ACLU sues State of Michigan over quality of Highland Park schools

**Detroitnerd** · July-13-12, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Are you aware that federal No Child Left Behind legislation includes free year-round tutoring on demand for children in high-poverty schools? And that the free tutoring is woefully underenrolled? Schools have to beg parents to use the tutoring, with pizza parties, raffle giveaways and the like.

I'm sure you learned this from an unbiased information source, such as John Stossel...

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Obviously most parents give a damn, regardless of income, but there is a signficant cohort of parents who don't. There is nothing the schools can do about this. If you switched Highland Park and Bloomfield Hills kids [[switched the teachers, facilities, and programs) I bet you would have the same outcomes for both cohorts.

Then why have schools at all? We've been doing this all wrong. If schooling doesn't affect outcomes, it sounds like a perfectly good libertarian argument for no mandatory schooling at all...

**Bham1982** · July-13-12, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Lowell

I do not advocate aimlessly throwing money at a problem. However when a proven highly successful model exists, money will not be wasted. The long term savings will immense.

Head Start is an excellent program, and we know it works. But that isn't the issue. We have plenty of intensive-early childhood models that work.

The issue is also getting the parental buy-in. A large number of children are eligible for Head Start but their parents don't sign up. That's, in part, why there are such dramatic differences in the student achivement; Head Start is self-selecting.

You can't force parents to do the right thing.

**Detroitnerd** · July-13-12, 12:55 PM

I'll add two things, which I've mentioned before. And this should be obvious to everybody.

You can't change parents.

You can, however, change kids. A little or a lot, but you can change their lives.

Could you have changed my father? An abusive, foul-mouthed, alcoholic who made life miserable most of the time? No way. I saw several people -- social workers, psychiatrists, friends and neighbors -- try to change him, and it always ended in failure. It is very, very hard to change parents at all.

So what is easier? To help their children. You provide a good, safe school with competent teachers. You fund the school so it can provide after-school activities, early-morning activities, field trips, hot lunches, gymnasiums, all things that can engage children and give them ways out. You won't always win, but at least you're giving the kids a chance. I know it helped me to have lots of after-school activities, and, sometimes, just the chance to not be home.

When you bring the parents into the discussion, suddenly we are talking about something that is very, very, very hard to change. We don't have the resources to change the way a whole generation of people think or feel or behave. That's why we instead send their children to schools where we can work to ameliorate ignorance, even if it takes generations, and instill a love of learning that lasts a lifetime. That, with some help, funding and competence, we can do a fair job of.

So when I hear some of you keep talking about the parents, talking about something you cannot change, I think that's a recipe for derailing a discussion about what we CAN change.

I also get the sense that, frankly, you don't really care about the kids anyway. *shrug*

Shollin · July-13-12, 01:01 PM

How do you know Highland Park schools don't provide that? Highland Park has more spending per pupil than state average and fewer students per teacher than state average. This whole lawsuit is about test scores and literacy. It's not about hot lunches and the buildings.

**Detroitnerd** · July-13-12, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

How do you know Highland Park schools don't provide that? Highland Park has more spending per pupil than state average and fewer students per teacher than state average. This whole lawsuit is about test scores and literacy. It's not about hot lunches and the buildings.

Are you addressing my post, Shollin?

If so, I would say this goes beyond the specific issues surrounding Highland Park and is a more general rant about blaming the parents vs. helping the children. I did not, nor did I ever, mean to accuse Highland Park schools of not providing hot lunches or buildings that do not fall down.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-13-12, 03:17 PM

You can lead a horse to water... drinking requires consent and action.

Statements like 'disenfranchised' are not appropriate. It may be very, very difficult -- but if a parent wants their child to get ahead -- there are more and more ways -- in spite of the education industry's self-serving attempts at their monopoly of oppression.

Funny how radicals don't take up this charge --- beyond screaming at charters. As a society, we need to make sure primary education is available to all.

**Detroitnerd** · July-13-12, 03:41 PM

A real radical would question the educational system itself, its origins, those who control it and much more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIva2she5HQ

**Wesley Mouch** · July-13-12, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

A real radical would question the educational system itself, its origins, those who control it and much more.

Hence, I advocate decentralized control. Less laws by federal fiat, and more local control.

By that I don't mean a monopolistic school district. I mean individual entities competing to deliver the best education they can deliver. Those who fail, well, they fail. The corruption and waste won't be any worse than what we have today.

**Detroitnerd** · July-13-12, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Hence, I advocate decentralized control. Less laws by federal fiat, and more local control.

By that I don't mean a monopolistic school district. I mean individual entities competing to deliver the best education they can deliver. Those who fail, well, they fail. The corruption and waste won't be any worse than what we have today.

Gee, that sure sounds nice. A bunch of competing institutions, and maybe Uncle Sugar to help by offering insured loans through banks to students, perhaps? I wonder what we can expect from such proud plans...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SluE1...eature=related

**firstandten** · July-13-12, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

That is why I'm in favor of radical change in schools -- regardless of whose ox is gored. Unions, corporate schooling, schools districts, anyone. We need to allow new methods to flourish. More money spent with the existing commisars of education isn't doing the trick for our children in HP.

I also think that is something thats needed. There are some isolated models of inner-city school successes across the country. However I would think at those schools there is some level of parental buy-in since they understand that the successful school is most likely their kids last best hope for a successful future.

One idea that I would like to see explored is a public urban Therapeutic/ Military style boarding School.

A lot of these kids have behavioral issues much of which stems from the lack of parenting. The behavioral issues affect their ability to learn. As they get further behind in school the behavioral issues get worse as they act-out more and more.

I believe parenting and learning go hand in hand. So we may need to put these kids in an environment away from there home environment where they can get some parenting to go along with their education.

**Wesley Mouch** · July-14-12, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by firstandten

I also think that is something thats needed. There are some isolated models of inner-city school successes across the country. However I would think at those schools there is some level of parental buy-in since they understand that the successful school is most likely their kids last best hope for a successful future.

One idea that I would like to see explored is a public urban Therapeutic/ Military style boarding School.

A lot of these kids have behavioral issues much of which stems from the lack of parenting. The behavioral issues affect their ability to learn. As they get further behind in school the behavioral issues get worse as they act-out more and more.

I believe parenting and learning go hand in hand. So we may need to put these kids in an environment away from there home environment where they can get some parenting to go along with their education.

At least a world where ideas can be tried.

I don't think we want to require students to attend a military academy-style school. But if the parents want that option rather than the current 'traditional' public school -- they should have that option available. And not blocked by the 'powers that be'.

**ejames01** · July-14-12, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

At least a world where ideas can be tried.

I don't think we want to require students to attend a military academy-style school. But if the parents want that option rather than the current 'traditional' public school -- they should have that option available. And not blocked by the 'powers that be'.

Who is going to pay for this military academy-style school?

**ejames01** · July-14-12, 06:58 AM

Spending more money is not the answer. Honestly, some of the students are to blame. A lot of them refuse to do anything and/or act like savages.

**iheartthed** · July-14-12, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Shollin

How do you know Highland Park schools don't provide that? Highland Park has more spending per pupil than state average and fewer students per teacher than state average. This whole lawsuit is about test scores and literacy. It's not about hot lunches and the buildings.

Highland Park also has far more special needs kids than the state average.

**Lowell** · July-14-12, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by ejames01

Spending more money is not the answer. Honestly, some of the students are to blame. A lot of them refuse to do anything and/or act like savages.

That's true of any school. Those troublemakers need to be dealt with, NOT used as an excuse to do nothing to the support the big majority of children who are trying to learn under very difficult situations at home, in school and on the way to and from school.

Focus on that big majority of children who still have a chance and keep them from being overwhelmed by the disruptive minority and falling into the abyss; the payback to society will be immense.

It's very easy to dismiss these children who are trying with one-liners like "Spending more money is not the answer" but not provide answers such realistic and proven solutions like Head Start.

As for spending more money, we already are spending more money becasue of the past adn present neglect that has brought on this suit. It is like having a leaking pipe in your house; pay the plumber now or pay immense amounts later for the water damage.

**firstandten** · July-14-12, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by ejames01

Spending more money is not the answer. Honestly, some of the students are to blame. A lot of them refuse to do anything and/or act like savages.

Spending more money on processes that aren't giving you the desired outcomes is not the answer.

Spending more money on processes that could give you the desired outcomes is worth a try.

**DetroitTeacher** · July-14-12, 05:37 PM

I've seen it firsthand, where schools have had to bribe kids and parents to participate in the free tutoring available.

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I'm sure you learned this from an unbiased information source, such as John Stossel...

Then why have schools at all? We've been doing this all wrong. If schooling doesn't affect outcomes, it sounds like a perfectly good libertarian argument for no mandatory schooling at all...

**mwilbert** · July-14-12, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

Spending more money on processes that aren't giving you the desired outcomes is not the answer.

Spending more money on processes that could give you the desired outcomes is worth a try.

Exactly. To give one example, there is substantial evidence that it would be desirable to divert more money to educating disadvantaged kids ages 0-5, even if that meant spending less on older kids.