Nat. At-Risk Education Network
Kelly Lovejoy
I apologize for this rather off-topic topic, but this IS the list for discussing weightier issues.
As an accountability association owner in SC, I received many unwanted emails. <g> I try to avoid school-bashing as a rule; but when it comes right in my mail,...
This one had an interesting paragraph:
"*The "30%" figure to me is not always literal. It is symbolic as well. It is symbolic, whether a child is in the 30% or not, of something necessary that is missing (inside us or outside) to reach and teach that child how to succeed in school and life. If we do not teach them to succeed, then how do we justify possessing their daylight hours 180+ days a year for 12 or 13 of their most important developing years? 30% represents our failure, not the child's. "We" (the educators, parents, caregivers, school systems, and other stakeholders in the life of youth) have failed. "We" are all in this together. It is not about fault-finding, so much as it is getting our heads screwed on better and seeing what needs reforming, then doing it."
*************************************
It's interesting that he thinks we need to "teach a child to succeed." The system is set UP to have 30% failures. <g>
I, too, wonder how the "stakeholders" "justify possessing" so much of children's time. At least he's accepting *some* of the blame.
John Holt realized that schools are un-reformable. Maybe Mr. Dallman-Jones needs to read some John Holt. <BWG>
0A
~Kelly
National At-Risk Education Network
11 . 12 . 2008
Dear Dedicated Educator:
A short editorial, and several quick, pertinent announcements.
~..~
An Editorial---
I do not know how you voted, obviously, but I think we all know that the number of failure-to- complete students in our schools actually INCREASED dramatically under NCLB. I think we also know there is reason to believe that the new administration will be more willing to listen to educators' suggestions for public school reform in which at-risk learners will be paid more attention. Hooray for that!
If a move to leave no children behind pushes more students out of school, it is fairly obvious that NCLB was a mistake. A 7-year mistake.
NAREN has mailed a letter to President-elect Obama urging the formation of a grassroots Educational Reform Council to work during the interim to overhaul how we are/are not educating at-risk youth towards success, which is our business.
It will take us a long time to crawl out of this hole we are in - on all fronts: war, economy, unemployment, fuel issues, and most important to us, the 30% of students who we have failed to reach (if failure-to-complete figures signify that to you). In this new atmosphere of hope we, of all people, must unite more than ever in our quest for effectiveness in education. In the name of compassion for youth and passi
on for our cause, we must renew our vows to learn from our mistakes quickly and see through the glass clearly how we can reach the unreachable, encourage the discouraged, and insist upon quality in the teaching of the disqualified.
It is a new dawn. It will deliver us nothing of its own accord, but will listen to our initiatives, our insistence, and our efforts to MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN to reduce that 30%.*
I urge you to pay attention to opportunities that come your way, and if they do not, Make some! Champions accept help, but they do not wait too long for it. they DO take advantage of those moments when greatness is given a better road for progress.
Sincerely,
Anthony Dallmann-Jones, Director NAREN
*The "30%" figure to me is not always literal. It is symbolic as well. It is symbolic, whether a child is in the 30% or not, of something necessary that is missing (inside us or outside) to reach and teach that child how to succeed in school and life. If we do not teach them to succeed, then how do we justify possessing their daylight hours 180+ days a year for 12 or 13 of their most important developing years? 30% represents our failure, not the child's. "We" (the educators, parents, caregivers, school systems, and other stakeholders in the life of youth) have failed. "We" are all in this together. It is not about fault-finding, so much as it is getting our heads screwed on better and seeing what needs reforming,
then doing it.
When blame is the name of the game, no one is a winner.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
As an accountability association owner in SC, I received many unwanted emails. <g> I try to avoid school-bashing as a rule; but when it comes right in my mail,...
This one had an interesting paragraph:
"*The "30%" figure to me is not always literal. It is symbolic as well. It is symbolic, whether a child is in the 30% or not, of something necessary that is missing (inside us or outside) to reach and teach that child how to succeed in school and life. If we do not teach them to succeed, then how do we justify possessing their daylight hours 180+ days a year for 12 or 13 of their most important developing years? 30% represents our failure, not the child's. "We" (the educators, parents, caregivers, school systems, and other stakeholders in the life of youth) have failed. "We" are all in this together. It is not about fault-finding, so much as it is getting our heads screwed on better and seeing what needs reforming, then doing it."
*************************************
It's interesting that he thinks we need to "teach a child to succeed." The system is set UP to have 30% failures. <g>
I, too, wonder how the "stakeholders" "justify possessing" so much of children's time. At least he's accepting *some* of the blame.
John Holt realized that schools are un-reformable. Maybe Mr. Dallman-Jones needs to read some John Holt. <BWG>
0A
~Kelly
National At-Risk Education Network
11 . 12 . 2008
Dear Dedicated Educator:
A short editorial, and several quick, pertinent announcements.
~..~
An Editorial---
I do not know how you voted, obviously, but I think we all know that the number of failure-to- complete students in our schools actually INCREASED dramatically under NCLB. I think we also know there is reason to believe that the new administration will be more willing to listen to educators' suggestions for public school reform in which at-risk learners will be paid more attention. Hooray for that!
If a move to leave no children behind pushes more students out of school, it is fairly obvious that NCLB was a mistake. A 7-year mistake.
NAREN has mailed a letter to President-elect Obama urging the formation of a grassroots Educational Reform Council to work during the interim to overhaul how we are/are not educating at-risk youth towards success, which is our business.
It will take us a long time to crawl out of this hole we are in - on all fronts: war, economy, unemployment, fuel issues, and most important to us, the 30% of students who we have failed to reach (if failure-to-complete figures signify that to you). In this new atmosphere of hope we, of all people, must unite more than ever in our quest for effectiveness in education. In the name of compassion for youth and passi
on for our cause, we must renew our vows to learn from our mistakes quickly and see through the glass clearly how we can reach the unreachable, encourage the discouraged, and insist upon quality in the teaching of the disqualified.
It is a new dawn. It will deliver us nothing of its own accord, but will listen to our initiatives, our insistence, and our efforts to MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN to reduce that 30%.*
I urge you to pay attention to opportunities that come your way, and if they do not, Make some! Champions accept help, but they do not wait too long for it. they DO take advantage of those moments when greatness is given a better road for progress.
Sincerely,
Anthony Dallmann-Jones, Director NAREN
*The "30%" figure to me is not always literal. It is symbolic as well. It is symbolic, whether a child is in the 30% or not, of something necessary that is missing (inside us or outside) to reach and teach that child how to succeed in school and life. If we do not teach them to succeed, then how do we justify possessing their daylight hours 180+ days a year for 12 or 13 of their most important developing years? 30% represents our failure, not the child's. "We" (the educators, parents, caregivers, school systems, and other stakeholders in the life of youth) have failed. "We" are all in this together. It is not about fault-finding, so much as it is getting our heads screwed on better and seeing what needs reforming,
then doing it.
When blame is the name of the game, no one is a winner.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
The program to which Kelli is indirectly referring is "No Child Left
Behind," U.S. program, so we shouldn't stay on this topic too long or
too closely, and it doesn't have to do with unschooling BUT...
-=-It is a new dawn. It will deliver us nothing of its own accord,
but will listen to our initiatives, our insistence, and our efforts
to MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN to reduce that 30%.*-=-
This is drama involving money and politics. People make money off
that program. But the measurements they're using are arbitrary. The
30% could disappear in a heartbeat if the tests were changed so that
everyone could score well! But that is not the purpose of school.
There will **always** be the lowest 30%, as long as there are
percentages. A perfectly high grade average (whatever it might be
called in whatever jurisdiction or tradition any reader on this list
grew up with) is not worth a damn except against the backdrop of the
99 percent who didn't do as well. Being the top scorer
(Valedictorian or whatever it might be called where others are) is
only valuable because ALL THE REST are *not* valedictorian.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Behind," U.S. program, so we shouldn't stay on this topic too long or
too closely, and it doesn't have to do with unschooling BUT...
-=-It is a new dawn. It will deliver us nothing of its own accord,
but will listen to our initiatives, our insistence, and our efforts
to MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN to reduce that 30%.*-=-
This is drama involving money and politics. People make money off
that program. But the measurements they're using are arbitrary. The
30% could disappear in a heartbeat if the tests were changed so that
everyone could score well! But that is not the purpose of school.
There will **always** be the lowest 30%, as long as there are
percentages. A perfectly high grade average (whatever it might be
called in whatever jurisdiction or tradition any reader on this list
grew up with) is not worth a damn except against the backdrop of the
99 percent who didn't do as well. Being the top scorer
(Valedictorian or whatever it might be called where others are) is
only valuable because ALL THE REST are *not* valedictorian.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
I was talking about scarcity and supply and demand in a college
economics class, last week. I used an example of A's (the letter
grade) being a scarce product. One of the students argued - he said,
"No, because it is possible for everyone to get an A. so they're not
scarce, according to the definition." The definition of something
being considered "scarce" is not enough for everybody to have all they
want (for free).
I said, "They are scarce because teachers cannot give everyone an A."
The entire class looked shocked. WHAT? Can't we ALL score high on the
tests and all get A's? My answer was no, not in a usual academic
course. The teachers are required to match their grades to what is
considered a reasonable distribution. Any teacher who doesn't conform
to that is called on the carpet and those without tenure won't be
rehired because they are contributing to grade inflation.
-pam
economics class, last week. I used an example of A's (the letter
grade) being a scarce product. One of the students argued - he said,
"No, because it is possible for everyone to get an A. so they're not
scarce, according to the definition." The definition of something
being considered "scarce" is not enough for everybody to have all they
want (for free).
I said, "They are scarce because teachers cannot give everyone an A."
The entire class looked shocked. WHAT? Can't we ALL score high on the
tests and all get A's? My answer was no, not in a usual academic
course. The teachers are required to match their grades to what is
considered a reasonable distribution. Any teacher who doesn't conform
to that is called on the carpet and those without tenure won't be
rehired because they are contributing to grade inflation.
-pam
On Nov 12, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
> A perfectly high grade average (whatever it might be
> called in whatever jurisdiction or tradition any reader on this list
> grew up with) is not worth a damn except against the backdrop of the
> 99 percent who didn't do as well. Being the top scorer
> (Valedictorian or whatever it might be called where others are) is
> only valuable because ALL THE REST are *not* valedictorian.
Sandra Dodd
-=-The teachers are required to match their grades to what is
considered a reasonable distribution. Any teacher who doesn't conform
to that is called on the carpet and those without tenure won't be
rehired because they are contributing to grade inflation.-=-
Pam's talking about college level grading. I taught Jr. High and it
was the same deal. Tests and grades needed to be calibrated so that
the curve was at the low end of B. We could have more A's and B's
than F's, but not TOO many more.
It wasn't fun.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
considered a reasonable distribution. Any teacher who doesn't conform
to that is called on the carpet and those without tenure won't be
rehired because they are contributing to grade inflation.-=-
Pam's talking about college level grading. I taught Jr. High and it
was the same deal. Tests and grades needed to be calibrated so that
the curve was at the low end of B. We could have more A's and B's
than F's, but not TOO many more.
It wasn't fun.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
prism7513
The teachers are required to match their grades to what is
one or two students get an "A" and all the rest fall below a "C", that
also poses a problem as he doesn't have that "bell curve" that *they*
(meaning the system) are looking for. It's very frustrating for him on
all levels as he teaches mostly seniors who are so tired of school
that they just don't care anymore (if they ever did.) And since he
struggled in school, he actually *gets* what they are going through,
but is tied down as far as what the system will allow him to do for
the kids (like get creative and show a movie, play darts, etc.)
Deb
> considered a reasonable distribution. Any teacher who doesn't conformMy husband deals with this as a high school teacher, as well. And when
> to that is called on the carpet and those without tenure won't be
> rehired because they are contributing to grade inflation.
>
one or two students get an "A" and all the rest fall below a "C", that
also poses a problem as he doesn't have that "bell curve" that *they*
(meaning the system) are looking for. It's very frustrating for him on
all levels as he teaches mostly seniors who are so tired of school
that they just don't care anymore (if they ever did.) And since he
struggled in school, he actually *gets* what they are going through,
but is tied down as far as what the system will allow him to do for
the kids (like get creative and show a movie, play darts, etc.)
Deb