This is an interesting report done by the Brookings Institute. I don't know how biased or true it is but it shows the major metropolitan areas of the country, which Tulsa is one, and lists them according to their growth potential, diversity, and education level. Tulsa does poorly and is in the same category as Detroit, Memphis, Birmingham, Cleveland, Grand Rapids, and Wichita (and several others). According to the report we are an 'Industrial Core' with 'low growth, low diversity, and low educational attainment'. A description:
Their populations are slower-growing, less diverse, and less educated than national averages, and significantly older than the large metropolitan average. A remaining industrial base combined with lack of diverse in-migration to these metro areas has kept educational and wage inequalities in check. But these metropolitan areas lost population in the aggregate during the 2000s, yet still saw growth in their outer suburbs, even as their cities and high-density suburbs declined in size.
Do you think this accurately describes Tulsa? I'm not so sure. Our growth has been steady, and the city itself grew to just under 400,000 after losing population in the early 2000s, and all of suburbs have seen significant growth. We still struggle with attracting more diversity and retaining more younger, educated workers. Education is one of our biggest problems with TPS struggling and a lack of public higher education available.
Do you agree with the assessment? What can the city do to improve these categories?
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/Metro/state_of_metro_america/metro_america_overview.pdf (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/Metro/state_of_metro_america/metro_america_overview.pdf)
The characterization is inaccurate, IMO. I also have to disagree that we lack in edukashun. 20 years ago I could have agreed with that statement and the most obvious lacking asset we do not have is a four year public university program, but taking a look at what we do have:
Two growing medical school programs which are also training not just doctors but PA's, doctorate level PT's, RN's, LPN's.
One of the more respected private universities in the nation (once referred to about 15 years ago as the "Harvard of the midwest" or the plains or some such thing) which keeps growing
Another private university
A multiple location JC which serves all geographic and demograpic parts of the community
NSU Broken Arrow and OSU Tulsa offer bachelor's and higher level degree programs.
We aren't under-served by higher ed, but our paradigm and apparently that of the people around the country to consider such things is that we are still under-served. Is a four year public U really that big a stumbling block? We missed the opportunity in the 1980's when UCAT was being built to combine it and TCC (nee TJC) into one four year school.
In the past I would have not liked being compared to Birmingham..
However, being from there I have been following the City through the Birmingham Weekly. Similar to Urban Tulsa.
http://www.bhamweekly.com/
B-Ham has changed considerably. I noticed when Eric Clapton played Tulsa the show prior to that was Birmingham.
IMO Brookings had more credibility in years past.
I think they miss the mark regarding "educational attainment." While it is true that we lack a large four year public college, we're pretty competitive regarding percentage of the workforce with a college degree.
Sadly for my pride, those probably are the cities we should be grouped with, however. Not that there's anything wrong with Birmingham. What I've seen of it is actually reasonably nice.
I do see Tulsas schools as being one of the biggest hinderances for Tulsa's future growth.
As someone who doesn't have kids I have never really thought much about it. But after having watched several years of comments on City Data Forums, from family after family after family moving to the Tulsa area, asking about Tulsa's schools, then finding out they are bad and then choosing the suburbs, or a different city all together..... I have realized its a very real problem. The schools have to be fixed.
The other comment I see all the time is along the lines of. "Where is there a hotel that I can stay at and be in a walkable area with shopping and restaurants?" "I am considering moving to Tulsa for a job and will be looking for a place to live. I want to be in an urban area where I can walk to lots of things." "What are some of the affordable, urban (see pedestrian friendly) housing areas and options,,, can you send me a link?" Then often times these questions are followed by. "How are the schools in these areas?"
We suck at both urban living options, and schools. And the suburbs offer a lot more in the way of new suburban living options, and good schools.
Point 2.....
Our suburbs compared to many places are practically stagnant growth wise. It APPEARS to us "stagnant Tulsa" that they are rapidly growing. But folks they arent. Just look at some of the growth rates and numbers for most Texas suburbs for a reality check.
Detroit has great suburbs with good schools. But its an uphill battle for them to get people to move to the area because of the central cities rep. Tulsa is getting to be know nationally as a high crime city as well. Not good.
I do think things are getting better for Tulsa. We are starting to position ourselves to be very competitive on many fronts. The urban living thing is starting to right itself. Finally having a downtown that is returning to life is gonna help. Having neat things to do, great river parks, good entertainment options. etc. act as good selling points.
But we still need to work on our higher ed and focus on growing key industries.
As for the schools, I think we need to at least get a few top notch, public, middle and high schools in the city that we can point to, to get and keep more families in the city. More charter schools perhaps? Public schools voucher program?
I've always wondered just where folks get the idea that our public schools are so bad. Is it the test scores? They usually show most of the area schools right around the national average. Some a little better, some worse and some outstanding. And that doesn't seem to matter whether its suburban or urban. Since private schools can cherry pick and by nature are populated with a better income demographic, it isn't right to even mention them. My experience though, is that their product, other than Holland Hall, isn't any different.
My guess is that many people simply don't have kids in school, aren't aware of some of the outstanding schools in the area (Lee, Eliot, Mayo, Thoreau, Carver, Booker T, Edison) and simply latch on to a brand like Jenks without doing much analysis. Sort of like Chevy vs. Toyota.
So what gives? Why are public schools always the target instead of the general low quality of educational attainment that the whole state seems to have?
I think many of the TPS schools are pretty good, and two of the best ones (Lee and Eliot) are in areas that are seeing more infill and will continue to see infill. Carver is a great middle school for midtown, Booker T is one of the best high schools in the country, and Edison is a very good high school as well. I think TPS gets an undeserved bad reputation.
TU is definitely an asset but unfortunately it's just too small. I'd really like to see TU add more students, especially international and graduate students. TU only has 4,200 students; I really think they could have twice that amount and still be a selective university like Vanderbilt which has over 12,000 students. I would like to see TU expand more to the west and embrace the 6th Street corridor and 11th Street. 8,000+ students at a Top 100 national university is a great thing for any city and could really give Tulsa a boost. TU's new medical school, in conjunction with OU, is exciting.
And then you have OSU-Tulsa which could easily expand to at least 15,000 students if the OSU administration would allow it. I want to see that campus work in tandem with Stillwater, offer a number of undergrad degrees different or similar to ones in Stillwater but retain more of a graduate/research/health sciences focus. I'd like to see the bulk of non-agriculture graduate courses now in Stillwater moved to Tulsa and the majority of non-agriculture research done in downtown. The OSU Health Sciences Center has the potential to grow and it would be really beneficial for downtown to have TU, OU, and OSU all use the current OSU Med Center as their teaching hospital similar to the OU Med Center in OKC. The growth around the OU Med Center is astounding and nearly equals in size and square footage another entire downtown; just imagine if that same growth happened around a combined 'University Med Center' in west downtown Tulsa and with it medical research and biotech opportunities.
Sorry for the rant, but I really think higher education is one of the keys for Tulsa's future growth. Having more students in the city, especially those from other states and countries, is very important as many of those students will stay here. As far as more walkable, urban places go I really think PlaniTulsa will help tremendously in that regard and open the door for developers to do more urban, mixed-use in downtown and midtown.
Really glad you caught this and posted it, SXSW. Even better is the description of Tulsa which I missed entirely because I got sucked into the nifty US map and its data overlays.
It's an interesting description because it describes a city still caught in a "white flight" dynamic . . . which is something I'd thought America cities in general had reversed. I mean, we all know that Tulsa has a lot of retro tendencies, but that's a total throwback to urban culture of the 60's-80's. It also links that to certain types of local economies (predominantly blue collar) and limited education. It's a pretty dense paragraph with some major assumptions baked in.
Quote from: we vs us on May 11, 2010, 10:48:24 PM
Really glad you caught this and posted it, SXSW. Even better is the description of Tulsa which I missed entirely because I got sucked into the nifty US map and its data overlays.
It's an interesting description because it describes a city still caught in a "white flight" dynamic . . . which is something I'd thought America cities in general had reversed. I mean, we all know that Tulsa has a lot of retro tendencies, but that's a total throwback to urban culture of the 60's-80's. It also links that to certain types of local economies (predominantly blue collar) and limited education. It's a pretty dense paragraph with some major assumptions baked in.
I think the data is outdated and describes Tulsa in the early 2000s when we lost so many jobs and the suburbs really started to grow, especially with more retail/restaurants (part of what caused the sales tax crisis we're in now). During the energy boom from 2006-2008 Tulsa made up lost ground and began to grow again before cooling off with the recession last year. I think it was during the mid 2000s before the energy boom that many thought Tulsa would continue to lose population but the most recent figures which Michael posted show the opposite where Tulsa has actually passed its all-time high set in 2000 and continues to grow. Therefore I personally do not think Tulsa should be grouped with Detroit, Rochester, Louisville, Birmingham, Cleveland, etc. because we are much better off than all of those cities. If anything we should be on par with Oklahoma City, Omaha, Des Moines, Nashville, Kansas City, Little Rock, Columbia, Indianapolis, etc. i.e. the New Heartland cities.
Quote from: waterboy on May 11, 2010, 09:05:32 PM
I've always wondered just where folks get the idea that our public schools are so bad. Is it the test scores? They usually show most of the area schools right around the national average. Some a little better, some worse and some outstanding. And that doesn't seem to matter whether its suburban or urban. Since private schools can cherry pick and by nature are populated with a better income demographic, it isn't right to even mention them. My experience though, is that their product, other than Holland Hall, isn't any different.
My guess is that many people simply don't have kids in school, aren't aware of some of the outstanding schools in the area (Lee, Eliot, Mayo, Thoreau, Carver, Booker T, Edison) and simply latch on to a brand like Jenks without doing much analysis. Sort of like Chevy vs. Toyota.
So what gives? Why are public schools always the target instead of the general low quality of educational attainment that the whole state seems to have?
People arent looking at the state or nation as a whole when they are moving, or thinking of moving, to Tulsa. They are looking at Tulsas schools and comparing them to the ones in BA, Owasso and Jenks.
As a parent with four kids in TPS, I personally think that one of the largest problems with the schools is the parents. I try to stay involved, I push my kids, and if the school calls me I'm there. However I seem to be in the minority. It's hard to get kids to do things when the parents don't care, which reflects onto the kids attitudes in school.
Quote from: custosnox on May 12, 2010, 09:33:22 AM
As a parent with four kids in TPS, I personally think that one of the largest problems with the schools is the parents. I try to stay involved, I push my kids, and if the school calls me I'm there. However I seem to be in the minority. It's hard to get kids to do things when the parents don't care, which reflects onto the kids attitudes in school.
B..bu..but, I thoght it takes a village to raise a child. I posit this every few months, and it's always shot down with some idea that we don't spend enough money on education. We spend plenty, it's the parents who don't give a smile that's the problem. Kudos on staying involved. I credit that for the success of my daughters and they are from a "broken home".
Quote from: we vs us on May 11, 2010, 10:48:24 PMIt's an interesting description because it describes a city still caught in a "white flight" dynamic . . . which is something I'd thought America cities in general had reversed.
The people who assume TPS is nothing but bad schools is a prime example of "white flight" going strong here. People judge the school system less on the opportunity to receive a good education and more on the fear of their kids being in the same school as minorities. This is also an unspoken prejudice when we talk about the "good parts" of town, i.e. a new poster to this forum says he is looking for a nice place to live, and is immediately told which parts of town NOT to go near.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on May 12, 2010, 10:04:02 AM
The people who assume TPS is nothing but bad schools is a prime example of "white flight" going strong here. People judge the school system less on the opportunity to receive a good education and more on the fear of their kids being in the same school as minorities. This is also an unspoken prejudice when we talk about the "good parts" of town, i.e. a new poster to this forum says he is looking for a nice place to live, and is immediately told which parts of town NOT to go near.
Enlighten us on the good schools. (I am not saying they are all bad, I just want the names of "the good ones"
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 10:10:54 AM
Enlighten us on the good schools. (I am not saying they are all bad, I just want the names of "the good ones"
See Waterboy's post above. There are more good schools than those listed as well, but it's a great thumbnail list of some outstanding schools within TPS
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2010, 10:01:57 AM
B..bu..but, I thoght it takes a village to raise a child. I posit this every few months, and it's always shot down with some idea that we don't spend enough money on education. We spend plenty, it's the parents who don't give a smile that's the problem. Kudos on staying involved. I credit that for the success of my daughters and they are from a "broken home".
I believe everyone knows that "its the parents" DUH!
But if thats where you want to tackle the issue.... Whats your solution?
How you gonna force sh@tty parents to be good ones? This is gonna be interesting, I want to hear this.
IMO ya cant force parents to do anything. The kids however, are essentially a captive audience. Thats where we can make changes. BUT those kids from homes with sh@tty parents are gonna need different things than those kids who have good parents. More money itself isnt going to fix anything, but something has to be different and change for these kids and some extra effort,to counter the sh@ty parenting, is going to have to happen.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 10:10:54 AM
Enlighten us on the good schools. (I am not saying they are all bad, I just want the names of "the good ones"
Any school in the system is going to have Advanced Placement classes where the student's who excel (and have supportive involved households) will get quality education. If you are worried about your student's education being "dragged down" by underachievers, this isn't really the case. The programs are in place to support the kids and parents who actually try.
Here is the list that was posted
Lee, Eliot, Mayo - magnet, Thoreau-magnet , Carver-magnet , Booker T, Edison-magnet
You don't have to apply to get into Jenks or some of the other schools around Tulsa.
we vs us> > "It's an interesting description because it describes a city still caught in a "white flight" dynamic . . ."
Quote from: YoungTulsan on May 12, 2010, 10:04:02 AM
The people who assume TPS is nothing but bad schools is a prime example of "white flight" going strong here. People judge the school system less on the opportunity to receive a good education and more on the fear of their kids being in the same school as minorities. This is also an unspoken prejudice when we talk about the "good parts" of town, i.e. a new poster to this forum says he is looking for a nice place to live, and is immediately told which parts of town NOT to go near.
You two have hit exactly the point that is a thorn in my side.
This
phenomenon? referred to as "white flight" is more prevelant in Tulsa now than in the 70's.
Not since living in the south have I been around such acceptable racism as exist in Tulsa at present.
Of course it is all spoken in code i.e. (not such a nice part of town, etc) and not said outright like in the days past but it is still recognized. Add this to the fact that many claim to be such devoted Christians, and you have a recipe that is hard for me to swallow.
I am ashamed of some of the things that are done by the likes of Inhoffe. He really gives this Town a backward representation.
Seems like we are always first or second in line to proffer an attitude that winds up being looked at as though it is 1955.
i.e. "the current abortion fiasco." just my opinion.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 10:26:35 AM
Here is the list that was posted
Lee, Eliot, Mayo - magnet, Thoreau-magnet , Carver-magnet , Booker T, Edison-magnet
You don't have to apply to get into Jenks or some of the other schools around Tulsa.
I've been out of TPS for 10 years now, so I'm not sure on this, but do all of those magnet schools now require you to apply even if you live near them? I'm pretty sure you still go to Edison if you live in the vicinity, just the additional ability to transfer from further regions exists on an applicant basis. Am I incorrect?
Quote from: YoungTulsan on May 12, 2010, 10:31:30 AM
I've been out of TPS for 10 years now, so I'm not sure on this, but do all of those magnet schools now require you to apply even if you live near them? I'm pretty sure you still go to Edison if you live in the vicinity, just the additional ability to transfer from further regions exists on an applicant basis. Am I incorrect?
I think you might still have to apply for the "magnet" program. I am not sure what the rules are exactly. Somebody tell us that knows what they are talking about.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 12, 2010, 10:19:45 AM
I believe everyone knows that "its the parents" DUH!
But if thats where you want to tackle the issue.... Whats your solution?
How you gonna force sh@tty parents to be good ones? This is gonna be interesting, I want to hear this.
IMO ya cant force parents to do anything. The kids however, are essentially a captive audience. Thats where we can make changes. BUT those kids from homes with sh@tty parents are gonna need different things than those kids who have good parents. More money itself isnt going to fix anything, but something has to be different and change for these kids and some extra effort,to counter the sh@ty parenting, is going to have to happen.
Excellent, Artist. You're right on. Shitty parenting always was and always will be with us, but our perception that things are getting worse just reinforces the temptation to withhold resources from people who are "willfully" shitty. The whole "it takes a village" idea is about finding ways for the village to neutralize the effects of shitty parenting, because if no one intervenes, those kids become shittily-parented adults who in turn affect the village itself.
Quote from: TheArtist on May 12, 2010, 10:19:45 AM
I believe everyone knows that "its the parents" DUH!
But if thats where you want to tackle the issue.... Whats your solution?
How you gonna force sh@tty parents to be good ones? This is gonna be interesting, I want to hear this.
IMO ya cant force parents to do anything. The kids however, are essentially a captive audience. Thats where we can make changes. BUT those kids from homes with sh@tty parents are gonna need different things than those kids who have good parents. More money itself isnt going to fix anything, but something has to be different and change for these kids and some extra effort,to counter the sh@ty parenting, is going to have to happen.
The kids are not as captive as you might think. How do you get a child to behave in class? In the past if a child did not behave, and your basic punishments did not work then you would tell them that you were calling their parents and they would straighten up real fast because the parent would show up and there would be hell to pay for the kid. Now if it gets to that point, the kid will look at the administrator and say "they don't care" and be right. With the schools like jenks, BA, Union and such the parents move there with the intention of having their kids in better schools, thus having the desire to be more involved. As far as forcing them to do something, you really can't, but they can be made more accountable. What ever happened to the days of fining parents when a kid was truant from school too much?
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 10:35:11 AM
I think you might still have to apply for the "magnet" program. I am not sure what the rules are exactly. Somebody tell us that knows what they are talking about.
My oldest daughter goes to Thoreau and the process is by application. There is also a Lottery involved at Thoreau that I do not believed is involved at the others. The application was filled out by the staff members of her elementry school and signed by me, with my prefered school choices (as in, what my daughter told me what to choose) put in by order of preferance. My middle daughter and my son apparantly got some kind of invitation for Dove Science academy for next year, not real sure what that is about. While I am very involved with my kids and their school, my ex tries to hedge me out as much as possible (one of those out of spite stupidity things), so getting some of that information out of her is like prying boulders loose with a twig.
Quote from: we vs us on May 12, 2010, 11:22:47 AM
Excellent, Artist. You're right on. Shitty parenting always was and always will be with us, but our perception that things are getting worse just reinforces the temptation to withhold resources from people who are "willfully" shitty. The whole "it takes a village" idea is about finding ways for the village to neutralize the effects of shitty parenting, because if no one intervenes, those kids become shittily-parented adults who in turn affect the village itself.
Actually, when I think of "it takes a village" it reminds me of someone I knew from Mozambique (yes, I know, I just butchered the spelling of that). He was telling me about how it really does take a village there to raise a child. But it wasn't so much about the parent not taking responsibility, but as everyone taking an active part in the raising of all children in the village as a whole. It was more of a statement of community then about shifting responsibilty
When Oklahoma public schools start focusing on, and spending as much money on education as they do on sports, then maybe the school and their teachers will cease to be among the lowest funded and paid in the nation.
Sorry, but it is true that more money spent on education (teacher salaries being a HUGE part) will produce better results. States with the highest property taxes percentages going towards public schools typically also have the best overall public school systems- i.e. the Northeast- CT, MA, NY, NJ
When my family moved to Connecticut from Tulsa when I was in high school, I felt like I was about a full year behind in many subject areas (English, Math, Social Studies) compared to other CT Freshmen- and I went to Jenks which is for some reason always considered to be one of the best schools in Oklahoma. I remember the sports coaches teaching regular classes at Jenks. That is something I never saw in CT. I think one of the biggest differences between the two systems is the quality of the educators. You get what you pay for!
Quote from: we vs us on May 12, 2010, 11:22:47 AM
Excellent, Artist. You're right on. Shitty parenting always was and always will be with us, but our perception that things are getting worse just reinforces the temptation to withhold resources from people who are "willfully" shitty. The whole "it takes a village" idea is about finding ways for the village to neutralize the effects of shitty parenting, because if no one intervenes, those kids become shittily-parented adults who in turn affect the village itself.
You simply cannot raise someone else's child for them unless they give them up to "the system". There was a story on CBS Evening Snooze last night about a program in Chicago and other larger cities in which parents can temporarily give custody of their kids to foster homes while they look for work or focus on job training. The story was a follow up from a year ago on inner-city children of recently laid off workers and checking back to see where they were today. Two sisters had gone from riding the ell's in Chicago all night with their parents, since they had no home, to living with a foster family who is ensuring they are getting everything they need while their parents get back on their feet.
As much as revisionists want to hide behind separation of church and state as a means to dumb down religion & spirituality in America, this country was founded by strong families and religious people- mostly of the Christian faith.
A big problem, as I see it, is focus in families changing from spiritual-based to secular with a strong faith that government holds the solution for every problem, including the mistaken notion that school systems exist to raise their kids. A hundred years ago, if someone was down on their luck, they turned to their church or temple community for help until they could get back on their feet. If children were orphaned, they were put in a church-run orphanage. Does everyone need to go to church to succeed? Absolutely not. Do people need to be Christians to observe less ego-centric lives and teach their children the same? Absolutely not. However, this "me first" mentality which has grown over the last century has no place in creating and raising a family.
Our government aids and abets chronic under-achievers with social programs which do nothing but mire families in mediocrity, stuff them in crime-ridden ghettos from which they cannot escape, and reward people for adding to the misery of society. People don't want to take responsibility for their own actions and they are not forced to. As much as open display of religion is derided these days, principles of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Universalist Unitarianism, etc. are all important to family unity and the success of all members of the family.
No, I'm not suggesting that the government mandate religion for every family. What I'm saying is this: You cannot force true change on people who don't want it. They have to become disgusted enough of their own circumstances to want to change on their own and realize that the
best solution for broken families isn't the government.
As far as what any of you can do, there are secular organizations out there where people can volunteer and make a difference in young people's lives who do not have the proper parental focus in their life like Big Brothers & Sisters. If you are a church member you can volunteer through church outreach programs, become a volunteer teacher at any number of schools, volunteer through YMCA or YWCA programs, etc. Can it change all under-performing children? Probably not. Can you reach one or a few children this way and make a difference? Yep.
Sorry to sound all preachy, but this issue comes up every few months and the question is always asked about what can be changed. There's no massive government solution to societal ills. Society has to cure itself and the best cure is based in spiritual principles regarding the family.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2010, 12:09:34 PM
Sorry to sound all preachy, but this issue comes up every few months and the question is always asked about what can be changed. There's no massive government solution to societal ills. Society has to cure itself and the best cure is based in spiritual principles regarding the family.
I don't think that because you believe there is a God, or that someone else believes that there is a Buddha, should dictate the choices of my children. With that being said, "spiritual" principles can be found in places outside of religion. Philisophical lessons can accomplish teaching the children proper behavior without giving the impression of a choice of one believe, or lack of believe, over another. Society has moved away from it's strong christian roots because it has evolved to something more. The basic principle of freedom of religion remains the heart of it though. I think it will take time for the country as a whole to find it's place on this matter and create a stopgap between the the differance in religions and the lack of principles. Those principles that should be passed on to our children transend all racial, religious and social barriers.
I do agree with azbadpuppy that we need to rework our system to allow for a better financial system for our schools. While we will never have enough to make up for poor parenting, lack of funding can trully hurt education. We also need to raise the standards at which we hold the students. Give them more to strive for, and make sure they know can reach it if they try. It seems to me that the educational standards of the public school for the country are too low, and those of Oklahoma even lower, which reflect themselves on the underfunded Tulsa Public Schools.
Quote from: custosnox on May 12, 2010, 12:26:52 PM
I don't think that because you believe there is a God, or that someone else believes that there is a Buddha, should dictate the choices of my children. With that being said, "spiritual" principles can be found in places outside of religion. Philisophical lessons can accomplish teaching the children proper behavior without giving the impression of a choice of one believe, or lack of believe, over another. Society has moved away from it's strong christian roots because it has evolved to something more. The basic principle of freedom of religion remains the heart of it though. I think it will take time for the country as a whole to find it's place on this matter and create a stopgap between the the differance in religions and the lack of principles. Those principles that should be passed on to our children transend all racial, religious and social barriers.
I do agree with azbadpuppy that we need to rework our system to allow for a better financial system for our schools. While we will never have enough to make up for poor parenting, lack of funding can trully hurt education. We also need to raise the standards at which we hold the students. Give them more to strive for, and make sure they know can reach it if they try. It seems to me that the educational standards of the public school for the country are too low, and those of Oklahoma even lower, which reflect themselves on the underfunded Tulsa Public Schools.
True spirituality dictates nothing to others and I'm not suggesting that it needs to be forced on anyone. I'm simply saying it's where the real solutions are, not government dependence. Spirituality is an individual walk and what works for me could possibly get you arrested in 11 states and 30 countries. Your statement I emboldened though, that's kind of what I'm trying to convey.
I'm simply pointing out that solutions for the family aren't going to be found in government. They are going to be in the basic tenets of any major observed religion. I've never really seen the corollary between higher teacher salaries translating to better outcomes, especially in more poverty-stricken areas. Teachers can only do so much in the process if apathy abounds at home.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2010, 12:41:01 PM
True spirituality dictates nothing to others and I'm not suggesting that it needs to be forced on anyone. I'm simply saying it's where the real solutions are, not government dependence. Spirituality is an individual walk and what works for me could possibly get you arrested in 11 states and 30 countries. Your statement I emboldened though, that's kind of what I'm trying to convey.
I'm simply pointing out that solutions for the family aren't going to be found in government. They are going to be in the basic tenets of any major observed religion. I've never really seen the corollary between higher teacher salaries translating to better outcomes, especially in more poverty-stricken areas. Teachers can only do so much in the process if apathy abounds at home.
I didn't think you were suggesting anything like that, I just wanted to make a point to clarify that what you are getting at comes from places other then a strictly religious tenat. I also have a hard time assigning spirituality to it since this can also be terminology to suggest religion. But yes, the solution comes back to bringing a better sense of principles and disaplines back to our teachings, in and out of the home.
As you say, the apathy within the homes is crippling us in so many ways, not just our schools. While the government is not the end all be all to the answer, I think accountability should rest on the shoulders of the parents as well as the government, and should be a two way check. Make the parents more accountable for the actions of their children, make the government more accountable for the actions that effect our children. As far as teachers increased saleries creating or not creating a better outcome, at the very least these civil servants deserve more then the paupers salery they recieve here. At best, it will encourage the better teachers to come here, or stay here instead of going to other areas where their skills will bring them a higher pay and maybe even motivate them to give just that little bit more that might make a differance.
Well, just so we're clear, I'm not advocating any classic big government takeovers of anything or anyone. I'm just agreeing with Artist that we can't change the individual, but that we still have to make sure our education (and healthcare, and welfare) systems run when the input isn't what we either expect or desire. In my opinion, a lot of folks in modern America see undesirable input and think it's a reason to take those systems down entirely. I think there's a lot of baby-with-the-bathwater reasoning there and I don't support it.
This is also a good opportunity for me to post this NYT op-ed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/opinion/10douthat.html) It's a critique of an upcoming book that compares marriage and abortion rates in Red and Blue states . . . and which brings out a whole host of instructive attitudes towards what a successful modern American family looks like:
" . . . The intact two-parent family has been in eclipse for decades now: last week, the Pew Research Center reported that in 2008, 41 percent of American births occurred outside of marriage, the highest figure yet recorded. And from divorce rates to teen births, nearly every indicator of family life now varies dramatically by education, race, geography and income.
In a rare convergence, conservatives and liberals basically agree on how this happened. First, the sexual revolution overturned the old order of single-earner households, early marriages, and strong stigmas against divorce and unwed motherhood. In its aftermath, the professional classes found a new equilibrium. Today, couples with college and (especially) graduate degrees tend to cohabit early and marry late, delaying childbirth and raising smaller families than their parents, while enjoying low divorce rates and bearing relatively few children out of wedlock.
For the rest of the country, this comfortable equilibrium remains out of reach. In the underclass (black, white and Hispanic alike), intact families are now an endangered species. For middle America, the ideal of the two-parent family endures, but the reality is much more chaotic: early marriages coexist with frequent divorces, and the out-of-wedlock birth rate keeps inching upward.
When it comes to drawing lessons from this story, though, the agreement between liberals and conservatives ends. The right tends to emphasize what's been lost, arguing that most Americans — especially the poor and working-class — would benefit from a stronger link between sex, marriage and procreation. The left argues that the revolution just hasn't been completed yet: it's the right-wing backlash against abortion, contraception and sex education that's preventing downscale Americans from attaining the new upper-middle-class stability, and reaping its social and economic benefits.
This is one of the themes of "Red Families v. Blue Families," a provocative new book by two law professors, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone. The authors depict a culturally conservative "red America" that's stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates."
Sorry to quote so widely (fotd much?) but it builds to the crucial point . . . that at least in this study of particular family indicators, casting backwards to what used to work is almost certainly not the best solution now. We've gone through enough social dislocation and change that it's more of a hindrance than a help to try to wrench us back to the older traditions (whatever those may be).
Because social change here moves at a relatively slower pace, Tulsans really rely on the old days for their cultural cues. Memory is amazingly long here. This is one of the key impediments to change (cf. the sound and fury over the river, the BOK Center, OneOK field, development downtown in general). Why? Because Tulsans are still living with the development ideas from another era. In development (and in other areas of policy and politics), Tulsa lionizes the halcyon days of 1) the oil boom 2) the 30's deco period 3) the go-go Route 66 era or 4) the 80's flight to the cul-de-sac.
All of this is to say: we look ever backwards here, so it should be no surprise when "the new" gains little/no traction.
As far as, people who want to move to other school districts than TPS are racists. I think that everybody wants their children to get the best education they can. When you throw up the TPS TOTAL AREA drop out rates, etc. It doesn't compare to the other schools. That isn't racist, thats the numbers. Also, to bet that your child will get a lotto or selected to a magnet school isn't a sure thing at all.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 02:41:09 PM
As far as, people who want to move to other school districts than TPS are racists. I think that everybody wants their children to get the best education they can. When you throw up the TPS TOTAL AREA drop out rates, etc. It doesn't compare to the other schools. That isn't racist, thats the numbers. Also, to bet that your child will get a lotto or selected to a magnet school isn't a sure thing at all.
It seems to me that the "white flight" is more of a wayward grandchild of racism more then racism itself. In other words, those who have the ability to move to what they perceive as a better inviroment for their children are, as you said, driven more by numbers then by racial preferances. However, I think these numbers tend are in part a result of the past. Low income begots low income. In decades past seperation of the minorities, and a downward push by the majority, created masses of low income within the minority. While there have been plenty to climb out from the bottom, and many who have fallen to the bottem from the top, it is by far the exeption to the rule. So while the seperation of status still shows a line drawn in the racial sand, a line that becomes more blurred every day, it is more of a result of past racial differances then the current overtone that creates the "white flight" idealogy.
"It's a critique of an upcoming book that compares marriage and abortion rates in Red and Blue states . . ."
So long as people think problems and solutions are or need to be partisan in nature, we will continue to sit and spin as the quality of education and the state of the family remains flat. There's no government program which can give people great parenting skills. There are programs which purport to do that, but if it's not instinctual or if the person is indifferent to their children, it's a waste of time.
The concept of family is pretty much unique to humans. The concepts of marriage and family were largely spiritual in nature before they were ever social (i.e. laws of God before they became common or civil law). We are the only species I'm aware of which commonly socializes with their offspring for the rest of our lives (most of us do anyhow). Our societal "norms" have gone from more of a spiritual basis to a secular basis over the last century. Women going into the workforce en masse during and after WWII hastened the process.
Anyhow, you can double the salaries of all existing TPS teachers and the outcomes will not change unless the parents and the community step up. TPS schools will still have the image of being sub-par to the suburbs, I think it's a safe assessment of most every major metro area in the United States. Suburbs have the newest facilities and usually higher property tax bases. They also have newer housing which likely is going to indicate middle or upper class families. Higher income families usually are more involved with their child's education both at home and volunteering at the schools. It's a better working environment for teachers. I had a history teacher at the private school I went to who said he was being paid a lower wage than he was paid at Nathan Hale, but the working conditions were so much better, it was worth the pay cut.
I'm not being a snob about it nor preaching, people want to know what the solutions are and there they are as I see it. Campaign after campaign of spending more on education has come and gone. We've spent more on education and yet, according to the eggheads who are supposed to know, it's not changing anything as far as outcomes. At least not in urban inner-city schools. We can each draw our own conclusion, this is mine.
To offer a solution as to how you can affect a change in troubled areas: if you have the time, volunteer in an inner-city school, guest teacher, after school programs, tutor, or find some way to mentor like BB&S. You can't shake a parent and make them get involved but you can offer to be a positive role model in their child's life. At some point when I'm not running back and forth between two cities, I hope I can start volunteering more again, I don't know of any job which is more gratifying in nature.
This isn't a red/blue rich/poor solution. Too many people think spending money is the best solution when spending time with a child is really all that child is lacking in performing at or above their percieved ability. I'm also a believer in the Pygmalian Effect. If we expect that there will be poorer results out of inner city schools, there will be. Granted there must be facilities to learn in, educated teachers to teach, and they need to have all the tools to make it happen.
Another thing I've seen society do as we get busier is we tend to want to buy solutions instead of making time for them.
I remember something a friend of mine who came from a well-heeled and prominent Tulsa family said to me once. He was a total screw up, chronic underachiever, and didn't have much appreciation for what he had. He attributed it to his parents always giving him what he wanted (material items) and very little of what he really needed (time & love).
Actually, in education, teenage pregnancy. Red and Blue does make a difference because of school policy. For example, in general, Red states want to withhold information on contraception.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 10:35:11 AM
I think you might still have to apply for the "magnet" program. I am not sure what the rules are exactly. Somebody tell us that knows what they are talking about.
Booker T and Carver and Thoreau are the only non-zone schools in TPS. All others have a combination magnet and zone enrollment. For instance, if you live in the Edison zone you will automatically go to Edison general middle/high school and if you qualify for their magnet program you 'will' get accepted to that program.
The rap by some on TPS is unfortunate. Sure, there are poor schools in the system but there are excellent schools in the system as well from elementary up to high school. I saw a State report card list a while back that showed BTW as the top performing high school in the state - by a mile - followed by Deer Creek in Edmond followed by Edison. Jenks was somewhere in the bottom 10. Owassa and B.A. further behind. I didn't look but I suspect schools like McClain and Central were probably closer to the bottom of the list and it's unfortunate but that's probably what drives some public perception of teh district.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2010, 02:41:09 PM
As far as, people who want to move to other school districts than TPS are racists. I think that everybody wants their children to get the best education they can. When you throw up the TPS TOTAL AREA drop out rates, etc. It doesn't compare to the other schools. That isn't racist, thats the numbers. Also, to bet that your child will get a lotto or selected to a magnet school isn't a sure thing at all.
I might as well jump back in at this point.
Trog you are sounding like a defensive "homer". Jenks is a good school but not recognized for excellence outside of its football program and even then, few of its players ever do well in college or pros. Same thing with the rest of the suburban schools. Simply put they are legends in their own minds. The test scores do not show a significant difference from the performing schools in TPS that I mentioned. Throwing in drop out rates "etc?" is also not appropriate. The suburbs have disproportionately low numbers of low income demographics due to years of, yes, white flight as well as perpetuation of the low crime, high scholastics myths the realtors, builders and locals chant to newcomers. We are a much larger system. Might as well compare cornering of a bread truck to a sports car. They each have their function, neither one is appropriate for all tastes or needs.
When corrected for those elements, the burbs then have an abysmal school system. They ought to all be as highly rated as the ones I noted. In fact they ought to be nationally ranked, like a certain TPS high school.
Magnet programs. Many TPD schools have magnet programs. They worked so well for BTW and Carver that the last superintendent insisted they be spread to all local schools. In most cases, the local school district kids can still attend the school but may not be in the program. Central, Edison, the old McLain, Memorial, Rogers all have programs to attract kids.
A few of the schools are still application only. Thoreau, Mayo, Eisenhower come to mind. For good reason. They look at many aspects of the student NOT just his academics. That is important because they are looking for what everyone seems to agree is important....parent participation and conviction. Why? Because they have different methods of teaching. Mayo is a teaching school based on the same format as a teaching hospital, using the newest learning research in an open architecture setting. Thoreau has a unique business immersion program that the kids learn how to run a small city themselves. They apply for jobs in that city, have their own paper money and create their own laws. Eisenhower is French or Spanish immersion from the start. These things require parent conviction and participation on a greater scale. They are not elitist or hard to get into as you infer. Seen any of those programs in the burbs?
I don't begrudge people moving to the burbs or loving their suburban school systems. Its human nature. But analyses shows it is not a predictor of success. Its just another path. My experience has been with Lee, Carver, Thoreau, Booker T Washington, Central and Edison (Whoops-forgot to add Kendall and Wilson).
I beseech any newcomer or prospective parent to talk with local teachers and administrators (even the at risk schools because some of the performing schools were once in this category), visit the schools and observe. Do your own homework before listening to detractors of TPS who may have their own agenda. When you look at "the big picture" its a better experience for most than the conformity, lack of creativity and social homogeneity of the suburban schools. (last part JMO) :)
Ps- don't worry so much about a coach teaching math. The coach of the Thoreau middle school football team was also a candidate for teacher of the year and was a demanding, but gifted math teacher. He wanted his players to do well so they could play. My son's team won his division and his math scores in high school are consistently his best. Doesn't always work that way but if he wasn't effective at math, I feel certain the parents and the administration would have moved him elsewhere.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2010, 12:41:01 PM
True spirituality dictates nothing to others and I'm not suggesting that it needs to be forced on anyone. I'm simply saying it's where the real solutions are, not government dependence. Spirituality is an individual walk and what works for me could possibly get you arrested in 11 states and 30 countries. Your statement I emboldened though, that's kind of what I'm trying to convey.
I'm simply pointing out that solutions for the family aren't going to be found in government. They are going to be in the basic tenets of any major observed religion. I've never really seen the corollary between higher teacher salaries translating to better outcomes, especially in more poverty-stricken areas. Teachers can only do so much in the process if apathy abounds at home.
Well ok lol. Here we are in the buckle of the Bible Belt with more churches than you can shake a stick at. Many people moving here often comment at how many churches there are and how religious it is here. Even statistics show we are very religious, having more devoutly religious people than average. So this begs the question....
What the heck are these churches and religious people doing? If more churchin is the solution... We shouldn't have any problems. Yet we are worse off? But, if as you say we need more people going to church, how do you make that happen?
There are all kinds of innovative school programs in high poverty, high crime, "bad neighborhood" areas all over the country that have been shown to work. More money or less money is irrelevant. You keep throwing out the straw man of "its all about more money" when we have said thats not the primary thing here. The changes needed MAY require it, but indeed, they may not. You cant know how much money until you figure out the proper program. When you figure out whats going to work THEN you fund it.
As for volunteering, fine, I thnk more people should. But again, how do you get that to happen? And personally it would make more economic sense for me to work, make money, then pay someone for less to do the work for me lol. Its like those people who go around collecting cans. If they had worked one extra hour and donated that, they could have bought more cans than they gathered in 2 hours of their time. Its even less practical and costs more! Sounds even less effective and more wasteful than most government solutions lol. Time isnt free. Voluneteering isnt free. Volunteering costs money too lol.
Artist, you are missing some broad points. First off, religion, church, and spirituality are different things entirely and not necessarily interchangeable. If you think I'm advocating people going to church to fix inner city school problems you are way off. Point is, heads of families need to revert to spiritual values which put others before their needs and wants. And make the success of their offspring more important than their next sexual conquest.
You have choices with your spare time. You have no children. You are at liesure to determine if an Art Deco museum is more of a service to the community than connecting with some at risk youth and sharing your skills. It's not my call how you use your time. Simply don't dismiss my ideas wholesale because you aren't the right person to volunteer your time as a solution. Bear with me. I'm solution not problem oriented. I offer solutions and if they are shot down, I expect to hear a better solution.
I don't practice any religion, and I would absolutely agree with Conan that the government doesn't do much to promote strong family units (and in fact, has a track record of encouraging the opposite) - whereas volunteer organizations, and yes, churches, are the ones with the reputation for building and supporting families.
For charity, volunteerism, and faith based programs to work, government doesn't have to SUPPORT them, it merely needs to get out of the way. There's your separation of Church and State. Making empty promises (like "No Child Left Behind") gives people a false hope of being taken care of by a government with a track record of failure, which does effectively "get in the way" of previously successful institutions like those Conan is talking up.
Waterboy, in your analysis you are forgetting the fact that you are comparing a school like BTW to burb schools that BTW weeds out poor performers. BTW is a top school in the state. But Burb schools take everybody in the district. So yes, when you get to weed out students based on academic acheivement through multiple districts. Wow!! Better test scores! Amazin! The fact that "test scores do not show a significant difference from the performing schools in TPS" when students are slected thee should be a big difference. You yourself are talking about a smaller version of "white flight". Just on a neighborhood basis in midtown. TPS schools are great as long as you live in these couple of neighborhoods. I guess it can be justified that you *could* live outside of these few districts if you are lucky enough to get into BTW.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 13, 2010, 04:48:59 AM
Waterboy, in your analysis you are forgetting the fact that you are comparing a school like BTW to burb schools that BTW weeds out poor performers. BTW is a top school in the state. But Burb schools take everybody in the district. So yes, when you get to weed out students based on academic acheivement through multiple districts. Wow!! Better test scores! Amazin! The fact that "test scores do not show a significant difference from the performing schools in TPS" when students are slected thee should be a big difference. You yourself are talking about a smaller version of "white flight". Just on a neighborhood basis in midtown. TPS schools are great as long as you live in these couple of neighborhoods. I guess it can be justified that you *could* live outside of these few districts if you are lucky enough to get into BTW.
Luck has little to do with it. You are missing the fine point of parental involvement, income and education demographics. Ask any marketer locally and he will tell you that the demographics for Jenks and other affluent suburbs far exceed those of TPS districts. Their weeding out is being done in a different manner through a sort of natural selection and has been for decades. You have to have a lot of money to buy homes out there, which takes good jobs, which takes good education, which takes driven parents, etc., etc. Yes, they take any and all comers but they do divide them into fast track programs (gifted and talented ::) so they have their own little elite kingdoms. And don't expect much diversity that would prepare you for the real world.
The rest of your argument is problematic for school systems. We want excellence and we understand the need for leadership so we set up avenues for pursuing those goals. Then we get accused of cherry picking. Not true, but easily repeated. The magnet programs are divided into areas of emphasis which takes into account that not all students perform well in all areas, but many students excel in particular areas. So, Memorial has a great engineering curriculum that attracts high performing science and math students. Central is oriented towards the arts. Each school seeks to find a way for a student to perform. But you choose to see that as limiting. I see the burbs as limiting. Two of my three boys decided to go to BTW. They decided, not the school. The school simply set standards to be met. My first decided early to pursue the Carver/BTW route because of social pressure. My second decided because of the challenge he knew it would pose. He is very competitive and worked hard to make it into the school. You think that attitude should not be rewarded? He did consider the other schools but his test scores show an equal balance among math, science, english and literature. He simply isn't attracted to one area yet.
You also ignore the size difference. Jenks is a much smaller school district and more homogeneous than TPD. Of course they take everyone regardless of performance. They have no choice, and neither does the performing student in that district. They must hope to be lucky enough to play the politics necessary to make it into G&T.
We love our myths. But the truth is TPS is doing a very good job and in fact is outperforming the burbs.
Just because your parents make money doesn't mean you can make a high score on the ACT. And yes, they have a much smaller pool, which means that TPS should be able to scoop up even more kids at the top that are high performers.
"So, Memorial has a great engineering curriculum that attracts high performing science and math students. Central is oriented towards the arts. Each school seeks to find a way for a student to perform. But you choose to see that as limiting."
Oh.. Sorry, we don't have AP Calculus at this school, this is the art school. You might want to transfer, but then you can't take this other class.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 13, 2010, 08:39:44 AM
Just because your parents make money doesn't mean you can make a high score on the ACT. And yes, they have a much smaller pool, which means that TPS should be able to scoop up even more kids at the top that are high performers.
"So, Memorial has a great engineering curriculum that attracts high performing science and math students. Central is oriented towards the arts. Each school seeks to find a way for a student to perform. But you choose to see that as limiting."
Oh.. Sorry, we don't have AP Calculus at this school, this is the art school. You might want to transfer, but then you can't take this other class.
Central has AP Calculus or it did as of last year, also has AP science and English classes. The Magnet Programs offer extras to those who want them, but the basic academics are provided at all the schools.
Its really a very smart program and if more parents where involved I think more students would take advantage. Someone mentioned the thread of calling parents does nothing, maybe that is because teachers and administrators don't follow through. Not that parents aren't to blame but far to many teachers don't harass parents (yes I said harass) enough if they don't respond.
One thing I think TPS should do is set up IEP's for all students instead of doing it for just students with learning disabilities. IEP's set up and regularly updated would help match students with the right class sets, teachers and fellow students. Better matching would lead to an over all better educated student.
I would also like to see more students being able to take advantage of concurrent enrollment in Tulsa Tech and TCC and or more classes that provide certificates/college credits.
Well said Godboko. It takes a balanced approach to meeting the needs of both the student and the community. Tulsa Tech and TCC provide even more outlets. If I remember right, the IED is a personalized curriculum plan?
Trog, I get the feeling you may not have traversed far within the school system or don't have kids in them at all. The greatest indicators of success in school, any public or private school, are parents' education, parents' income, and parents' involvement. You have a better chance of seeing your child succeed anywhere with all three of those. The chances decrease as each element is subtracted. That's just reality.
My third son sorely tried the patience of several different schools until finally settling out of court so to speak. He got a GED. He shared that experience with the children of doctors, lawyers and involved parents. I know this because we all struggled together to find some way to help them perform. The system had not yet embraced the magnet concept across the board during his tenure. He's fine though.
Quote from: godboko71 on May 13, 2010, 09:43:44 AM
Its really a very smart program and if more parents where involved I think more students would take advantage. Someone mentioned the thread of calling parents does nothing, maybe that is because teachers and administrators don't follow through. Not that parents aren't to blame but far to many teachers don't harass parents (yes I said harass) enough if they don't respond.
How much time should a teacher spend trying to get a parent to do something about their kids? 10 minutes a day? 20? When you have a class of 30, and at least 1/3 have parents that aren't involved, that's over an hour of "harrassing" that has to be done, while at the same time the students need to be taught. If it was just one or two I could see this, but it's so much more. In addition to that it takes more then just calling, because this is what they do. And they do call. I've had them call me three times while I was in the shower. In a lot of these cases the teacher would have to knock on the door to get any kind of response, and I have seen this as well. There is only so much that the schools can do on this front. Yes, there are teachers that don't care enough to bother with this, but they are far fewer then the parents that give a rats patoot.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 12, 2010, 10:59:13 PM
Artist, you are missing some broad points. First off, religion, church, and spirituality are different things entirely and not necessarily interchangeable. If you think I'm advocating people going to church to fix inner city school problems you are way off. Point is, heads of families need to revert to spiritual values which put others before their needs and wants. And make the success of their offspring more important than their next sexual conquest.
Since being spiritual is inherently an internal thing, when you get right down to it, isn't it primarily self-driven?
I'm not trying to be a smartass here. But if you're deriding selfishness and advocating spirituality (which is a self-driven thing), it seems to be a distinction with very little difference.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 13, 2010, 11:25:09 AM
Since being spiritual is inherently an internal thing, when you get right down to it, isn't it primarily self-driven?
I'm not trying to be a smartass here. But if you're deriding selfishness and advocating spirituality (which is a self-driven thing), it seems to be a distinction with very little difference.
There's a major difference between being self-driven and self-centered, not even the same concepts, unless you apply it to someone being very motivated to be selfish. ;)
Quote from: waterboy on May 13, 2010, 10:44:37 AM
Well said Godboko. It takes a balanced approach to meeting the needs of both the student and the community. Tulsa Tech and TCC provide even more outlets. If I remember right, the IED is a personalized curriculum plan?
Trog, I get the feeling you may not have traversed far within the school system or don't have kids in them at all. The greatest indicators of success in school, any public or private school, are parents' education, parents' income, and parents' involvement. You have a better chance of seeing your child succeed anywhere with all three of those. The chances decrease as each element is subtracted. That's just reality.
My third son sorely tried the patience of several different schools until finally settling out of court so to speak. He got a GED. He shared that experience with the children of doctors, lawyers and involved parents. I know this because we all struggled together to find some way to help them perform. The system had not yet embraced the magnet concept across the board during his tenure. He's fine though.
I don't have any kids. You are right. You are saying that it all comes down to the parents, but then you say that TPS is better than any of the other public schools. Which if it is all the parents involvement, wouldn't make sense.
BTW, I agree it is the parents involvement btw (that's by the way, not Booker T Washington).. But some teachers can inspire students. (which is were more pay can help)
Quote from: Trogdor on May 13, 2010, 11:47:20 AM
But some teachers can inspire students. (which is were more pay can help)
How would more pay help teachers inspire students? I think teaching is like art, it's one of those things which comes more naturally to some than others. The really good ones have a true passion for teaching and for the kids.
I've recieved merit-based pay for pretty much my entire working career either via straight commission or a salary/bonus situation tied directly to my sales and/or the sales performance of people I've managed. I could see where a financial incentive with a measurable result (aggregate class scores?) might motivate some teachers to step it up a notch.
Simply offering more money for the sake of offering more money still doesn't make much sense to me as to how it will improve outcomes.
I've had some teachers who were incredibly brilliant, but they could not relate to students. They lacked the interpersonal skills to make class very interesting and they could not relate the topic well. I had an algebra teacher who was an absolute whiz at math, but she simply sucked when it came to trying to explain the process we were supposed to be learning. The ones I learned the most from had patience, took a personal interest in the students, and they had a passion for what they did.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 13, 2010, 11:47:20 AM
I don't have any kids. You are right. You are saying that it all comes down to the parents, but then you say that TPS is better than any of the other public schools. Which if it is all the parents involvement, wouldn't make sense.
BTW, I agree it is the parents involvement btw (that's by the way, not Booker T Washington).. But some teachers can inspire students. (which is were more pay can help)
I don't mean to say that your remarks are without value because you have no kids. Simply that the perspective changes when you become responsible for another beings education. You get into it deeper.
My wording is important. Those elements of parental demographics and involvement are good predictors of success in school. Certainly not the only elements necessary. I transcended a lack of those elements to graduate college and I'm sure others have as well.
Also note that when the magnet program started they had no problem signing up teachers to go over into the north side of town during a racially charged era to become a part of this new program. It is still considered a "plum" assignment. Pay was practically irrelevant though I do think there was an increase associated.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2010, 12:08:50 PM
How would more pay help teachers inspire students? I think teaching is like art, it's one of those things which comes more naturally to some than others. The really good ones have a true passion for teaching and for the kids.
I've recieved merit-based pay for pretty much my entire working career either via straight commission or a salary/bonus situation tied directly to my sales and/or the sales performance of people I've managed. I could see where a financial incentive with a measurable result (aggregate class scores?) might motivate some teachers to step it up a notch.
Simply offering more money for the sake of offering more money still doesn't make much sense to me as to how it will improve outcomes.
I've had some teachers who were incredibly brilliant, but they could not relate to students. They lacked the interpersonal skills to make class very interesting and they could not relate the topic well. I had an algebra teacher who was an absolute whiz at math, but she simply sucked when it came to trying to explain the process we were supposed to be learning. The ones I learned the most from had patience, took a personal interest in the students, and they had a passion for what they did.
I meant that in the sense that more $ for (some) teachers would mean more people would consider becoming a teacher. If being a teacher paid as much as a doctor, we would have more competition and we would have the best teachers in the world. No, paying the teachers now double or triple doesn't make them better teachers.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 13, 2010, 01:18:58 PM
I meant that in the sense that more $ for (some) teachers would mean more people would consider becoming a teacher. If being a teacher paid as much as a doctor, we would have more competition and we would have the best teachers in the world. No, paying the teachers now double or triple doesn't make them better teachers.
Thanks for explaining, makes sense. Unfortunately we will never put the same salary priorities on education as our health, it would appear.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 13, 2010, 02:01:19 PM
Thanks for explaining, makes sense. Unfortunately we will never put the same salary priorities on education as our health, it would appear.
One of my favorite teachers in school was a guy who was tired of working for the oil companies because of the stress. So he became a teacher.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 13, 2010, 02:59:46 PM
One of my favorite teachers in school was a guy who was tired of working for the oil companies because of the stress. So he became a teacher.
Sounds like my HS Biology & Chemistry teacher. He had worked as a chemist for AMOCO. Very, very odd duck, great scientist, nice guy, but not the world's best at relating that high IQ.
Here's an interesting take on why more people should consider something other than a bachelor's degree program:
"The notion that a four-year degree is essential for real success is being challenged by a growing number of economists, policy analysts and academics. They say more Americans should consider other options such as technical training or two-year schools, which have been embraced in Europe for decades.
As evidence, experts cite rising student debt, stagnant graduation rates and a struggling job market flooded with overqualified degree-holders. They pose a fundamental question: Do too many students go to college?
"College is what every parent wants for their child," said Martin Scaglione, president and chief operating officer of work force development for ACT, the Iowa-based not-for-profit best known for its college entrance exam. "The reality is, they may not be ready for college."
President Barack Obama wants to restore the country's status as the world leader in the proportion of citizens with college degrees. The U.S. now ranks 10th among industrial nations, behind Canada, Japan, Korea and several European countries.
But federal statistics show that just 36 percent of full-time students starting college in 2001 earned a four-year degree within that allotted time. Even with an extra two years to finish, that group's graduation rate increased only to 57 percent.
Spending more time in school also means greater overall student debt. The average student debt load in 2008 was $23,200 — a nearly $5,000 increase over five years. Two-thirds of students graduating from four-year schools owe money on student loans.
And while the unemployment rate for college graduates still trails the rate for high school graduates (4.9 percent versus 10.8 percent), the figure has more than doubled in less than two years.
"A four-year degree in business — what's that get you?" asked Karl Christopher, a placement counselor at the Columbia Area Career Center vocational program. "A shift supervisor position at a store in the mall."
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20100513_19_0_COLUMB610696
Totally depends on the major. But a lot of companies will not even look at you without a degree. You could be the smartest person in the world but wouldn't hire you for some positions.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 13, 2010, 03:15:34 PM
Totally depends on the major. But a lot of companies will not even look at you without a degree. You could be the smartest person in the world but wouldn't hire you for some positions.
I don't disagree. The article was simply stating that we also need highly skilled trades and that may prove more durable over the long haul considering recent and current unemployment numbers. I think sgrizzle stated this the other day, it's amazing how what you wind up doing on a job can have very little to do with what you studied in college.
Sometimes a college degree means nothing more than you are trainable and have the discipline to finish something.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 13, 2010, 05:48:21 PM
Sometimes a college degree means nothing more than you are trainable and have the discipline to finish something.
Very well said.