"What makes schools succeed isn't money but structure, parental
involvement, discipline and non-faddish curriculums. None of that has to cost more money, else Catholic schools that deliver good results at about half the cost of public schools wouldn't exist."
Good morning Duncan!!!
Well, it's still morning out here, at least. I WAS reading the paper in bed, but the sun streaming through my window and the cats purring loudly lulled me back to sleep, so I'm getting a late start.
Hmmm . . . I wouldn't disagree that there is no CONSISTENT link between higher spending and student achievement. But in schools like those in Washington DC, where the students are about 98% black and almost all living in poverty, I would argue that the fact that more money is being spent and these students are not doing splendidly does not mean that spending less per pupil all over the United States is justifiable as a result.
As I said before, the reasons children do not do well in school are very complex. The child is pretty much fully formed, developmentally speaking, before kindergarten. Fully funding HeadStart, and starting it a year earlier, would in my opinion ultimately boost performance in the public schools far more than any other single change or improvement. And where we have gotten to the point in California with the leaking roofs and broken windows and dysfunctional toilets, I believe that no really moral person could justify treating a child like that, and I still didn't really receive much of an answer from you on that. So in this case, whatever is being spent is not enough. There need to be minimum standards for our schools. Do you believe it is acceptable to fund schools at such a low level that children are educated in these deplorable conditions?
As far as Catholic schools go, I think it is like comparing apples and oranges if you are going to discuss them in relation to public schools. Catholic teachers make less money (you simply need a degree to teach there, whereas public school teachers need an extra year), the schools were built at church expense long ago, the playgrounds are generally just endless slabs of blacktop, and the children buy their own books. Parents who choose Catholic schools are already self-selected as being very interested in a conservative, traditional education for their children, and encourage and reinforce achievement.
I would also argue that even though some of the innovations in education--like whole word reading in place of phonics, which actually worked--are eventually discarded, it is still very important that educators continually strive to stimulate children and find out ways to teach them that are effective. Certainly, since the advent of television, video games and computers, research shows that attention spans have shortened, and more visual learning, with bright colors and short bursts of exposure, is required. Whatever you think about why this happened, it is a fact, and unless the way teaching methods adapt to this, more children will fail. The mindless "back to the 3-R's" would be like prison to me, and I think most children experience it that way.
The goal of an education should be to foster a lifetime love of learning, not to cram children full of rote facts until their imaginations die.
Christine |
