I don’t think “different” is “hard”. We know that bastard children in single mother households result in higher numbers of disordered kids/adults. We have a lot more disordered people from these bad homes. Their kids in turn are more prone to mental disorders (lifelong unemployment, homelessness, interpersonal conflict and behavior problems such as drug/alcohol dependence, psychopathy and sex disorders).

So you are right in the most important way. The (lower class?) products of these homes you see in the schools are now screwed up in a way not seen in WWII, the depression or any other time.

I just don’t see that they are in pain. Many of them party all the time. My objection here is to the characterization that the non-performing students are suffering. It’s the teachers & staff and other students who do much suffering. I believe the main problem is the attitude of the non-performing students not their lack of oxygen or food.

I think the schools need to cut through the party atmosphere and establish requirements for admission and retention in academic programs and kick out the bad students (no matter what their excuses are). When this is done people will choose which “school” they want to go to and self select into vocational/academic tracks that will become more manageable and productive for all with the partying down to reasonable levels. Just like in the UK which is multicultural also.

You cannot run a school district when the kids show up whenever they fell like it or are able to, perform when they feel up to it or are physically able to, and then blame the teaching staff because Johnny or Otis can’t read. Much of our problems would reduce if the schools sorted the students like the UK does and like we used to and ran each school to cater to the needs and ability of it’s self-sorted students.

If so, it gives us an idea of what she’ll be after if she gets elected as our State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

There are other blog posts here explaining why people are against charters. Some make some sense. What they don’t explain is how I tell a parent they can’t go to a high performing school across the street because we want to maintain a poor-performing monopoly. Most parents won’t sacrifice their children that way.

Economic conditions are clearly better, but what about the emotional one? More kids live in single- or no-parent households, or are in foster care, than ever before. Doesn’t that make life a little more challenging?

Depends on who you ask. The positive spin is that to achieve the gains charters promise (but as of yet have not delivered as a whole, according to the biggest comparison studies), the schools need to be in much greater control over who works there.

The darker assessment is that for the real behind-the-scenes political and corporate advocates, charters are really just vouchers in disguise — and a way to funnel public funds to private corporations, while weakening labor unions in the process.

Here’s an interesting and balanced assessment of charters from a charter supporter upon reviewing the results in his state:
“Charter schools offer increased flexibility to parents and administrators, but at a cost of reduced job security to school personnel. The evidence to date shows that the higher turnover of staff undermines school performance more than it enhances it, and that the problems of urban education are far too great for enhanced managerial authority to solve in the absence of far greater resources of staff, technology, and state of the art buildings.”

– State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia

I do admit the teen gangbanging activity and the flying lead represent a challenge. But we have always had no good parents who will not move their families to a safer environment.

I believe a lot of the problems we have now with educational scores is the lazy self-centered “students” who are not being corrected at school. Schools used to be quite good at correcting students. Somebody turned that off. To reform education we need to turn it back on and turn it up.

I read the Newsweek article and you’re right, it only briefly mentions how difficult some of these jobs can be. It does mention that students and parents are blamed for poor performance. I can’t imagine working in schools with the lack of discipline I knew growing up. I’m a “spare the rod . . . ” child, so this “time out” stuff is foreign to me. The trauma that many students go through outside of school is also definitely significant.

That said, I know schools and teachers that are performing under these conditions. I also know those that are failing miserably. The ones who are succeeding have connected with the kids, gotten some level of parent/guardian/sibling involvement and most know their subject matter pretty well. Above all though, they have a sense of professionalism about their role in society and their importance to their students.

We have to face the TRUTH. Areas are impoverished for a reason. Working there is likely difficult in ways Piedmont will never be. However, if that reality is met head on, students can and do achieve. I read success stories from Oakland Unified every year to prove it.

I understand why folks would give up on Oakland, I just won’t be one of them.