or may even agree with).

I think the reasons your motives were questioned were because most teachers with similar beliefs or attitudes wouldn't desire to work with children of color let alone commute to an inner city school. As this thread shows, there is little respect for such teachers and it is usually only worth it to those of us who are more socially conscience. I don't think anyone was looking for an apology, just an understanding that your "contributions" don't out weigh ours.


Who cares? Again, what difference does my attitude towards the dry cleaner and waitress have in this discussion? I did say they have nothing to apologize for. They provide a service, and that's it.
Your attitude towards the working class' contributions to society is relevant to the discussion for a few reasons.
1. It reflects the topic of your privileged life and your misconceptions regarding those less fortunate. It shows just how much better you think you are than them. No one is saying that teaching math and science well isn't important, but you need to find value in others and not be so quick to disregard other methods to work "for the advancement of the people around them".
2. You may not realize how superior and condesending you sound about those in the service industry, and working in the inner city, many of your students parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. are a part of that industry. What others have been trying to point out is that this attitude is so apparent in people that think this way, you are mistaken to believe that your students don't pick up on it or that it can be damaging to them. I know that sounds crazy to you because you can't relate to what we are talking about but I promise you that it is far more obvious than you think. Without ever discussing such things with your students, your attitude would still be very visible.
3. Regardless of your ability to teach state content, due to ills in our system many of your students will probably not financially "advance" themselves out of becoming a part of the service industry. Therefore, your attitude, which can at times seem disrespectful, relates to your classroom. I know that's not your problem and you are only hired to teach curriculum, but for most of us, it goes way beyond that and we can't help feeling defensive for underprivileged children and their plight.
(Which is why we take time trying to explain stuff like this.......lol)

[RondaGP]

Negate? So the advanements my students make in math are negated by comments made in an online message forum?

Gee, and they still managed to score well in math. I don't see how, seeing that I have terribly scarred them for life with my supposed attitude.

You don't know me. You don't know how I interact with my kids. Here's a clue: I don't talk politics in my classroom. I don't get into discussions about poverty, and homelessness, and hopelessness, and all the other myriad psycho mumbo-jumbo that is often presented to kids. Instead, I teach math. I stick to what I was paid to do, because I see the teaching of math the most helpful to their future.

You assume too much. You assume that because you don't like the things I say in this forum, then I must be callous towards my students.

Okay, present the words I stated that are so hurtful. Let's see the horrible examples of outrageous statements I have made in this forum about living in the innery city. And then I will point out a comment made about people who live in the suburbs and we will see who is the nastiest. Game?
It's not what you say here (or anywhere else) that is an issue. People were referring to your unspoken attitude I mentioned above that undoubtedly follows you out of suburbia.
No one thinks you actually say intentionally racist or harmful things at school. It has more to do with your belief that you and your family are better than theirs. You have made several comments that display this belief, maybe without even realizing it. But others, including your students, will be able to sense it. Even those not conscience of it now, will easily see it upon reflection.
The negate issue: It may seem really petty, but you have to realize students like yours will have had to deal with that unspoken attitude from white privileged individuals on a daily level their whole lives. That's how it can become scarring. For some, their algebra skills may be wasted if they don't overcome any issues of low self worth that has been ingrained so deep.
(This also goes along with the myth that it is just as easy for a minority inner city student to succeed in life as it is for a middle class white suburban student).


Furthermore, you continually equate "not altruistic" with "racist." I didn't get involved in teaching for altruistic reasons, but that doesn't make me a Klansman (or Klasnswoman, I suppose). Yet you continually try to make this bizarre connection between the two.
I know it seems like that but it's not that you're not "altruistic" enough that has motivated so many posts regarding you being prejudice. It's your belief in a few myths about inner cities and those that live there. Like the one that started the debate: low test scores mean bad teachers. There are several reasons, many laid out in this thread, why socio-economics come into play with test scores.
Wealthy districts will always average higher scores, even with bad teachers, and bankrupt or poor districts, rural or inner city, will always average lower scores, even with excellent teachers.
It is insulting to assume that only bad teachers teach inner city children and insulting to assume that teachers that value students safety and welfare (let alone social justice) don't teach state standards as well as you do.
(As an inner city teacher yourself, I was surprised to read many of your posts support this myth, but then again, this thread is about NCLB, which is pretty much based on myths, that and armed services recruiting tactics).

[Unregistered]

Hey guys, I am a special education teacher and I recently posted a response "in my opinion" about No Child Left Behind and how it is effecting my disabled students. So, I thought I would share something with you from a few days ago. I responded to a post on another forum about No Child Left Behind and some idiot responded to my post by taking a shot at teachers who apparently, should be "fired". Here is his direct quote copied and pasted:

From: Tired of Complaining

"I suggest that you leave the teaching profession because all you guys do is complain.You have been funded out the butthole to do your jobs but just can't stop being a government stooge wanting your protected jobs.
This is bull****************. Teachers should be fired just like anybody else in the private sector who isn't or cant do their jobs. Whether you are a nurse, doctor, teacher, or nasa rocket scientist, you need to be accountable for doing your job. Nobody should get a pass to under perform."

If you want to read the whole post and what other idiots had to say, here is the link: http://www.speakout.com/forum_main.asp?Forum=Education
Just click on No Child Left Behind

Josh
cry cry muth ****************a ohhhhhhhh booooooooooooooo hoooooooooooooooooo

[Unregistered]

It's not what you say here (or anywhere else) that is an issue. People were referring to your unspoken attitude I mentioned above that undoubtedly follows you out of suburbia.

No one thinks you actually say intentionally racist or harmful things at school. It has more to do with your belief that you and your family are better than theirs. You have made several comments that display this belief, maybe without even realizing it. But others, including your students, will be able to sense it. Even those not conscience of it now, will easily see it upon reflection.

In other words, you cannot substantiate a **** thing. All you have are your subjective impressions of what you think I must be like. And from that you make the leap that my students will be adversely affected in some way, a way that you never even bother to state.

The negate issue: It may seem really petty, but you have to realize students like yours will have had to deal with that unspoken attitude from white privileged individuals on a daily level their whole lives. That's how it can become scarring. For some, their algebra skills may be wasted if they don't overcome any issues of low self worth that has been ingrained so deep.

Pure, unsubstantiated conjecture based on nothing. Again, you don't know me. You don't know my students. You have no idea what my students think of me, so don't pretend that you do.

In my opinion, self-esteem comes from being good at something. My students have become good in math. No one can walk into my classrooms and tell them that they can't be successful, because they know they can. And that is a Helluva lot more than I can say about a lot of teachers in this country.

But to people like you, self-esteem comes from being taught by "one of the People." There are a lot of teachers on my campus who live amongst "the People," that talk like "the People," that shed tears over the problems of "the People." Unfortunately, their students are not successful in the classroom, and most likely won't be successful in the future because of it. And the students know it.

I know it seems like that but it's not that you're not "altruistic" enough that has motivated so many posts regarding you being prejudice. It's your belief in a few myths about inner cities and those that live there. Like the one that started the debate: low test scores mean bad teachers. There are several reasons, many laid out in this thread, why socio-economics come into play with test scores.
Wealthy districts will always average higher scores, even with bad teachers, and bankrupt or poor districts, rural or inner city, will always average lower scores, even with excellent teachers.

I can't believe what I'm reading. Do your students sense you have that attitude about their performance? What exactly does such an attitude do for them?

My students can (and have) outscored students from wealthier areas, so I refuse to fall into this trap. If you want to throw in the towel and write off any hope of your students performing well, feel free. However, I will not succumb to the low-expectations excuse.

Period.

[Unregistered]

What others have been trying to point out is that this attitude is so apparent in people that think this way, you are mistaken to believe that your students don't pick up on it or that it can be damaging to them.

Then why do they peform so well?

You have the Berkeley education in race relations, so explain why my students (roughly half of them African-American and the other half Southeast Asian) perform so well.

What is your solution?

What do you do in the classroom to propel student achievement?

Most importantly, how high do you think they are capable of performing?

[Unregistered]

Then why do they peform so well?

You have the Berkeley education in race relations, so explain why my students (roughly half of them African-American and the other half Southeast Asian) perform so well.


The question is: why would anyone give credence to your groundless boasting? Anyone as full of himself as you are necessarily projects wholly unreliable subjective analysis of his own effectiveness. Show me the numbers (advances of individuals from last year as oppossed to the year before) or cease your meaningless self agrandizement.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered] my students (roughly half of them African-American and the other half Southeast Asian) perform so well. QUOTE]

It matters little what "race" your students have been labeled with. The indicators for success in school are economic, not based on skin tones. What a despiscable claim! You would have us believe that it is only your remarkable skill as a teacher thatnmakes up for the inherent inferiority of "your students" (property?). Are you a throwback from the 1950's?

[Tom Tuttle]

Wow! Deja vu all over again. This subject has come up before. Lisa doesn't use her name anymore, but her racist comment that reveal her deepseated beliefts mark her so clearly she doesn't need a name. How many people have to tell you that your comments shout racism before you back up a step and consider that they might be right? Why don't you just admit to yourself that you think you are superior to other teachers, to your students, to the working people in the neighborhood you serve? You've come right and and said it here and other places. Now just admit that you feel superior because of your white face. Are you a member of any organizations that wear sheets to their rallies?

[Unregistered]

It matters little what "race" your students have been labeled with. The indicators for success in school are economic, not based on skin tones. What a despiscable claim!

The person I queried has a degree in Race Relations, which is why I mentioned race. That should have been obvious.

[Unregistered]

Let me open up my questions to everyone:

What is your solution to the education problem?

What do you do in the classroom to propel student achievement?

How high are your students capable of performing?

Cut the racist allegations and answer the questions. The racial card is nothing more than a weak excuse to evade the real issue: How capable are your students to perform at high levels of proficiency, and how do we get them there?

[Unregistered]

The racial card is nothing more than a weak excuse to evade the real issue:

Translation: Racism is not a problem at all; not to us white folks that is.

[MIldred]

As usual, there is a grain of truth in Tom's rants. We have certainly come to this point in the discussion before. I've given it some thought since last time and it occurs to me that the problem is we're discussing two different issues. On one hand, there are systemic problems, namely, that schools are unfairly compared without considering built in advantages and disadvantages. Too often the teachers with the biggest challenge are given the short end of every stick. Those who come here to complain of this are told they must improve the quality of their teaching methods.
These are two different arguments. Every teacher needs to meet the challenges of every classroom by constantly looking for better ways to get the job done. On the other hand, meeting the complaint that some schools are not getting fair treatment is a valid point. Telling someone who is suffering because of systemic inequities that he needs to improve his teaching skills is like telling someone with rampant cancer they need to exercise more. Nearly everyone needs to exercise more. But flexing your muscles while reminding a cancer victim of it is not just beside the point. It is selfish and heartless.
The racism charge may be extreme, but really, Lisa, telling victims of racism that they need to improve their teaching skills does seem calloused in a way generally found only in the camp of the oppressor. I think that is what these folks mean by pointing the racist charge in your direction. If it isn't okay for the Coz to tell minorities they are to blame (meaning it did hurt a lot of feelings) then it probably isn't okay for you to suggest the only solution is pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

[Unregistered]

but really, Lisa, telling victims of racism that they need to improve their teaching skills does seem calloused in a way generally found only in the camp of the oppressor.

And adhering to a philosophy that our kids are doomed is even worse. And doom is exactly what is being described here.

I ask again, do your students sense your low expectations of them? (Color it however you wish, to state that they will never be able to perform on par with kids from other areas is very much a concession to low expectations.)

I wonder what the mission statements of some of your schools must look like. "We do the best we can knowing that our students will never perform better than others." Is that the kind of educational philosophy that drives your school?

To say "they can't do it" is the mark of a quitter. I say, "They CAN do it." My job is to help them get there. I don't even entertain the contrary, because if I did I would have lost half the battle.

Yes, there is a CORRELATION between socio-economic conditions and test scores. But that does not mean that one CAUSES the other. Therefore, as far as proficiency is concerned, there is nothing inherent about being poor (or Black, or Hispanic) that cannot be overcome inside the classroom. I fully believe that, and if you don't... well, we will never agree.

[Unregistered]

You state the obvious as if it were some new revolutionary educational wonder. Of course we must keep the highest expectations for our students and give them every opportunity to succeed. Who has said differently? But lets don't just offer these basic principles as lip service while we ignore the plight of underfunded schools. Students from impoverished backgrounds have particular needs that must be met by a responsible society. No right thinking teacher would use those needs as an excuse for a substandard education, but we also must not fool ourselves into thinking there is a level playing field. Our leaders continue to ignore health care, school funding, and other basic needs while telling the children to simply work hard. These children do not have equal advantages and teachers have to speak for justice while continuing to do the work of providing learning opportunities. When teachers come here looking to discuss social justice, it isn't quite decent to simply offer pedagogical platitudes just because it makes one feel superior. Unless of course one's primary objective is to defend the status quo.

[Unregistered]

I am also a special education teacher. I feel the same way about the no child left behind act. People don't realze how it effects children with special needs. I have a studnet who reads at a first grade level, but he must take the 8th grade PSSA with the rest of his classmates. How does that make sense. I thought IEP meant INDIVIDUAL education plan. WHy then does this student have to perform the same as children with out a dissability. It breaks my heart having to watch these children strugle through these tests.

[Unregistered]

I have a studnet who reads at a first grade level, but he must take the 8th grade PSSA with the rest of his classmates. How does that make sense.

If we lower the bar to meet the educational level of the students, then of what use are the tests? After all, the purpose of the state tests are to find out the educational levels of the students.

Keep in mind that we require schools to be accountable for special ed students for a reason: Giving special ed students a free pass would create a million special ed students overnight. All of a sudden every kid on campus will be diagnosed with a learning disability so that they won't have to take the tests. And if you think schools are above that sort of thing, you have another thing coming.

Students from impoverished backgrounds have particular needs that must be met by a responsible society. No right thinking teacher would use those needs as an excuse for a substandard education, but we also must not fool ourselves into thinking there is a level playing field.

You can go to any campus find some teachers there that are able to get good performance out of their students. If poverty and high test scores are mutually exclusive, how is that possible?

[Unregistered]

OUr public school system is pathetic. the teacher as paid to much for how poorly they teach. If you want to know why our youth in a bad state look at those teaching them 8 hours a day. Private schools are the only place where true learning is show aside from teh few teachers who do care about there students.

Umm, how do you know? Have you worked in a public school? Or a private school? I have - both. I have taught in three Catholic schools and three public schools. Guess what? There's virtually no difference between the two unless you count time out from class for prayer and mass. The same discipline problems, unmotivated students and parents who blame instead of taking responsibility. Also the same well-behaved, motivated students with responsible parents. What's the common denominator? Parenting. News flash: If you take responsibility for taking care of your child's physical and emotional needs and you require them to take responsibility for their own education, they can get a good education wherever they go.

When I was in High School, my parents decided that all the younger children were going to Catholic school until 8th grade. I was too old, a lost cause I guess. So in college, my younger, privately-educated brother took six years to party his way to a BS with about a 2.0 cum while I graduated cum laude in 3 1/2 years. I have since become certified in three languages and hold a Master's degree, while my brother is still whining about his stinky public school education. Another privately-educated brother dropped out of college and is a career bartender.

Do the math.

[Unregistered]

Another privately-educated brother dropped out of college and is a career bartender.

If I said that, everyone in this forum would be all over me for insulting those in the bartending profession.

If you take responsibility for taking care of your child's physical and emotional needs and you require them to take responsibility for their own education, they can get a good education wherever they go.

If they have good teachers.

Otherwise, you are suggesting that teachers don't make a difference.

[Unregistered]

If they have good teachers.

Otherwise, you are suggesting that teachers don't make a difference.

Teachers do make a difference. But they are way down the line in influence, far behind parents and peers and somewhat behind media. Surely you've seen the studies?

I know it's hard on the ego, but motivated students will learn with the worst of teachers and unmotivated students will not learn with the best.

Still, it is a job that somebody has to do and once in a while we do touch a student somewhere between the extremes and thus make a difference. But stop fooling yourself, your job is no more or less important than the bartender, the cleaning woman, or the plumber. We all do our parts and the wheels keep turning.

[Unregistered]

If I said that, everyone in this forum would be all over me for insulting those in the bartending profession.



If they have good teachers.

Otherwise, you are suggesting that teachers don't make a difference.

You're right about the bartender quote. He's very good at it and likes it. However, he also wishes he had had more choices and blames his public school education. He got the same public school education that I did, as well as a private education before that, so I was really disputing your assertion that private is superior to public. If that were true, my brothers should have way outperformed me.

Nice dodge. You chose to zero in on one little statement and go off topic. I didn't say that teachers don't make a difference, they do. However, you were implying that the only teachers that make a difference are all in the private schools and that we public school teachers are a bunch of slugs who are just collecting a paycheck. You really should educate yourself before making these statements. Go visit a classroom for a day. I welcome you to mine. It would be an eye-opening experience. I'm not afraid to have visitors. I have had student observers, casual observers and a student teacher. I'm proud of what I do and have nothing to hide. I have gotten positive feedback from some of these observers. I have also heard some of them change their original assessments once they tried what I do.

I have had students come back and thank me for what I encouraged them to do with their lives. I have also had students who tried to blame me for their failures. These were students who were uncooperative, disruptive and rude and did their best to try to interfere with the learning of others. Their parents were on the phone every time I tried to impose some standards. Was I surprised that they didn't do well on THE TEST? Not at all! Nor was I surprised that they and their parents refused to take responsibility for it. Consider the source. That said, I don't claim to be perfect and evaluate mine and my students outcomes on a regular basis.

I also have had students with terrible home lives who responded to my attempts to reach out for them and for the 42 minutes that they were in my classroom, they felt good about themselves and achieved. However, I only have 42 minutes a day with these students, 25 or more at a time, compared with the 12 hours per day plus weekends and vacations that they spend with their families.

Do the math. And don't bother responding unless you are going to actually read my post. Also, you'll sound more credible if you don't oversimplify the issues.

[Unregistered]

Let me open up my questions to everyone:

What is your solution to the education problem?

What do you do in the classroom to propel student achievement?

How high are your students capable of performing?




What is your solution to the education problem?

For teachers to keep evaluating themselves and seek to improve their teaching.

For schools to pursue innovative and well-researched solutions school-wide on a regular basis.

For society to work together instead of blaming teachers, parents, TV and money. That's not to say that all of these issues don't factor in, just that the only conversation about education involves shoving the blame in another direction and zeroing in on one factor.

What do you do in the classroom to propel student achievement?

I have a variety of methods. I try to rotate these methods so that theres' something for everyone, to get to know my students and to approach discipline and academic challenges with a problem-solving approach. I continually evaluate myself and strive to learn more each day. I let the students know I care about them and believe in them.

How high are your students capable of performing?

As high as they decide they can perform.

[Unregistered]

For teachers to keep evaluating themselves and seek to improve their teaching.

How does one evaluate himself in an objective manner?

Sure, we all evaluate ourselves. That is a necessary aspect of any professional. But we are not able to see many of our own inadequacies. That is why our school employs people to go from one class to another observing teachers and providing feedback.

Take one example: In a classroom I observed a teacher calling on the same few students over and over again. (Our school does not advocate the calling on raised hands, but this teacher does it anyway.) The rest of her students simply fall further and further behind. But she wasn't aware of this deficiency, because she cannot evaluate herself objectively. That is why every teacher needs trained observers to come into their classrooms. (And yes, I am observed myself by the company that trained me.)

For schools to pursue innovative and well-researched solutions school-wide on a regular basis.

I agree wholeheartedly. But how does a school implemet innovative, research-based methods when the teachers feel they are above training, as evidenced by some others in this thread?

Would you oppose classroom visits by those that teach you these new methods?

How high are your students capable of performing?

As high as they decide they can perform.

What if a kid comes into your classroom with low self-esteem or low expectations? You don't see the danger in letting kids (minors) decide for themselves how much they will learn or are capable of learning?

[Unregistered]

Nice dodge. You chose to zero in on one little statement and go off topic. I didn't say that teachers don't make a difference, they do. However, you were implying that the only teachers that make a difference are all in the private schools and that we public school teachers are a bunch of slugs who are just collecting a paycheck.

Actually, I never said anything about the public/private school comparison; that was someone else.

I also have had students with terrible home lives who responded to my attempts to reach out for them and for the 42 minutes that they were in my classroom, they felt good about themselves and achieved. However, I only have 42 minutes a day with these students, 25 or more at a time, compared with the 12 hours per day plus weekends and vacations that they spend with their families.

But the other teachers on campus also have them; they don't go to school just to attend your class. A kid during the school year is on campus for seven hours. Given that they go to bed at (probably 10 pm), this means they spend the majority of their weekdays on campus, not at home.

An unmotivated student can be taught.

But stop fooling yourself, your job is no more or less important than the bartender, the cleaning woman, or the plumber.

Then why should we be paid more than the cleaning woman?

[Unregistered]

Going Public
Students at private schools tend to outscore their public- school counterparts on standardized tests—but are private schools really better at educating their students, or do they just enroll more pupils from socioeconomic backgrounds that foster academic achievement? A new study takes up this question by examining math scores from the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress, which tested more than 28,000 fourth and eighth graders nationwide. As expected, private-school students earned substantially higher math scores on the NAEP tests than did students in public schools—but when the authors controlled for socioeconomic status, the private-school advantage completely disappeared. Indeed, when the authors compared students within socioeconomic brackets, rather than across them, the students from public schools actually outscored their private-school peers, in the fourth and eighth grades alike.

—“A New Look at Public and Private Schools: Student Background and Mathematics Achievement,” Sarah Theule Lubienski and Christopher Lubienski, Phi Delta Kappan

[Unregistered]

Then why should we be paid more than the cleaning woman?


Can't tell you "should". Can suggest why. We have a union (Hurrah) and she does not! Is that fair? Nope. As Twain said, (paraphrase) we'll always be confused in this country as long as those who work the hardest get paid the least and those who do the least work get paid the most.

[Unregistered]

Yeah, and since, as Lisa says, teachers are mostly ineffective and the university system has no real credence,we can't use the tired old, "we should get paid more because we went to school for so long. That one was always so elitist anyway. Like the pampered little tykes at university deserve a better lifestyle just because they were born into one.

[Unregistered]

How does one evaluate himself in an objective manner?

Sure, we all evaluate ourselves. That is a necessary aspect of any professional. But we are not able to see many of our own inadequacies. That is why our school employs people to go from one class to another observing teachers and providing feedback.

Take one example: In a classroom I observed a teacher calling on the same few students over and over again. (Our school does not advocate the calling on raised hands, but this teacher does it anyway.) The rest of her students simply fall further and further behind. But she wasn't aware of this deficiency, because she cannot evaluate herself objectively. That is why every teacher needs trained observers to come into their classrooms. (And yes, I am observed myself by the company that trained me.)



I agree wholeheartedly. But how does a school implemet innovative, research-based methods when the teachers feel they are above training, as evidenced by some others in this thread?

Would you oppose classroom visits by those that teach you these new methods?



What if a kid comes into your classroom with low self-esteem or low expectations? You don't see the danger in letting kids (minors) decide for themselves how much they will learn or are capable of learning?

We are observed. We also receive regular training on staff development days. And most of us are hardest on ourselves, constantly reevaluating what we could do better.

I don't know where you find that teachers feel that they are above training. Most of us sign up for workshops on our own because we have problems in our classroom that we want to know how to solve.

One thing that I see occuring in schools that is frustrating is that there are trends that go around. We spend a staff development day being trained, practicing and getting fired up. Then the next school day rolls around and it's forgotten. I would say that if a school district is going to make a big change, they should make sure that they are willing and able to make a commitment to it, then follow through.

I wouldn't oppose visits by those that teach new methods if they came in with the right attitude, to give me feedback. Certainly not someone who has an ax to grind who is going to be looking for problems.

If a student comes into my class with low self esteem or low expectations, of course I work as hard as I can to change that image. Sometimes I succeed. Other times, their background is too much to overcome in 42 minutes a day. But a student's willingness to learn is a big part of their ability to learn.

I know what I'm talking about. I have the responsibility of teaching level one Spanish to a group of students who have failed the state exam at least once. It's a tall order. We live near the border of Canada where there are very few speakers of Spanish and these kids come from homes where education is not valued. Many have problems with anger which is easily triggered by frustration. Learning a second language you feel you have no use for will generate a lot of frustration. It takes a light touch and a careful balance of curriculum mixed with life. I have to be careful to keep the standards high enough to give them a shot at passing the exam while not pushing so hard that they give up. Somewhere in there I'm trying to get them to see the beauty of the Spanish language and culture and to want to speak it. Slowly they are starting to have rudimentary conversations with my outside of class, but it has taken me several months of encouragement and challenging their beliefs that they are stupid. Someone may observe my class and question my methods and start saying that's all they can do after several months? However I have been with them, I have seen the tantrums and have managed to bond with them. They hang around my classroom when they're free and for this crew, I feel my biggest accomplishment is helping them to trust an adult. There's so much that outsiders don't see and they may have an agenda that wouldn't be suitable for this group which I know so much better because I have been working with them.

I think there is a certain amount of hysteria surrounding this issue. Of course the system is imperfect, but let's not discount the vast numbers of students leaving our schools for college with bright futures and the skills to match. I hear stories about how bad public schools are and that doesn't fit the reality in my school. Maybe I teach in a good school, maybe it's because I teach in upstate NY. I believe there is no productive dialogue in our country regarding education, only a lot of finger pointing and accusation, which accomplishes nothing but putting people on the defensive. Believe me we do a lot of analysis of the problems and work hard at addressing them.

BTW, what type of company do you work for?

[Unregistered]

"Not only White Americans, but wealthier Black Americans and Hispanic Americans moved out as well. This isn't about race, but rather money. Who can blame them? I live in a nicer neighborhood than I teach. I chose this neighborhood (mostly blue-collar, but some white-collar) because it has fairly good schools. It would be stupid to jeopardize the future of my kids to prove a point."

This quote, and others can be found on page 3 of this thread.

While I too find this quote high-handed and myopic, I'm not sure I can agree entirely that it is necesarily racist.

We might get further in this discussion, a really fruitful one in my opinion, if we did avoid labeling. Have you ever known anyone who publicly admitted to racism in this modern time? It has become a perjorative that even people with sheets over their heads deny.

Perhaps we might continue this discussion by simply discussing ways to make education more equitable in neighborhoods abandoned by two generations of middle class America. Whether the motives behind this abandonment are racial or security will be probably not be solved here.

Mildred, you're a wise woman. I believe this to be the problem that impedes any real dialogue about education today, the blaming and labeling. Puts everyone on the defensive and then everyone just stick to their positions and nothing gets solved.

[MIldred]

Why thank you dear! This has been a fruitful discussion these past few days, hasn't it? I particularly appreciate the comments about keeping our job in perspective. Unlike university professors, public school teachers have tradtionally drawn from women and working class men. It is not a priviledged position, but a difficult job. Naturally, the lower the economic class of the student population, the greater the challenge. All too many are quick to blame teachers for the problems created by a society grown increasingly materialistic and decreasingly humane. Blaming teachers for difficult to educate students is like blaming the doctors who have the courage to work in areas devestated by disease and lacking in the basics of sanitation and health care. Most of those doing the blaming are either those who have not been in a classroom or else work in suburban schools with high test scores that come with the socio-economic class. But, as the you point out, the saddest situation are when we who shoulder this job turn on one another.Several teachers have described working in isolation, feeling completly alone in their struggle in their individual classroom. I have felt that isolation myself and know how difficult it is to fight alone. When someone finally comes into your battleground, it turns out they have come to criticize and nitpick, again making the teacher feel defensive and isolated. I am happy that some teachers have found some solace at this site recently, though sometimes it has felt like a minefield with the visitors who must spread their anger and frustration by playing the blame game. Maybe there are "bad teachers" (I haven't met any) but I think we can do more to help one another by offering support instead of criticism.

[Unregistered]

This has been a fruitful discussion these past few days, hasn't it? I particularly appreciate the comments about keeping our job in perspective. Unlike university professors, public school teachers have tradtionally drawn from women and working class men. It is not a priviledged position, but a difficult job.

I have worked both jobs, and both are difficult. The challenges are different, of course. But I think the class-envy shown towards those who work in the universities is unhelpful. The notion that rich kids are born into university professorships is bizarre. It takes a lot of hard work to become a university professor. Unfortunately, many of the same abuses and inadequecies that appear at the college level (poor teaching, too much focus on non-instructional issues, petty politics) also show up in public schools as well. For some reason, university professors are more willing to acknowledge these problems than public school teachers.

Naturally, the lower the economic class of the student population, the greater the challenge. All too many are quick to blame teachers for the problems created by a society grown increasingly materialistic and decreasingly humane. Blaming teachers for difficult to educate students is like blaming the doctors who have the courage to work in areas devestated by disease and lacking in the basics of sanitation and health care.

By the same token, a doctor working in a country devastated by disease should not use the health environment to excuse his own lack of skill. I would expect a doctor working in a developing country to (1) maintain a level of excellence, (2) be willing to embrace further training, (3) be willing to have others examine his methods, and (4) be willing to acknowledge that he shares a responsibility for disease control.

Now how many teachers embrace those four ideals? There is no rigorous standard of excellence that teachers are required to uphold once they achieve a credential. Many teachers refuse to participate in training. Many teachers fight classroom observations. And many teachers refuse to accept any responsibilty for low test scores. And while you may not know any teachers that fit this description, I know plenty. Again, we tend to assume that our own teaching environment is just like everyone else's. I am guilty of that as well.

So my argument isn't with all teachers. I am not making a blanket statement about the teaching profession (as many accuse me of doing). Rather, I criticize those teachers who refuse to improve and instead ask the rest of us to accept their substandard skills simply because they teach in a tough environment. In other words, we don't want to fall into the trap of saying, "He has a tough job, so leave him alone."

[Unregistered]

I have worked both jobs, and both are difficult. The challenges are different, of course. But I think the class-envy shown towards those who work in the universities is unhelpful. The notion that rich kids are born into university professorships is bizarre. It takes a lot of hard work to become a university professor. Unfortunately, many of the same abuses and inadaquacies that appear at the college level (poor teaching, too much focus on non-instructional issues, petty politics) also show up in public schools as well. For some reason, university professors are more willing to acknowledge these problems than public school teachers.

Although universities have made strides in recent decades to counterbalance the historical predeliction toward giving professorhips to males from ruling class families, historically, dons, like churchmen, have been the younger sons of the elite. The school marm mentality of the recent past predominates in the younger grades to this day. The younger the students, the more women involved in education.

There are women teaching in American colleges, but statistically far fewer than men in the coveted tenured positions. Few working class men can afford to take the time out of their working lives to attend university, let alone spend the many years in the trenches needed to make the cut for tenured professor.

Our local university recently had a job opening for professor of English. There were over a thousand qualified applicants! Clearly there is something about this position that makes it more desireable than public school teacher.

Just because you wish it were true that women and working class men are fairly represented in professorships, that does not make it true. And your final remark comparing professors with p.s. teachers is so purely subjective and biased as to taint your entire argument. Your subjective need to elevate professors over p.s. teachers is really quite telling about your motives in this discussion.

[Unregistered]

Although universities have made strides in recent decades to counterbalance the historical predeliction toward giving professorhips to males from ruling class families, historically, dons, like churchmen, have been the younger sons of the elite. The school marm mentality of the recent past predominates in the younger grades to this day. The younger the students, the more women involved in education.

Maybe women are more inclined to want to teach young kids.

When I was hired to teach at the university, the fact that I was female and from a poorer family was never even broached.

There are women teaching in American colleges, but statistically far fewer than men in the coveted tenured positions. Few working class men can afford to take the time out of their working lives to attend university, let alone spend the many years in the trenches needed to make the cut for tenured professor.

But that isn't the university's fault. The point I am making is that males from rich families are not merely handed a university position. They have to go through a long, rigorous process, just like anyone else that wants the position. They deserve respect.

Our local university recently had a job opening for professor of English. There were over a thousand qualified applicants! Clearly there is something about this position that makes it more desireable than public school teacher.

Actually, it says a lot more about the lack of job opportunities in that field. Business programs, for example, have a hard time finding qualified teachers.

Just because you wish it were true that women and working class men are fairly represented in professorships, that does not make it true.

A representation would be unfair if the proportion was lower than those desiring the position. Blacks are, according to your logic, unfairly represented in NASCAR. In my view, their representation is fair simply because that sport doesn't appeal to them. By the same token, the vast majority of most reggae musicians are Black. That doesn't make reggae unfair to White musicians.

Any woman of ability wanting to become a professor can become one. I am convinced of that.

And your final remark comparing professors with p.s. teachers is so purely subjective and biased as to taint your entire argument. Your subjective need to elevate professors over p.s. teachers is really quite telling about your motives in this discussion.

I base my remarks on my experiences working at both levels. I quit the college teaching game because of its crazed focus on research at the expense of teaching. But every professor I knew acknowledged that research was overemphasized and bemoaned the lack of focus on teaching. They also openly acknowledged that many of their colleagues were poor teachers. (They sometimes admitted this about themselves, even wearing their reputation as bad teachers as badges of honor.) University faculties are under no illusions, but they play the game because they know where the money is (and they admit this).

Unfortunately, getting public school teachers to admit many of the problems in their own profession is difficult. I do, but I get attacked for it.

[Unregistered]

ing public school teachers to admit many of the problems in their own profession is difficult. I do, but I get attacked for it.

Name one time, ever, that you admited to having a weakness in teaching. You are attacked because you feel compelled to turn every post into an indictment of other teachers. You never admit to weakness or being wrong, Lisa. You are one of those who only see the specks in the eyes of others while blissfully unaware of the plank that everyone else keeps pointing out and that you take as a personal attack.

And by the way, asking us to believe that you left a tenured post in a university because of its "crazed focus on research at the expense of teaching" is a typical example of why you are universally recognized as a pathological liar.

[Unregistered]

Hey guys, I am a special education teacher and I recently posted a response "in my opinion" about No Child Left Behind and how it is effecting my disabled students. So, I thought I would share something with you from a few days ago. I responded to a post on another forum about No Child Left Behind and some idiot responded to my post by taking a shot at teachers who apparently, should be "fired". Here is his direct quote copied and pasted:

From: Tired of Complaining

"I suggest that you leave the teaching profession because all you guys do is complain.You have been funded out the butthole to do your jobs but just can't stop being a government stooge wanting your protected jobs.
This is bull****************. Teachers should be fired just like anybody else in the private sector who isn't or cant do their jobs. Whether you are a nurse, doctor, teacher, or nasa rocket scientist, you need to be accountable for doing your job. Nobody should get a pass to under perform."

If you want to read the whole post and what other idiots had to say, here is the link: http://www.speakout.com/forum_main.asp?Forum=Education
Just click on No Child Left Behind

Josh



I agree with him..You should be held accountable!!!!

[Unregistered]

I agree with him..You should be held accountable!!!!

Accountable for what, oh you of the many exclamation points? $4 a gallon gas? Global Warming? Throwing billions into invading Muslim nations while health care and education funding is slashed? Unlicensed hunters shooting each other and waiting till they sober up before reporting? Spying on American citizens? Just what crimes are you accussing your kids' P.E. or English teacher of?

[Unregistered]

Accountable for what, oh you of the many exclamation points? $4 a gallon gas? Global Warming? Throwing billions into invading Muslim nations while health care and education funding is slashed? Unlicensed hunters shooting each other and waiting till they sober up before reporting? Spying on American citizens? Just what crimes are you accussing your kids' P.E. or English teacher of?

accountable for teaching children

[Real Live WI Teacher]

The question is: why would anyone give credence to your groundless boasting? Anyone as full of himself as you are necessarily projects wholly unreliable subjective analysis of his own effectiveness. Show me the numbers (advances of individuals from last year as oppossed to the year before) or cease your meaningless self agrandizement.

Being a UC grad myself, you brought back vivid memories of my first class in the Teacher Education Program- aptly named "Institutional Perpetuation of Inequality."

You really didn't need to make your grand entrance waiving your credential banner... it's blatantly apparent where you've acquired your patronizing, elitist-bourgeois (Liberal yin yang?), specious lecture notes you so generously and pompously posted to enlighten us.

A perfect foil for Lisa, and a great example of pathological "projecting."
Do post hither, oh Ultimate Authority. Bestow upon us lowly boasters your credence. Lo, we shan't resort to middle English, lest we expose our own grandiosity, and be shackled with the cruel verbosity belt. Cease! Be Gone!

Tho I end the glow of the screen before me, the shadow of thy foolish drivel lingers on, and the last laugh... mine!

*sigh* I always mix my Iambic meters, can't keep those puppies straight.

[Unregistered]

I worked for 25 years before I became a teacher. I've got to tell you that this is the safest job in the world. It's much harder to fire a teacher than it is an average employee who is doing a lousy job.

I don't agree with the language, but the reality is that it takes years of documenting poor work performance before a teacher can be fired. In the world outside education, you get written up for poor performance, get warnings, put on probation and then get fired. There are procedures in place to document issues to ensure the firing isn't discriminatory. However, the bottom line is that the standards in the business world "DO NOT" carry over to teaching positions.

Reality Check... been there, done that !!

[Tom Tuttle]

I worked for 25 years before I became a teacher. I've got to tell you that this is the safest job in the world. It's much harder to fire a teacher than it is an average employee who is doing a lousy job.


Efforts to degrade working conditions for American workers inevitably begin with attacking those few jobs, usually one of the few protected by unions, as if the workers and their protections are the problem. This method, systematically practiced by corporations, have all but eliminated decent working conditions in this country. The few rights that make teaching an attractive job choice should not be ceded to these greedy few, who give massive rewards to the rich while eroding the middle class.
Management in education does everything it can to demonize veteran teachers so they can stack their staffs with cheaper and more easily intimidated new teachers. This forum has become a favorite target for politcal hacks posing as teachers who seek to undermine teacher protections. Fellow teachers, support your unions. Work to expand worker rights and protections as often as possible. Use your purchasing power to buy from institutions that give their employees and the workers who produced their products a fair shake. Protect unions and workers rights unless you want to see our nation's workers return to the sweat shop conditions of the 19th Century.

[Unregistered]

Protect unions and workers rights unless you want to see our nation's workers return to the sweat shop conditions of the 19th Century.

You won't have to worry about it, because as the cost of employing people goes up, more jobs are simply going to go to India. And that is a reality that is undeniable.

[Unregistered]

OUr public school system is pathetic. the teacher as paid to much for how poorly they teach. If you want to know why our youth in a bad state look at those teaching them 8 hours a day. Private schools are the only place where true learning is show aside from teh few teachers who do care about there students.

You are correct there are some bad teachers in the school system, but where does the responsibility of the parents come in? I made numerous of phone calls to parents of students who were failing my class early in the year and their responses were indifferent. It wasn't until failure notices were mailed that these parents were calling asking for help for their child. Private schools are not the only places where true learning is happening, it happens in schools where resources are not available.

[Unregistered]

You won't have to worry about it, because as the cost of employing people goes up, more jobs are simply going to go to India. And that is a reality that is undeniable.

Here's another dip that defines reality as republican policies on behalf of their corporate masters. Tom was right. Workers in the U.S. have a right and a duty to demand representation from their government.

[Unregistered]

Isn't inclusion a good thing????

[Unregistered]

Here's another dip that defines reality as republican policies on behalf of their corporate masters.

Go ahead and deny the reality that is already taking place. The evidence of the shift towards overseas cheap labor is everywhere and undeniable. Furthermore, the mechanism is obvoius - companies like to lower costs. That will always be the case.

[Unregistered]

I haven't met a special ed. teacher yet, that can truly know how to teach most special ed. kids. I'm an advocate for kids with ADHD and no teacher has figured what to do except blame the kid and the parents, when they can't learn. Why is that?

[Unregistered]

No Child Left Behind? I teach 9th grade English and request the under-achievers. Thes students have been, for the most part, left behind at the back of the classroom putting on makeup, looking at car or tattoo magazines, etc. They have gotten by by turning in something and getting credit for trash. They are shocked--sometimes angered--when I require them to follow basic conventions, do grammar exercises aloud in class, and work with a concept until all of the regular education and most of the special needs students master it.

Many students start to decline in skills at the fourth grade--when homework starts. I allow no homework. All work is done in class and cannot be taken home to be finished. Forty hours is enough for a plumber--and enough for a teen. I have enough time in class to accomplish our goals. I am the qualified instructor in a learning environment; parents are the qualified persons in the home and have other goals.

NCLB, for starters, requires that the teacher be qualified. Do we have a problem with that? The assessment tools for our students require that our students read, write, cipher, and know a little basic history and civics. Do we have a problem with that? Our AYP goal for this coming year is 45%--I have a problem with that--the goal of an F is not a worthy goal.

[Unregistered]

The problem with those who argue in favor of NCLB is that they use the word SCORES when they applaud growth and improvement. But think about what those SCORES show: a group of kids and teacher have worked hard to improve their performance on a multiple-choice test. That's the problem. That's why its a racist policy. Maybe there's a better word: classist.

I've been an educator for over 20 years. I've been to the trainings that teach test-taking. That's literally their focus: How to take the test. What MATTERS is not tested, therefore not emphasised. Things like critical and higher-level thinking. I'm talking about communication skills. I'm talking about problem solving. I'm talking about the very skills that used to matter in a democracy. These skills have been removed from our k-12 curricula because that's the way the ruling class wants it. These skills are being REPLACED with the pablum of prepared test-taking skills.

Those students fortunate enough to grow up in a household with a culture of achievement and learning get some of these skills that matter, because they get them at home and by rubbing shoulders with peers that get these critical skills as well.

The poor, the disadvantaged...they get the CRAP that passes for "a quality education". They learn enough basics to be CONSUMERS and that's it. Anything beyond that they are unlikely to get from a school textbook or a prepared curriculum, becuase those things have morphed into the test-taking-prep curriculum.

This is the way those in power like it, folks. Keep the peasants dumb and happy, and we can maintain the status quo. Those in power stay there. We keep pretending we're making progress when if fact, we have an entire generation of test-taking experts who don't have the slightest idea how to do anything other than FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.

[Chemfemme]

The poor, the disadvantaged...they get the CRAP that passes for "a quality education". They learn enough basics to be CONSUMERS and that's it. Anything beyond that they are unlikely to get from a school textbook or a prepared curriculum, becuase those things have morphed into the test-taking-prep curriculum.

This is the way those in power like it, folks. Keep the peasants dumb and happy, and we can maintain the status quo. Those in power stay there. We keep pretending we're making progress when if fact, we have an entire generation of test-taking experts who don't have the slightest idea how to do anything other than FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.

Right on!! I've been a high school chemistry teacher for 30+ years. As chilling as the above notion is, I believe it is true. Consciously or unconsciously, public education has morphed from an institution of social and individual enlightenment to an agent of social engineering aimed at keeping "the masses" obedient with neither the capacity nor the desire for higher order thought. Read Huxley's "Brave New World" again!!

[Unregistered]

Are you suggesting that teachers should NOT be accountable for their teaching?

Don't get me wrong: I am a secondary level English teacher, who has no love of the NCLB. In fact, because of the NCLB, I may vote for a Democratic president for the first time in my life (shudder) :) Yet I still believe that we should be responsible for our performance.

But, how can our performance be judged when we have so many students who don't care about participating in class, turning in homework, or doing well on tests? Twenty years ago, I may have agreed with you, but not in today's world. Parents expect us to perform miracles when their children don't want to do anything. I do my best to motivate them, but to not much response. As I always quote "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

[Chocolate_New_Orleans]

But, how can our performance be judged when we have so many students who don't care about participating in class, turning in homework, or doing well on tests? Twenty years ago, I may have agreed with you, but not in today's world. Parents expect us to perform miracles when their children don't want to do anything. I do my best to motivate them, but to not much response. As I always quote "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."


you could at least site your source (me today) about this.