|
Post by freecharlie on Aug 9, 2015 15:51:43 GMT
I know that starting in May it is hard to get the kids to go to bed because it is still light out at their bedtime. We only had 6 hours of true darkness where we lived in England and the kids went to school until the 3rd week of July. Black out blinds and/or just plain parenting work. No difference to kids getting hyped up because Christmas is coming and too excited to sleep. well of course you have every answer to any disagreement. The fact remains that many of our buildings don't have ac and would be miserable for the students and the rural kids are needed at home during the summer. District by district is fine or even school by school. Sweeping it though the entire nation does not take into account differences in areas.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 9, 2015 15:52:51 GMT
I'm talking about systems such as the one in France, and I believe Germany is similar. I know Poland is as well. Students who go to the lycée are academically inclined and college-bound. Students who aren't go to vocational schools. If you don't go to the lycée, you don't take the same test - le bac. The bac is very difficult and it would be easy to look at it and assume that all French students are ahead of American students because they have to pass the bac to graduate (though there isn't really a graduation), the reality is that no, not all French students pass that test to graduate, and only the ones who go to lycée in the first place take that test. We used to have voc Ed in my district, but it was dropped as too often the students sent to it were minorities. So now we assume that ALL students are college-bound, whether that is their wish or not. So the kids who would have gone into a vocational track in France (and taken the "bac professionel" which isn't the same test at all) go to high school here and get compared to those who have chosen to attend HS in other countries. So while other countries DO educate all students (up to a point), they don't all get the same education and testing. If I only had the students who had chosen to continue to high school, my results would be better as well. Instead, I get the ones who want to be there along with those who don't. In the UK, do you not have O and A levels to differentiate? Not everyone gets A levels, correct? If you were to compare only the students who were going for A levels to the general US population you'd get similar results to comparing only lycée student scores to the U.S. scores. You're comparing different systems of education here though. The lycée has three paths for anyone between 15 to 18 years. A lycée general, a lycée technique or a lycée professionnel. Students take the same core curriculum of some eight or nine subjects but are offered three electives and an artistic workshop. At the end of this year, the key decision is made as to which baccalaureat the student will pursue. Not all students want or need to go on to university for their career path. General education finishes at the age of 15 for french students then they chose which path they want to pursue. It's not a matter of whether they are grade A students or not it depends which career path they chose as to what they study at 15+ years of age. It's true that the academic student will more than likely choose to follow the path of the lycée professionnel but there are other choices. .All students in the UK take GCSE ( which replaced O levels about 20 years ago) whether they get an A* or the bottom G they still sit them,some pupils sit more than others but every student sits the core subjects...English, Math & Science plus a couple of others of their choice.Most students sit 8 subjects with the more academic students sitting 10/12 subjects. A Levels are different altogether and I don't think you have the equivalent in the US. A student studies, on average, three of their chosen subjects in depth from 16 years old for two years. Less academic student who choose not to study at A levels have the choice of a vocational qualification such as a B Tech. So it's not a matter of only the brightest children going to high school. It's a matter of what qualification they gain at the end of their general education based on their ability and/or their chosen career path. ETA Your high school diploma is the equivalent of our GCSE. To get a placement at a UK university the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) recommends that in addition to a high school diploma, grades of 3 or above in at least two, or ideally three, Advanced Placement exams may be considered as meeting general entry requirements for admission. The International Bacc Diploma may also be accepted. For the College Entrance Examination Board tests, a minimum score of 600 or higher in all sections of the SAT or a minimum score of 26 or higher in all sections of the ACT along with a minimum score of 600 in relevant SAT Subject Tests may be considered as meeting general entry requirements for admission. Hate to use it but we're comparing apples and oranges. Since mine started secondary in England and we moved to the USA I think I have a bit of experience to say. That no, the GCSE isn't equivalent to a High School Diploma. The educational set up of both systems is vastly different and very difficult to equate. USA is very point (grading on assignment) based, and the testing is separate. The system we experienced in England was more relaxed with teachers broadly evaluating progress and the end of year testing was seen as another tool of assessment not a measure of achievement until you get to GCSEs and A Levels which the coursework is part of the testing and isn't the case in the USA. It doesn't matter if you portfolio of work is perfect here. If you bomb the tests you bomb the tests. I actually prefer the English system where students specialize in what they are good at earlier. What I didn't like is the UCAS system of not knowing where you were going until the end of August etc. I'm glad my students had the choice of a school that suited them rather than random numbers deciding.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 9, 2015 15:53:47 GMT
In the U.S., we don't offer that choice at all - at least not anywhere I'm familiar with. We don't allow them to not attend the pre-university career path, it is assumed that ALL students need to prepare for university. So every student gets tested and then we compare our test scores to those of other countries - countries with very different systems. There are students who would in other places choose an apprenticeship or a bac professional type program - nope, here they have to take the university bound program. Want to be a mechanic? Too bad, you need to be ready for college. So that kid who may be an amazing mechanic and could pursue that path in France instead takes the same courses and tests as the kid who is going to university. I think we do our kids a disservice by forcing them to fit the college bound cookie cutter mold and not allowing them to do vocational. There no shame in learning a trade, and in many cases it pays better than a university degree does. My son is not academically inclined, but could do well in a trade. He doesn't have that option. So he will take the same classes and tests as his more academically gifted sister, though his goals are very different from hers. But his low test scores will still count against his school even though it's an issue with him and not the quality of education he's receiving, I completely agree.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Aug 9, 2015 15:54:30 GMT
That's the issue, we don't allow for apprenticeships or training programs. Kids go through 18, if they leave before graduation they have dropped out. If they stay until 18, they are tested and those test scores are used to compare us to the rest of the world - whether the rest of the world tests every child or just the best ones.
Exactly. My school is almost 100% Hispanic. We have honors kids who go on to college. We have some kids who drop out, and we have everything in between. We have a TON of kids who go into jobs that require some sort of training - but not college. They would be better served by starting that training at 16 or so than going through the motions to get a HS diploma that focuses on getting them into university. But it has been considered racist in the past because skin color and economic status often determined which track a student would be put into.
I hate seeing students who are GOOD at something being forced to do something they don't like rather than letting them use the talents and skills they have. 20 years ago, the transmission mechanic at the car dealership I worked at was bringing in $78K per year - in his 20's, with no college at all. I have finally hit that amount as a teacher - after 20 years of experience and a master's degree. Don't tell me that his job was somehow lesser than mine - he was damn good at what he did and those jobs will never be outsourced. But no, let's insist that he needs to go to college and take English 101 and a bunch of other stuff, build up a huge pile of debt, and then he can get a job where he may make $40K per year to start.
We will always need people who are good at working with their hands - repairmen, plumbers, electricians, woodworkers, etc. Why aren't we letting kids prepare for those jobs? They pay well - and sometimes MORE - than some jobs requiring college.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 9, 2015 15:57:22 GMT
You would still have 6+ weeks off wouldn't they, as I understand it? Possibly, but it takes away the parents' ability to get time off work- if everyone wants one of the same six weeks off in the summer, lots of people aren't going to get one of them. At least a ten week break helps more working parents to have a week off when their kids are off. No one around here really wants to take their vacation when it is cold in february or raining all the time in April or October. Adults want time off in summer, too! Not every parent wants 2 weeks off in the summer. Our breaks were in April and October both times warm/mild. People and workplaces adapt. I'm sure there are colleagues who want time off in the summer but get it thrown at them that schools are out to take their time at another time. So this actually helps the workplace so no one group is monopolizing specific time during good weather.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 9, 2015 15:59:37 GMT
We only had 6 hours of true darkness where we lived in England and the kids went to school until the 3rd week of July. Black out blinds and/or just plain parenting work. No difference to kids getting hyped up because Christmas is coming and too excited to sleep. well of course you have every answer to any disagreement. The fact remains that many of our buildings don't have ac and would be miserable for the students and the rural kids are needed at home during the summer. District by district is fine or even school by school. Sweeping it though the entire nation does not take into account differences in areas. Just the facts. No need to be catty. And I agree that A/C is an issue that needs to be addressed. There are federal funding for many energy saving projects that can be exploited.
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 9, 2015 16:03:51 GMT
In the U.S., we don't offer that choice at all - at least not anywhere I'm familiar with. We don't allow them to not attend the pre-university career path, it is assumed that ALL students need to prepare for university. So every student gets tested and then we compare our test scores to those of other countries - countries with very different systems. There are students who would in other places choose an apprenticeship or a bac professional type program - nope, here they have to take the university bound program. Want to be a mechanic? Too bad, you need to be ready for college. So that kid who may be an amazing mechanic and could pursue that path in France instead takes the same courses and tests as the kid who is going to university. I think we do our kids a disservice by forcing them to fit the college bound cookie cutter mold and not allowing them to do vocational. There no shame in learning a trade, and in many cases it pays better than a university degree does. My son is not academically inclined, but could do well in a trade. He doesn't have that option. So he will take the same classes and tests as his more academically gifted sister, though his goals are very different from hers. But his low test scores will still count against his school even though it's an issue with him and not the quality of education he's receiving, Is there a particular reason this state of affairs has come about? I agree that not all children are best served by a college education so curious why that doesn't appear to be recognised in the system and alternatives offered?
So how would a student who wants to be a mechanic manage to learn that trade? Sorry, lots of questions!
No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top (GWB and Obama school programs). Both programs that push this idea of everyone going to colleges. They also have facilitating the growth of for profit colleges which our State Attorney General has had to sanction. Some school districts still run a vocational tract. Otherwise a student must graduate traditional HS and go to a trade college.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2015 16:09:04 GMT
So your music teachers and sports coaches don't really get those breaks? If you mean that they can choose to do that, just in the same way that those same teachers choose to do those things during summer break, then I guess so. I always hear "Teachers don't REALLY get the summer off". So which is it? Do you get 12 weeks off in summer or not? Do you do nothing during winter and spring breaks? Do you legit have all of those days off? I'm not interested in continuing this conversation if you're going to be combative and nasty. I'm sure you know very well that we spend some of our time in planning and development and some of it is just time off. My district is about 90% free and reduced lunch. Many of our schools don't even have the money for a music teacher during the year, much less money to pay for us to run a camp during the breaks. I spent the last four years helping to run our district's elementary honor choir on my own time for free, because there is no additional money for fine arts. My budget at the middle school? Zero. Literally zero. When I need new music or choir outfits or anything like that, I have to hold a fundraiser. Summer school teachers are paid, but I can guarantee you in my district if we were going to run music camps over the break, they'd expect us to do it as volunteers. My point is that what works for one district isn't always going to work for everyone else. The things I mentioned are barriers to this working here, in this place, with our current situation. If it works for you, great, but I think it would likely be another nail in the coffin of music education in my district.
|
|
|
Post by dualmaestra on Aug 9, 2015 16:12:31 GMT
I've taught in both year round and traditional calendar. Academically, I did not see a difference in the students. We still taught the sme number of days. The biggest difference for us is that we gave homework packets to students during their off-track time so they would not forget what they had learned. When we returned, there were no extra days for review. We had to keep going with our curriculum from wherever we left off. We changed tracks every 6 weeks. As far as summer vacations, only a fourth of the students got one. For at least half the school, they ended one grade June 30th and started the next grade the following week (one track ended in May and one was going off is the other half). Again, the only reason we went year round was to alleviate overcrowding. The biggest request for us was always the track that was off first. They all wanted summer vacations. This was both teachers and parents. We selected our grade/track by seniority. We saw lots of unbalance. Veteran teachers on A track, newbie teachers in less desirable tracks. We did have parents call the office to say "what am I supposed to do with my child while they are off-track?" ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) When I changed districts to be closer to home, I was looking a for a year round schedule. I didn't mind it at all, but I got traditional. I am enjoying it just as much. I don't have a preference, but I don't have children. Many teachers like being on the same schedule as their children to spend time with them. And like it was mentioned above, we have nothing to do with our calendars. not sure if there is any research out there that supports whether there are advantages to year round vs. traditional calendars.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Aug 9, 2015 16:14:20 GMT
well of course you have every answer to any disagreement. The fact remains that many of our buildings don't have ac and would be miserable for the students and the rural kids are needed at home during the summer. District by district is fine or even school by school. Sweeping it though the entire nation does not take into account differences in areas. Just the facts. No need to be catty. And I agree that A/C is an issue that needs to be addressed. There are federal funding for many energy saving projects that can be exploited. again, these buildings CANNOT be retrofitted for ac. It really doesn't matter how much money you had to throw at them. Short of tearing them down (and some are on the historical registry so they can't be torn son) and building new ones it cannot be done. And they aren't the facts. They are your interpretation based on your experiences which you have decided translates into whatvisbpa best for the world.
|
|
|
Post by dualmaestra on Aug 9, 2015 16:16:27 GMT
I've taught in both year round and traditional calendar. Academically, I did not see a difference in the students. We still taught the sme number of days. The biggest difference for us is that we gave homework packets to students during their off-track time so they would not forget what they had learned. When we returned, there were no extra days for review. We had to keep going with our curriculum from wherever we left off. We changed tracks every 6 weeks. As far as summer vacations, only a fourth of the students got one. For at least half the school, they ended one grade June 30th and started the next grade the following week (one track ended in May and one was going off is the other half). Again, the only reason we went year round was to alleviate overcrowding. The biggest request for us was always the track that was off first. They all wanted summer vacations. This was both teachers and parents. We selected our grade/track by seniority. We saw lots of unbalance. Veteran teachers on A track, newbie teachers in less desirable tracks. We did have parents call the office to say "what am I supposed to do with my child while they are off-track?" ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) When I changed districts to be closer to home, I was looking a for a year round schedule. I didn't mind it at all, but I got traditional. I am enjoying it just as much. I don't have a preference, but I don't have children. Many teachers like being on the same schedule as their children to spend time with them. And like it was mentioned above, we have nothing to do with our calendars. not sure if there is any research out there that supports whether there are advantages to year round vs. traditional calendars.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 16:20:31 GMT
If you mean that they can choose to do that, just in the same way that those same teachers choose to do those things during summer break, then I guess so. I always hear "Teachers don't REALLY get the summer off". So which is it? Do you get 12 weeks off in summer or not? Do you do nothing during winter and spring breaks? Do you legit have all of those days off? I'm not interested in continuing this conversation if you're going to be combative and nasty. I'm sure you know very well that we spend some of our time in planning and development and some of it is just time off. My district is about 90% free and reduced lunch. Many of our schools don't even have the money for a music teacher during the year, much less money to pay for us to run a camp during the breaks. I spent the last four years helping to run our district's elementary honor choir on my own time for free, because there is no additional money for fine arts. My budget at the middle school? Zero. Literally zero. When I need new music or choir outfits or anything like that, I have to hold a fundraiser. Summer school teachers are paid, but I can guarantee you in my district if we were going to run music camps over the break, they'd expect us to do it as volunteers. My point is that what works for one district isn't always going to work for everyone else. The things I mentioned are barriers to this working here, in this place, with our current situation. If it works for you, great, but I think it would likely be another nail in the coffin of music education in my district. I don't think that you are wrong about your district. I don't think it will be an easy change in many locations, because we know that sometimes getting buy in for education is tough. I feel that your comments have been nothing more than "It won't work here" followed by a list of excuses that may or may not be legit and may or may not be the nail in the coffin of change. What we do know is that the traditional schedule creates a lot of problems in learning and that it works in our kids favor to not have such huge gaps. When I see educators so resistant to education kids in a different way that may be better for a laundry list of what I see to be nothing more than excuses (vs. reasons based in fact), then I feel irritated. My sister works in a school district that is 95% minority and 97% free lunch. And you know what they just did? They just switched to the modified school year plan this year. They went back the first week in August (vs. our district who is starting week 4 tomorrow). It may work. It may not. But they know what isn't working. They know what impact traditional schedules have. So why not try to do something different, something that might work better? What's the harm in that? You think that music education will go away or not be funded, but we KNOW that that happens all the time in regular scheduled districts. So what makes that different? Have you looked at year round schools? Have you compared their music program successes or failures to actually have some facts to support your theory? Maybe you are right. Maybe not. But it sounds to me like you are just simply speculating, and that you are not basing it on anything other than what you THINK will happen, possibly. While at the same time it could still happen in the traditional cycle. It just doesn't make any sense to me. That's it. I'm not being nasty. I'm trying to understand your resistance to a new idea (that isn't really new, but pretty established and IME very successful).
|
|
|
Post by RiverIsis on Aug 9, 2015 16:20:51 GMT
Just the facts. No need to be catty. And I agree that A/C is an issue that needs to be addressed. There are federal funding for many energy saving projects that can be exploited. again, these buildings CANNOT be retrofitted for ac. It really doesn't matter how much money you had to throw at them. Short of tearing them down (and some are on the historical registry so they can't be torn son) and building new ones it cannot be done. And they aren't the facts. They are your interpretation based on your experiences which you have decided translates into whatvisbpa best for the world. Nope. I have presented my facts as I have experienced them. They are facts. If they help others make decisions and what works for them that's great. For example a new high school was built 2 counties over and the old high school is now used by the city for other activities and they were able to get grants and funding to adapt the building rather than it go into decline. There are always many solutions to so many of the issues we face. No one has said my way or the highway on this thread so I fail to see why be so intolerant of ideas and discussion based on experience. AGAIN I have agreed throughout this thread that A/C is an issue. You know what else is an issue? Wind chill during the Artic Winters with kids standing out in the middle of nowhere waiting for buses, but we have school districts that work around that.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 16:21:27 GMT
I've taught in both year round and traditional calendar. Academically, I did not see a difference in the students. We still taught the sme number of days. The biggest difference for us is that we gave homework packets to students during their off-track time so they would not forget what they had learned. When we returned, there were no extra days for review. We had to keep going with our curriculum from wherever we left off. We changed tracks every 6 weeks. As far as summer vacations, only a fourth of the students got one. For at least half the school, they ended one grade June 30th and started the next grade the following week (one track ended in May and one was going off is the other half). Again, the only reason we went year round was to alleviate overcrowding. The biggest request for us was always the track that was off first. They all wanted summer vacations. This was both teachers and parents. We selected our grade/track by seniority. We saw lots of unbalance. Veteran teachers on A track, newbie teachers in less desirable tracks. We did have parents call the office to say "what am I supposed to do with my child while they are off-track?" ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) When I changed districts to be closer to home, I was looking a for a year round schedule. I didn't mind it at all, but I got traditional. I am enjoying it just as much. I don't have a preference, but I don't have children. Many teachers like being on the same schedule as their children to spend time with them. And like it was mentioned above, we have nothing to do with our calendars. not sure if there is any research out there that supports whether there are advantages to year round vs. traditional calendars. I'm not familiar with track systems, but I have not heard positive things. We are not a track system. We are straight up year round, all schools in the district (k-12) are the same schedule.
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 9, 2015 16:23:32 GMT
I've taught in both year round and traditional calendar. Academically, I did not see a difference in the students. We still taught the sme number of days. The biggest difference for us is that we gave homework packets to students during their off-track time so they would not forget what they had learned. When we returned, there were no extra days for review. We had to keep going with our curriculum from wherever we left off. We changed tracks every 6 weeks. As far as summer vacations, only a fourth of the students got one. For at least half the school, they ended one grade June 30th and started the next grade the following week (one track ended in May and one was going off is the other half). Again, the only reason we went year round was to alleviate overcrowding. The biggest request for us was always the track that was off first. They all wanted summer vacations. This was both teachers and parents. We selected our grade/track by seniority. We saw lots of unbalance. Veteran teachers on A track, newbie teachers in less desirable tracks. We did have parents call the office to say "what am I supposed to do with my child while they are off-track?" ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) When I changed districts to be closer to home, I was looking a for a year round schedule. I didn't mind it at all, but I got traditional. I am enjoying it just as much. I don't have a preference, but I don't have children. Many teachers like being on the same schedule as their children to spend time with them. And like it was mentioned above, we have nothing to do with our calendars. not sure if there is any research out there that supports whether there are advantages to year round vs. traditional calendars. Everything I've seen has either been bad research or has not shown there to be any difference. I have never understood the general public's assumption that it is the school's job to provide childcare. People around here get PO'd if school is delayed or cancelled for predicted bad weather and nothing really happens. Because it was difficult for them to get child care. It is NOT the job of the school system to provide child care. That is your job as a parent!!! drives me nuts.
|
|
Country Ham
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,313
Jun 25, 2014 19:32:08 GMT
|
Post by Country Ham on Aug 9, 2015 16:32:56 GMT
What I cannot understand is all the people here who think that spending money for AC is too big of a burden in exchange for the betterment of our education system. Do you realize how absurd that sounds? AC is too much to ask? It's an expense we don't want to offer our kids a competitive edge in a global economy. We know year round school helps kids learn better. It's nothing more than intellectual laziness and an inability to think outside the box, and to look to others to see how it can work. Change is a challenge, but when it's for a worthy cause like improving our children and by default our country and our world, it's worth while. Our county is facing a budget crisis big time. Right now we are going with no extras. We have no music, no art, no field trips, the upper elementary lost their aides etc. We are at risk of closing mid year if a budget can't be reached this fall. While I love the idea of year round, and we have AC, I can appreciate schools not being able to afford it. It's also the increase in your monthly expenses.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2015 16:39:58 GMT
I'm not interested in continuing this conversation if you're going to be combative and nasty. I'm sure you know very well that we spend some of our time in planning and development and some of it is just time off. My district is about 90% free and reduced lunch. Many of our schools don't even have the money for a music teacher during the year, much less money to pay for us to run a camp during the breaks. I spent the last four years helping to run our district's elementary honor choir on my own time for free, because there is no additional money for fine arts. My budget at the middle school? Zero. Literally zero. When I need new music or choir outfits or anything like that, I have to hold a fundraiser. Summer school teachers are paid, but I can guarantee you in my district if we were going to run music camps over the break, they'd expect us to do it as volunteers. My point is that what works for one district isn't always going to work for everyone else. The things I mentioned are barriers to this working here, in this place, with our current situation. If it works for you, great, but I think it would likely be another nail in the coffin of music education in my district. I don't think that you are wrong about your district. I don't think it will be an easy change in many locations, because we know that sometimes getting buy in for education is tough. I feel that your comments have been nothing more than "It won't work here" followed by a list of excuses that may or may not be legit and may or may not be the nail in the coffin of change. What we do know is that the traditional schedule creates a lot of problems in learning and that it works in our kids favor to not have such huge gaps. When I see educators so resistant to education kids in a different way that may be better for a laundry list of what I see to be nothing more than excuses (vs. reasons based in fact), then I feel irritated. My sister works in a school district that is 95% minority and 97% free lunch. And you know what they just did? They just switched to the modified school year plan this year. They went back the first week in August (vs. our district who is starting week 4 tomorrow). It may work. It may not. But they know what isn't working. They know what impact traditional schedules have. So why not try to do something different, something that might work better? What's the harm in that? You think that music education will go away or not be funded, but we KNOW that that happens all the time in regular scheduled districts. So what makes that different? Have you looked at year round schools? Have you compared their music program successes or failures to actually have some facts to support your theory? Maybe you are right. Maybe not. But it sounds to me like you are just simply speculating, and that you are not basing it on anything other than what you THINK will happen, possibly. While at the same time it could still happen in the traditional cycle. It just doesn't make any sense to me. That's it. I'm not being nasty. I'm trying to understand your resistance to a new idea (that isn't really new, but pretty established and IME very successful). You were being nasty with the "so do you really get all that time off in the summer after all?" comment. And what you are calling speculating, I would call making an educated prediction based on my experience in this district. Just because program cuts happen in traditional schedules doesn't mean we need to help them along. Success experienced in a district that supports the arts through bond issues (so the opposite of what happens here) is not really relevant to my situation.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 16:41:50 GMT
What I cannot understand is all the people here who think that spending money for AC is too big of a burden in exchange for the betterment of our education system. Do you realize how absurd that sounds? AC is too much to ask? It's an expense we don't want to offer our kids a competitive edge in a global economy. We know year round school helps kids learn better. It's nothing more than intellectual laziness and an inability to think outside the box, and to look to others to see how it can work. Change is a challenge, but when it's for a worthy cause like improving our children and by default our country and our world, it's worth while. Our county is facing a budget crisis big time. Right now we are going with no extras. We have no music, no art, no field trips, the upper elementary lost their aides etc. We are at risk of closing mid year if a budget can't be reached this fall. While I love the idea of year round, and we have AC, I can appreciate schools not being able to afford it. It's also the increase in your monthly expenses. I'm trying to find some studies on this, I'm not seeing that it is increasing costs significantly. But I can appreciate that some schools can't afford it in the immediate. I do think that like anything with time and effort things can be worked out. I live in AZ. They just cut our education budget by $113 million dollars for the fiscal year beginning July 2015. I get it.
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 9, 2015 16:43:21 GMT
We have to notify our custodial crew, who then notifies county maintenance, if we are planning to be in the building past 4:30. A/C and heat get shut off at 4:00 otherwise. It is expected that the rooms will remain cool/warm for the 30 minutes that we might need past 4:00.
If a room is needed, only that section of the school receives climate control.
For those that just don't have an idea of the budget constraints schools face - we aren't allowed to have Glade plug-ins or to charge our cell phones using the school's electricity. It costs too much. Yet, we are expected to make long-distance calls from our cell phones after school because it is too expensive to have long-distance calling from everyone's extension.
A system that does not pay for a teacher to call a parent with a different area code is not going to pay to retro-fit 100 buildings so A/C can pump throughout July.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 16:47:12 GMT
Ok, Merge. If you are not interested in using actual information and think that "helping it along" will reduce your music programs, then fine. I don't know what else we can talk about. You have no evidence that this is true or will happen, and there is more evidence that it is likely to happen in the traditional setting then outside of it. Our programs have been cut too, we no longer have art right now. (See post to country ham up above). It isn't a magic bullet, but it's also been shown to have value. there are pros and cons in any system. But I feel that giving something new a fair shake can't hurt since we know that how we have things now isn't as effective as it should be.
I think you are reading tone where there is none, because it was a legit question to you, do you get the summer off or not? It's commonly used when teachers are angry that people suppose they don't work 3 months out of the year. So if it is true, then I can see how working over part of the breaks in year round school would be upsetting. If you don't actually take the whole 3 months off, then I don't see what difference it makes anyway. You do the trainings, coaching, etc. the same way, some of it falls over break. (Football coaches work the entire month of august and they are teachers). It was just a question. How you read that is on you.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Aug 9, 2015 16:56:38 GMT
Re: Graduation requirements for college vs. technical degrees in high school:
Florida has changed their graduation requirements in the last year or two so that it now how has different tracks for a diploma that range from college prep to a more technical degree. I admit, I do not totally understand it as the kid in my house that is going to graduate has already met the requirements for college/merit (?) prep diploma, but my limited understanding is that it addresses the fact that not every one is planning on going to college. The different 'types' of diplomas have differing classes at differing levels (AP, Honors, GPA, etc.) that define which you get. The college track involves classes that follow the basic college entrance requirements for the numbers of credits in various disciplines (English, Math, Science, Foreign Language, etc.)
Maybe some one who understands it better can give a more concise explanation? The rules went into effect after my oldest graduated and as I said before, my youngest has already fulfilled the requirements so I haven't had to pay attention as much as I should have.
Re: Year Round School
It would have been a personal blessing for us. I have a kid who was about worthless when it came to not having a schedule and summer was just as close to hell for us it could get. Year round would have been perfect for him.
Re: A/C in the classes
You are more likely to find no heat in our schools before no a/c and the a/c runs pretty much all but about two months of the year anyway so I am not sure how much year round would change the line item cost on that one in my area. Our school got out late in June and goes back in about two weeks. The a/c would have only been off about six weeks when it was all said and done.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 19:53:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 16:59:33 GMT
(Bolded by me ) What countries are you referring to? We send every one of our children to school in the UK, from kindergarten through to high school ! However, aren't students in secondary schools only tested in the subjects they are studying. So they can go for 1,2,3 or more GCSE and then the same with A Levels? So only the most advanced students are taking the more advanced testing, right? In the USA depending on the state, all students (even special ed) are tested in all subjects at every grade/year In most schools,can't say all of them cause I don't know them all :)but certainly in the ones that I know of, they have yearly, maybe more often than that, internal testing/exams in all the subjects they're taught. My girls get regular internal school tests throughout the year to know their level of knowledge and whether they've retained and learnt the subject. They also have the national external SATS test in year 6 ( 11/12yrs) for English,Maths( externally marked) and internally marked Science. We have a personal achievement" grade" on their yearly report and are also told of the class average " grade". Up to the end of year 9 they have a general curriculum covering English ( covers language,literature & reading).Maths.Science.Religious Education,World History which included British/European history,Geography,a foreign language,art,music/drama, IT and Designs & Technology which includes food technology. I don't know of anyone that is doing less than 8 GCSE's. It has to include English Maths & Science plus their other choices which they choose in year 9( 13/14 yrs) ready for studying in year 10 & 11 in more depth than what they've studied in the various subject up until then.. They are restricted to their choices to some degree, in so far as they have to choose from 5 other columns of listed subjects so they might not be able to not choose to do history or geography or a foreign language purely because of the way the columns are structured......a crafty way to " force" them to do a humanities/language subject ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/MNrJDkDuSwqIMVw33MdD.jpg) Yes the more able pupils choose more subjects so they end up with 10/12 different subjects for their final exams at the end of year 11 ( 16/17 yrs). They also choose to break down the science into three more in depth subjects of Chemistry,Physics & Biology. So yes they are tested on a regular basis. The difference is that the results of those tests throughout all the years do not go towards their final exams. Their final academic achievements are based purely on the results of their GCSE exams. So you really have to remember what you've learnt in 1st grade in case it's relevant to anything that is included in the final exam ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/MNrJDkDuSwqIMVw33MdD.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by SabrinaM on Aug 9, 2015 17:00:11 GMT
Like I said previously, we ended up having off track care at the school because of the number of parents making such a stink about their kid being off track rather than the traditional summer off schedule. In fact, even now being traditional calendar parents have an all out coniption fit over the scheduled teacher workdays.
"I'm a single parent. I have no friends. My family lives in another state. Where can my kid go tomorrow since I just found out there's no school this Friday?"
The calendar for the year is voted on and released well in advance. Figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Aug 9, 2015 17:02:39 GMT
Ok, Merge. If you are not interested in using actual information and think that "helping it along" will reduce your music programs, then fine. I don't know what else we can talk about. You have no evidence that this is true or will happen, and there is more evidence that it is likely to happen in the traditional setting then outside of it. Our programs have been cut too, we no longer have art right now. (See post to country ham up above). It isn't a magic bullet, but it's also been shown to have value. there are pros and cons in any system. But I feel that giving something new a fair shake can't hurt since we know that how we have things now isn't as effective as it should be. I think you are reading tone where there is none, because it was a legit question to you, do you get the summer off or not? It's commonly used when teachers are angry that people suppose they don't work 3 months out of the year. So if it is true, then I can see how working over part of the breaks in year round school would be upsetting. If you don't actually take the whole 3 months off, then I don't see what difference it makes anyway. You do the trainings, coaching, etc. the same way, some of it falls over break. (Football coaches work the entire month of august and they are teachers). It was just a question. How you read that is on you. I got out for the year on may 23. I got back this fridat, August 14. I have spent 6 full days (8-4) in pd. I will be at my school per principal request on Tuesday for 2 hours. I have worked on curriculum over the summer and I will spend this week working on my room and having stuff ready to go the minute students walk into the room. I have 12 weeks of summer, 11 is you subtract pd and I don't get paid for it. Football coaches get paid for coaching and not all are teachers. In sone studies it has been shown to have value, but in other areas it has not worked. The teachers on this thread are speaking from their knowledge of the their students, schools, and districts. There are districts around here who have gone to a 4 day week with longer days. It has worked for them, so we should do that throughout the country, right?
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 17:06:58 GMT
Ok, Merge. If you are not interested in using actual information and think that "helping it along" will reduce your music programs, then fine. I don't know what else we can talk about. You have no evidence that this is true or will happen, and there is more evidence that it is likely to happen in the traditional setting then outside of it. Our programs have been cut too, we no longer have art right now. (See post to country ham up above). It isn't a magic bullet, but it's also been shown to have value. there are pros and cons in any system. But I feel that giving something new a fair shake can't hurt since we know that how we have things now isn't as effective as it should be. I think you are reading tone where there is none, because it was a legit question to you, do you get the summer off or not? It's commonly used when teachers are angry that people suppose they don't work 3 months out of the year. So if it is true, then I can see how working over part of the breaks in year round school would be upsetting. If you don't actually take the whole 3 months off, then I don't see what difference it makes anyway. You do the trainings, coaching, etc. the same way, some of it falls over break. (Football coaches work the entire month of august and they are teachers). It was just a question. How you read that is on you. I got out for the year on may 23. I got back this fridat, August 14. I have spent 6 full days (8-4) in pd. I will be at my school per principal request on Tuesday for 2 hours. I have worked on curriculum over the summer and I will spend this week working on my room and having stuff ready to go the minute students walk into the room. I have 12 weeks of summer, 11 is you subtract pd and I don't get paid for it. Football coaches get paid for coaching and not all are teachers. In sone studies it has been shown to have value, but in other areas it has not worked. The teachers on this thread are speaking from their knowledge of the their students, schools, and districts. There are districts around here who have gone to a 4 day week with longer days. It has worked for them, so we should do that throughout the country, right? Yes, if a 4 day week has proven benefits that outweigh other schedules and improve learning, overall satisfaction, and are a benefit to the kids, then why wouldn't we?
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 9, 2015 17:08:03 GMT
Ok, Merge. If you are not interested in using actual information and think that "helping it along" will reduce your music programs, then fine. I don't know what else we can talk about. You have no evidence that this is true or will happen, and there is more evidence that it is likely to happen in the traditional setting then outside of it. Our programs have been cut too, we no longer have art right now. (See post to country ham up above). It isn't a magic bullet, but it's also been shown to have value. there are pros and cons in any system. But I feel that giving something new a fair shake can't hurt since we know that how we have things now isn't as effective as it should be. I think you are reading tone where there is none, because it was a legit question to you, do you get the summer off or not? It's commonly used when teachers are angry that people suppose they don't work 3 months out of the year. So if it is true, then I can see how working over part of the breaks in year round school would be upsetting. If you don't actually take the whole 3 months off, then I don't see what difference it makes anyway. You do the trainings, coaching, etc. the same way, some of it falls over break. (Football coaches work the entire month of august and they are teachers). It was just a question. How you read that is on you. But the thing is, research doesn't actually show value in the form of academic benefit with year-round school. It seems to be pretty neutral. Can you show me the evidence you cite that arts funding cuts are more likely to happen in a traditional setting than outside of it? Personally, I think the reason things aren't as effective as they could be has little to do with our traditional schedule and a lot to do with the way we're required to teach now, plus a lot to do with some families' attitude about their own responsibility toward their kids' education. You and I and billions of other Americans were adequately educated pre-NCLB on a traditional summers-off schedule. I get 10 weeks off in the summer and I spend a portion of it, at my discretion, doing (unpaid) planning and professional development. I'm fine with that. But no way am I going to add running a choir camp for no pay. To me, there's a substantial difference between work I do on my own and work that involves managing students. Here, football coaches who work the month of August get a nice stipend or hourly rate for that, but I can guarantee you that the choir teacher would be expected to do it for free. I'm not about to apologize for not wanting to work for free during the breaks. I do WAY more than my contract requires during the school year.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on Aug 9, 2015 17:14:38 GMT
Ok, Merge. If you are not interested in using actual information and think that "helping it along" will reduce your music programs, then fine. I don't know what else we can talk about. You have no evidence that this is true or will happen, and there is more evidence that it is likely to happen in the traditional setting then outside of it. Our programs have been cut too, we no longer have art right now. (See post to country ham up above). It isn't a magic bullet, but it's also been shown to have value. there are pros and cons in any system. But I feel that giving something new a fair shake can't hurt since we know that how we have things now isn't as effective as it should be. I think you are reading tone where there is none, because it was a legit question to you, do you get the summer off or not? It's commonly used when teachers are angry that people suppose they don't work 3 months out of the year. So if it is true, then I can see how working over part of the breaks in year round school would be upsetting. If you don't actually take the whole 3 months off, then I don't see what difference it makes anyway. You do the trainings, coaching, etc. the same way, some of it falls over break. (Football coaches work the entire month of august and they are teachers). It was just a question. How you read that is on you. But the thing is, research doesn't actually show value in the form of academic benefit with year-round school. It seems to be pretty neutral. Can you show me the evidence you cite that arts funding cuts are more likely to happen in a traditional setting than outside of it? Personally, I think the reason things aren't as effective as they could be has little to do with our traditional schedule and a lot to do with the way we're required to teach now, plus a lot to do with some families' attitude about their own responsibility toward their kids' education. You and I and billions of other Americans were adequately educated pre-NCLB on a traditional summers-off schedule. I get 10 weeks off in the summer and I spend a portion of it, at my discretion, doing (unpaid) planning and professional development. I'm fine with that. But no way am I going to add running a choir camp for no pay. To me, there's a substantial difference between work I do on my own and work that involves managing students. Here, football coaches who work the month of August get a nice stipend or hourly rate for that, but I can guarantee you that the choir teacher would be expected to do it for free. I'm not about to apologize for not wanting to work for free during the breaks. I do WAY more than my contract requires during the school year. No, I'm not having a lot of luck finding studies past the 1990s. Can you cite that arts funding cuts are more likely to be cut? And the studies seem to demonstrate some neutrality, some positive and virtually zero negative. I agree that the way your are required to teach is a huge part of this. And I was adequately educated, but I want my kids to have more than adequate, I want to see their schools excel. And we have that in our district. I don't think you should work for free, and at no point in time did I make such a suggestion. And if your community doesn't value arts, then you are right, it won't be paid for. Our community does value it, and the teachers get paid to be there. They are not doing it for free. And I don't know, do you support homework over the summer? I know a lot of peas do, and I argue that summer breaks are for breaks. And if teachers don't want to work on their time off, they shouldn't have the expectation that kids be working over the summer either. I don't know what side of the argument you fall on for that particular subject. I hope it's on the side of no work over breaks for kids. It's their time.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Aug 9, 2015 17:17:50 GMT
I got out for the year on may 23. I got back this fridat, August 14. I have spent 6 full days (8-4) in pd. I will be at my school per principal request on Tuesday for 2 hours. I have worked on curriculum over the summer and I will spend this week working on my room and having stuff ready to go the minute students walk into the room. I have 12 weeks of summer, 11 is you subtract pd and I don't get paid for it. Football coaches get paid for coaching and not all are teachers. In sone studies it has been shown to have value, but in other areas it has not worked. The teachers on this thread are speaking from their knowledge of the their students, schools, and districts. There are districts around here who have gone to a 4 day week with longer days. It has worked for them, so we should do that throughout the country, right? Yes, if a 4 day week has proven benefits that outweigh other schedules and improve learning, overall satisfaction, and are a benefit to the kids, then why wouldn't we? because parents have to find daycare for that day. I don't know how may, but most of the teachers on this thread have stated that we have no control over the calendar. This isn't a teacher union issue. Calendars are decided by the school board. They base their decisions on a myriad of issues including cost, impact on low ses families (added daycare expense), extra curriculars, college admissions/timing, parental concerns and yes, student achievement. They weigh each of those issues before making a decision. Quite a few teachers have also said they wouldn't mind a year round calendar. I'd like to maybe go on vacation some time that isn't one week in April or over the summer. It sounds nice to me. But I can appreciate the challenges that a district and I know that that type of schedule does not benefit all children just as traditional school years don't benefit all children. There are legitimate barriers to year round school. To dismiss them is short-sighted and tells me that there is a lack of knowledge about how districts work. In a perfect world we'd have the money to do everything that might benefit a student, but this isn't a perfect world
|
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
Jan 4, 2015 1:47:52 GMT
|
Post by AnotherPea on Aug 9, 2015 17:18:13 GMT
Ok, Merge. If you are not interested in using actual information and think that "helping it along" will reduce your music programs, then fine. I don't know what else we can talk about. You have no evidence that this is true or will happen, and there is more evidence that it is likely to happen in the traditional setting then outside of it. Our programs have been cut too, we no longer have art right now. (See post to country ham up above). It isn't a magic bullet, but it's also been shown to have value. there are pros and cons in any system. But I feel that giving something new a fair shake can't hurt since we know that how we have things now isn't as effective as it should be. I think you are reading tone where there is none, because it was a legit question to you, do you get the summer off or not? It's commonly used when teachers are angry that people suppose they don't work 3 months out of the year. So if it is true, then I can see how working over part of the breaks in year round school would be upsetting. If you don't actually take the whole 3 months off, then I don't see what difference it makes anyway. You do the trainings, coaching, etc. the same way, some of it falls over break. (Football coaches work the entire month of august and they are teachers). It was just a question. How you read that is on you. I think it is unwise to jump into a change for change's sake. It is unwise to adjust something that affects so many people, when past evidence in an area suggests that it would not work. Especially when there is no clear evidence that the change will have a positive effect. You're saying "do this - it might work even though no study has shown conclusively that it will." while lambasting someone for saying "we shouldn't do this because in the past we've had these problems and these are the obstacles we will face." That doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 19:53:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 17:18:33 GMT
Hate to use it but we're comparing apples and oranges. Since mine started secondary in England and we moved to the USA I think I have a bit of experience to say. That no, the GCSE isn't equivalent to a High School Diploma. I was only going by our UCAS site as to the entry to university requirements was. I assumed that they would know the academic standard that both the GCSE and the US High School diploma was. I wasn't saying that they were the same as such but the academic standard achieved is the same. This is what they said on their site for international students EVALUATION
High School Graduation Diploma
On its own, at a minimum, can be considered acceptable in lieu
of GCSE (grades A, B, C) provided an average grade C is obtained
in subjects which have counterparts in the GCSE syllabus link to UCAS requirements on page 62 of the document
|
|