Letter of the week, 10/29/07

[David]

Helping children learn
Editor:

As a parent of two Roger Sherman students (Meriden), I was deeply upset by the article on Sunday (R-J, 10/28) regarding the No Child Left Behind Act.
I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the teachers and staff at Roger Sherman for the wonderful job that they do every day. I believe that each teacher there truly cares for their students and wants them all to succeed in school.

My daughters have both done very well at Roger Sherman with the very same teachers that Ms Cox has concerns about. I, too, have a 2nd-grader and a 5th-grader. My fifth-grader has been in the Gifted and Talented program for 2 years, as well as the Mathletix program for 2 years, and is trying out for a 3rd year. Her success related to her teachers. My 2nd-grader's strong reading and spelling success can be attributed to her kindergarten and first grade teachers, with continuing encouragement from her current teacher.

I feel that teachers have a very difficult job in trying to educate our children; I have witnessed this first-hand while volunteering in the classroom. At times, education is interrupted for an unruly student and that takes away from the learning time of the rest of our kids.

It is not only the teachers’ responsibility to educate our children, but also it is a parent’s responsibly to educate. You must follow-up with your child's teacher if your child is having trouble in a subject, and not be so concerned with that football practice or a dance lesson that they may miss if they are staying after school for help. Open a line of communication with your child's teacher — phone calls, notes back and forth, an email. Teachers are very accessible.

Set up a time with your child's teacher to help, if your child needs it. This will not only benefit your child now, but also their future.
ANGEL PREECE, MERIDEN

[eds]

Every child learns differently. Even sibling children have differences in cognitive abilities. Perhaps some children learn better from another teacher. I myself found that in school. One science teacher I had explained things in a way I understood and helped me learn concepts other science teachers had trouble explaining to me. It is no reflection on the teacher. Just that people learn differently using different styles. Parents should have the right to pick and choose what teachers their children have. Parents should think about hiring a tutor if necessary. Children can and do learn but some children need extra help. These are the children that should not be left behind.

We in this country take education as a right and it really is a privilege. After a certain age unruly children should be dealt with more severely and expelled more regularly. Children need to learn the consequences of their actions. Some children do not want to learn, have no desire to learn, and no amount of persuasion can affect their attitude. They should not affect those that do. I am not talking about the occasional outburst. These are children and that is to be expected. In the very least, we should strive to keep the unruly children away from the other more engaged children who understand the value of an education.

I agree that parents need to be more involved with their child's education. There is not one concept being taught in school that a well-educated parent should not already understand. Parents should stress the importance of an education in our society; that without an education one's opportunities will be severely limited.

[Tino3]

Thanks for writing that letter, Angel. I have also spent time volunteering in Meriden schools. You are absolutely correct. I was deeply upset by the story, too.

[Fit 2 Print]

Any creative, affordable, long-term solutions to this problem?

[eds]

Yeah. Privatize education completely. That's innovative. Then people without kids don't have to pay for those that do.

When the parents have to pay for their kids education, they will be much more involved with the child's education. Then the parents can send their kids where they want. Public schools are not the answer.

There can be the Wal-Mart version of school for those who can only afford that, and then there can be the Nordstrom's version for those who can afford better.

Just like college. There's state school and then there's Ivy League. You go where you can afford.

The only law will be that you must attend school. People like using auto insurance as an example...so let's do that. People who have great driving records and good credit can go with the "are you in good hands" folks and then those that don't go into an assigned risk pool and pay more. But you must have auto insurance to drive.

Same with education. You don't do good in school you go to the school for those who have achieved similar results. You have good grades, good credit, and can afford the tuition, you go with a better school. It all comes down to free markets and free enterprise. And economic position.

It's called Libertarian.

[bnm]

What is being lost in all of the NCLB and IDEA requirements is the middle of the road student. The quiet student who does not act out, does not easily excel or have any major cognitive disabilities. There are pull out programs for the academically challenged there are groups such as mathletix for the top tier learners, and special services for kids with disabilities. But what is for the good kid who wants help? There is little time for these kids, they go ignored and underappreciated. Why can't he/she be challenged? The spirit of the law is good, I mean who wants to leave a kid behind? However, there are fundamental problems with the law(s) that need revising and quick. We are now creating a seperation of socal class that is very gapped and generating children who can take tests and not children who can learn and socialize.

[eds]

I can see what you are saying bnm. That also fits in well with privatization.

Right now the city has a monopoly on education and NCLB attempted to break that monopoly by allowing choice. You were always assigned by where you lived. It should be by choice so that you can choose what's best for your kid...

[Fit 2 Print]

The student's education is paramount, not the inconvenience to the school system in allowing learners to "move about" according to which school may offer a superior educational situation, yes?

[eds]

Yes exactly! That was the intent of NCLB. To allow choice.

And I would add that is it not a reflection on either the student or the teacher should that student move around. I can't stress this enough.

Moving around does not mean, as so many seem to allude, that the teacher is somehow deficient if that teacher cannot make 100% of their children learn a concept. Every student and every teacher develop a relationship with each other, a type of rapport. That interaction is based upon the style of the teacher, the current stage of development of the child, and the personalities of each.

Students should be able to choose the teacher and the classroom setting they feel most comfortable with, so a successful learning environment can be fostered.

[bnm]

I believe the intent of NCLB is to make school districts and teachers accountable for AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). Unfortunatley the option to choose a school is only afforded to those who attend a failing school. Failing schools risk loss of funding and if they continue to fail they can risk a changeover in administration, state takeover, or other penalties. The loss of funding surprises me as a detriment to failing, because it seems to me that the schools who are failing need the most resources and help.

[eds]

That's the downside of NCLB. There was an accountability aspect and a penalty aspect. The assumption there with NCLB was that the schools were somehow derelict in their duties to provide an education. The fear of losing funding was somehow supposed to all of a sudden make the teachers start teaching. Which is ridiculous notion because NCLB left out the fact that students must also be held accountable and there were no such inclusions in the law. Coupled with no funding for the law and you have a recipe for disaster.

NCLB should have looked at the students themselves. I know they look at race, and grouping and such. But that's not the answer. You can't just create a formula and make every student and every classroom fit into it. Schools, teachers, and students are all variable.

Testing is a good idea sure. It is just one metric however. There are plenty of smart people out there who don't do well with standardized tests. The point I like about the tests is that it creates a metric. There should be more metrics however to balance out and create an overall aptitude assessment of each student. A student's aptitude can be measured by tests and for most that is fine. Other students need different measurement tools to ascertain their aptitude. The skill of the teachers and administrators should be to realize which students need which measurements. Then the approach would be more tailored.

But that is all nice and good for public schools. If we privatize them, the parents can be their own judge of quality. Some colleges do not give grades. Grades are but one standardized way to judge progress. Were a parent to feel that grades, testing, and such do not accurately judge aptitude they could pick a school their child would excel at and be judged accordingly.

The state should not set any standards for learning. A private accreditation organization would be formed, many perhaps. Their name would be attached to the school to show quality. Think of it like a good housekeeping seal of a approval, or a consumer digest best buy. Those are private organizations people trust to judge the quality of a product. The same would hold for schools. It can be done if people were willing to have an open mind and think for themselves rather than simply abdicating thought to governmental standards of quality.