The single biggest problem with the education system.

R.Miller said:

Another important rule of Ebonics is concerning the verb "to be." Often used in the tense "bin," as used in example number one, means that the action is still going happening. For instance, "She bin married" in Ebonics would be "She is still married." Many who speak standard English would think that it meant that "she" was married, but no longer is.

Click to expand...

That does not have African roots. The root of that usage is from hillbilly pigeon english. Deep rural south, Appalachia.

Dave-W said:

That does not have African roots. The root of that usage is from hillbilly pigeon english. Deep rural south, Appalachia.

Click to expand...

I did not say that particular example employs an African grammatical construction. But, many linguists identify West African consonant drop or the frequent use of 'th'. African slaves were exposed to many languages and dialect varieties. Their speech incorporated these into one language or grammar (depending on your perspective).
What is Ebonics (African American English)? | Linguistic Society of America

R.Miller said:

But, many linguists identify West African consonant drop or the frequent use of 'th'. African slaves were exposed to many languages and dialect varieties. Their speech incorporated these into one language or grammar

Click to expand...

And my linguist friends consider that legitimate.
That is good enough for me.

Now if we can just get rid of the hundred or so OTHER "dialects" and regional pronounciations in the US main english (defined as Oxford grammar and Chicago pronunciation/accent)

OldWiseGuy said:

This wasn't boot camp, it was AIT, artillery survey class, and there was no yelling, just the spoken imperative that we "will" learn what is being taught.

Click to expand...

Yes but, these are self selected, motivated students. And depending on your time of service, volunteer. Schools cannot apply military instructional strategies to students with experiencing cognitive developmental delays, nor can it as easily overcome a multi generational apathy for education and literacy. These problems are often deeply psychological, epistemic, and cultural.

I learned a lot in U.S. Navy engineering classrooms. I was there to learn, I enlisted, I fought through difficulty. I was also raised to persevere and overcome challenge. Not everyone is--thats reality.

A

Dave-W said:

And my linguist friends consider that legitimate.
That is good enough for me.

Now if we can just get rid of the hundred or so OTHER "dialects" and regional pronounciations in the US main english (defined as Oxford grammar and Chicago pronunciation/accent)

Click to expand...

Are you serious? Get rid of them? I think I'll just wait around for your inevitable misspelling or poor syntax. Then we can get rid of you. Let's apply our bigotry consistently.

Not get rid of the PEOPLE, get rid of the accents and poor grammar and word usage.

My mom was a school teacher and it was driven into me.

Are you aware that TV news show anchors (like Dan Rather from Texas) have to go through extensive linguistic training to sound like they come from Chicago before they are put on the air?

Ya, I understood what you meant. It is still offensive. So a highly professional journalist is now the criteria for the entire nation. We are going to systematically "get rid" of cultural and local dialects. Do you know how insane and incalculably myopic that is? Vile.

OldWiseGuy said:

You've just made my case.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I find an unwarranted dose of negativity regarding the educational system (in the U.S.) and it almost always comes from religious conservatives. If your point is that these young students should have the full support of the educational system, the American public, and a larger portion of the budget--then we agree. Myself--I work at a charter school and my kids to to a Protestant private school.

I think it is unwarranted because conservatives often have a mistrust of the governments involvement in education. Recall that Regan promised to abolish the Department of Education. Religious conservatives often mistrust secular education as well. These are deeply philosophical divides that often fall on party lines. This is unfortunate. Of course both conservatives and liberals think they are doing the best thing for "the kids." But the kids are powerless and suffer under the newest educational trend.

Money is unfortunately the only answer we have to solve many problems in society. If we had a weak military, money would be the solution. The allocation of resources is not finite but, the phrase 'put your money where your mouth is' comes to mind when thinking of a politically conservative criticism of education. Conservatives spend as wildly as liberals--just on different things. They value different things. Maybe not in rhetoric or ideology but, certainly in practice. Our societies greatest resource is our people; education is an economic investment in productivity. That's why it is run by the government--it is in the public interest.

However, there are other forms of education--all valuable and healthy options. I teach at a charter school to 1. avoid unionization and 2. to serve a severely underprivileged population. I enjoy where I work and am able to work with great teachers who are not tenured but, earn their paycheck year-to-year by hard work and student growth. It's run by liberals by the way. I don't have a problem with public education. I do however, have a problem with how public education is funded. Typically, schools receive money based on tax revenue collected from local property taxes. This works out great for wealthy neighborhoods but, not so well for communities with low property values or a high number of renters. This is a systemic problem that feeds more money into the schools in already wealthy neighborhoods and fewer dollars to poor neighborhoods. This is not how every county and state operate but, it occurs in a great many communities. One of the biggest injustices in this scenario is that poor people cannot simply move to a wealthy neighborhood with a great school. So the cycle of poverty continues and children suffer. There are several problems but, it is a money problem.

OldWiseGuy said:

I think more conservative thought should go into the curriculum. Liberalism hasn't served us all that well imo.

Would you agree that if the school budget money were divided equally no one would have a great, or even a good, school?

Why private school for your kids?

Click to expand...

There is rarely, what many pejoratively call liberalism, in the curriculum. I think the public is often uninformed about the difference between State Standards, a schools curriculum, and a teacher's lesson.
Here is a link to my states Common Core Standards for the grades I teach 11th and 12th. I think you will be surprised to discover how normal but rigorous they are.
English Language Arts Standards » Reading: Literature » Grade 11-12 | Common Core State Standards Initiative

Under the current education budget, if you distribute money equally, wealthier schools will loose money and poorer schools will receive more money. But, this is dichotomous thinking. That is not our only option to fix education. Schools need more "but in" from parents. This is controversial in educational circles because there is little research on how to accomplish this effectively. Of course it will take money no matter what is decided. It all takes money. People have to be paid, and with more money and fewer union rules a school district could afford to hire more qualified personal. If teacher pay were tied to longevity in the classroom and measurable success--this would help attract stronger teachers candidates. But, that is only a small part of the answer. It is horribly complicated and political. I sometimes hate it. I love my students and love to teach but, the adults in the room are often intolerable.

I send my kids to a private school for several reasons.
When they stated in kindergarten, we lived in a desirable and picturesque neighborhood in our downtown area but, it was in a bad school district. What I mean by bad is that the school my kids would have attended had low test scores and an unbalanced ratio of veteran teachers to new teachers. Good teachers matriculate to the better schools where the affluent parents join the PTA, come to school events, and support their students by helping with homework. In the poorer neighborhoods the kids do not have that support. My wife and I wanted out children to be surrounded by other kids with comparable intellectual abilities and self control. The private school is expensive but, defiantly worth it. My kids are the top of their class in the most academically rigorous school in our entire county. It's a great school.

Another reason is that we wanted our kids to receive a "Christian education." I used to be a believer. I was a deacon in a conservative Protestant Reformed church. My wife and I decided to leave our children in that school when we left the church. It is a bit awkward for me but, that's okay. My kids are happy and they are little. We haven't discussed non-belief with them yet. It will be a while still. I have some regrets about some of the things they learn at that school but, I simply explain my perspective to them when they ask or it comes up in conversation. My kids will choose for themselves what they think when they are adults. I don't like indoctrination--at least I like to keep it to a minimum. Most of the reteaching involves some unscientific thing they learned or sometimes historical things like God blessed America or Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. There are two sides to a coin.

My kids will however, attend whichever high school I teach when it is time. I plan to move to a traditional public school when they are that age. We live in a rural area of California, so the commute is significant wherever I teach. Since my kids are doing very well in school, I don't want to make a change now. I'm all for school choice--the more options, the better.

OldWiseGuy said:

That's college, not high school.

Click to expand...

If one didn't take the right science and math classes in High School it is doubtful that they would even get into any STEM area in college and even more doubtful that they would succeed. Math especially is something where teh foundation needs to be well laid, and just showing up in high school would mean laying a foundation of shifting sand.

OldWiseGuy said:

Be careful about stating those preferences for your kids. You might be accused of discrimination, or worse.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean. It is an inherently classist opinion--good thing I'm not a Marxist; I would have to care. When it come to my kids I am protective and I think some sheltering is good for them. If I were in a storm I would want to shelter my kids. As a teacher, I am aware of the research relating to the benefits of healthy homogenous groupings in the classroom and social situations.

R.Miller said:

There is rarely, what many pejoratively call liberalism, in the curriculum. I think the public is often uninformed about the difference between State Standards, a schools curriculum, and a teacher's lesson.
Here is a link to my states Common Core Standards for the grades I teach 11th and 12th. I think you will be surprised to discover how normal but rigorous they are.
English Language Arts Standards » Reading: Literature » Grade 11-12 | Common Core State Standards Initiative

Under the current education budget, if you distribute money equally, wealthier schools will loose money and poorer schools will receive more money. But, this is dichotomous thinking. That is not our only option to fix education. Schools need more "but in" from parents. This is controversial in educational circles because there is little research on how to accomplish this effectively. Of course it will take money no matter what is decided. It all takes money. People have to be paid, and with more money and fewer union rules a school district could afford to hire more qualified personal. If teacher pay were tied to longevity in the classroom and measurable success--this would help attract stronger teachers candidates. But, that is only a small part of the answer. It is horribly complicated and political. I sometimes hate it. I love my students and love to teach but, the adults in the room are often intolerable.

I send my kids to a private school for several reasons.
When they stated in kindergarten, we lived in a desirable and picturesque neighborhood in our downtown area but, it was in a bad school district. What I mean by bad is that the school my kids would have attended had low test scores and an unbalanced ratio of veteran teachers to new teachers. Good teachers matriculate to the better schools where the affluent parents join the PTA, come to school events, and support their students by helping with homework. In the poorer neighborhoods the kids do not have that support. My wife and I wanted out children to be surrounded by other kids with comparable intellectual abilities and self control. The private school is expensive but, defiantly worth it. My kids are the top of their class in the most academically rigorous school in our entire county. It's a great school.

Another reason is that we wanted our kids to receive a "Christian education." I used to be a believer. I was a deacon in a conservative Protestant Reformed church. My wife and I decided to leave our children in that school when we left the church. It is a bit awkward for me but, that's okay. My kids are happy and they are little. We haven't discussed non-belief with them yet. It will be a while still. I have some regrets about some of the things they learn at that school but, I simply explain my perspective to them when they ask or it comes up in conversation. My kids will choose for themselves what they think when they are adults. I don't like indoctrination--at least I like to keep it to a minimum. Most of the reteaching involves some unscientific thing they learned or sometimes historical things like God blessed America or Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. There are two sides to a coin.

My kids will however, attend whichever high school I teach when it is time. I plan to move to a traditional public school when they are that age. We live in a rural area of California, so the commute is significant wherever I teach. Since my kids are doing very well in school, I don't want to make a change now. I'm all for school choice--the more options, the better.

Click to expand...

If you're still in a rural area when your kids are in MS & HS they could go to Stanford OHS if they wanted to avoid waking up super early to do the commute with you. I went there & so did another girl on here. We both LOVED it and the education is incredible. Though if you do online school you have to be really involved in something besides school to have enough social interaction / other interests. For me that was music, for my friend who is here, she's a professional dancer.

Just a thought!!! There are free online schools too. They vary in quality. Stanford OHS is awesome bc of the variety of classes you can take, and the teachers are the GOAT.

Cimorene said:

If you're still in a rural area when your kids are in MS & HS they could go to Stanford OHS if they wanted to avoid waking up super early to do the commute with you. I went there & so did another girl on here. We both LOVED it and the education is incredible. Though if you do online school you have to be really involved in something besides school to have enough social interaction / other interests. For me that was music, for my friend who is here, she's a professional dancer.

Just a thought!!! There are free online schools too. They vary in quality. Stanford OHS is awesome bc of the variety of classes you can take, and the teachers are the GOAT.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check that out.