Featured History in our Schools

Sure, I have evidence and data.

Rather than going back and dragging out from memory specific studies, I grabbed two compilations of studies off the net. My own work on the subject has long ago been left to the scrap heaps of mounds of paper for worms to digest.

These are a few quotes that compiles a great number of studies on the subject. The complete document can be accessed here.

"And every study that looked at high-performing schools in low-income areas found that parents were highly engaged. Furthermore, most studies showed that children’s gains were directly related to how much their families were involved."

"Studies that look at high-achieving students of all backgrounds found that their parents encourage them, talk with them about school, help them plan for higher education, and keep them focused on learning and homework."
​

Here is another complete document that compiles a great number of studies on the subject. The complete document can be accessed here.

"Several studies have documented the significant impact of parent/family involvement on student achievement in literacy (Faires, Nichols, and Rickeman, 2000; Hara and Burke, 1998; Quigley, 2000;West, 2000) and mathematics (Balli, Demo, and Wedman, 1998; Epstein, 2001; Galloway and Sheridan, 1994)."
​

For a serious study of the subject and validation of what I posted, I suggest that one go back on these two larger compilations, access the original studies and review the findings.

The conclusions that I posted cannot be avoided.

I didn't merely "copy and paste" or express my views as matters of opinion, but stated in extremely concise terms what has consistently been shown:

1) Strong parental oversight with either a strong or weak school is basically the only chance for any reliable student success.

2) Weak parenting combined with a weak school, and success rate is as good as finding a well paying job in Detroit.
​

Here is a final quote from one of the studies:

Deslandes, R., Royer, E., Turcotte, D., & Bertrand, R. (1997). School achievement at the secondary level: Influence of parenting style and parent involvement in schooling. McGill Journal of Education, 32, 191-207.


This study of 525 Canadian adolescents examined the influence of parenting style and involvement in school on the academic achievement of secondary students. Findings indicated that parents have substantial influence over adolescents’ school performance. Three parenting factors were demonstrated to be “statistically significant determinants of adolescents’ grades- behavioral control, psychological autonomy granting and warmth-acceptance.”

The combination of parental support, infrequent communication with teachers, parental supervision, and psychological autonomy granting proved to be the best combination for maximizing student performance among the students sampled.

Hickman, C.W., Greenwood, G. & Miller, M.D. (1995). High school parent involvement: Relationship
​

Like I originally posted:

It all comes back to the home - parents cannot expect achievement unless they are highly involved, too.

 

No doubt there are some that are not teachers that are teachers.

Teaching is a gift, not an acquired skill.

However, as a former long retired teacher, I do not take criticism of the profession, lightly.

There is not one profession that did not start with a teacher.

 

Jon, You are most correct.

I noticed especially in the larger multiple school communities, that because students needed consistently when changing schools during the academic year, that more and more lesson planning was being done so certain aspects of the curricula were covered by specific dates.

In that setting, there is little "venue to teach beyond the curriculum" and unfortunately, for those of us who looked at the public system as a mission field, such handed down from administration could be quite restrictive.

 

Completely agree with everything you posted. Thanks for clarifying.

 

I figured you did.

What has bothered me about the topic is that modern social manipulators want to place genetics and hereditary excuses for a lack of education.

Now, to a point it is true.

There is scientific analysis of brain structures (even size), higher thinking skill availability and social / educational acuity as it relates to both child abuse and more specifically to child neglect.

There are some in the educational field that think that poverty and environment equate to abuse and neglect.

However, study after study have refuted that correlation. Even in the midst of severe poverty and destitute environment, children of involved parents thrive in the educational setting.

That many of the parents do not become involved or have a sense of being excluded by not being acceptable is a problem that the educational system must address to help the child be successful.

When the educational system does systematically and purposefully work directly with the home and living (not in an intrusive way, but in an inclusive way) there is basically little difference between children academically across the spectrum of society.

However, some social engineering heathens want to blame lack of achievement upon the genetics so whole segments of folks can be "excused" from socially acceptable behaviors and basic learning.

They would take what may happen to a few, and apply it to many. Such actually get praise and funding for what they desire - social manipulation and power broking.

 

I recently read the book "Freakonomics". There is a section in there regarding factors that contribute to scholastic success and factors that do not. Some of the surprising things that did not correlate with success were:

The child's family is intact (no divorces, the parents were married when they conceived).

The parents read to their child every day.

The child's parents recently moved into a better neighborhood.

The child's mother didn't work between birth and kindergarten.

The child attended Head Start.

The child's parents regularly take him to museums.

 

I agree with everything but the issue of parent's reading to their children.

It isn't so much that there is academic advance but nurturing, security, and physical cuddling that take place. Each serves to provide the child with great sense of being: being included, being wanted, being needed, being supported, and being important.

Nothing can replace those feelings that reading with your child develops.

 

I think you misunderstand me if you think I place all the blame on "poor teachers", I THOUGH that was the entire point of my contribution. Yes, there are some Poor teachers, just as there are poor performers in any profession or industry. I actually think that the vast majority of teachers are of high quality, but often overtime become exhausted in attempting to deal with the myriad of other variables from our culture.

 

Lots of Liberal claim the problem with our schools is that the parents do not play enough of a role. However, to give them the power of vouchers, where they could send their kids to performing schools, why that is out of the question. Note that in California, the people voted 2 to 1 against vouchers, believing the Teacher's union ads that it would ruin education. Since that vote, education in California has continued its downward spiral, but none of the anti-voucher voters seems to have noticed.

 

I am in agreement with vouchers with the following condition.

Both public and private schools MUST have the authority to either accept (enroll) the child or reject (not enroll) the child.


The way is see it all working:

1) All educational settings are the same expense: The "rich" public educational system that has squandered untold number of dollars would no longer exist. The poor private institution would get the same financial benefits as the public- both exist at the pleasure of parents who give them the voucher to educate their child.
2) ALL parents would receive a voucher equal to the amount the local, federal, and state spends for education of the child.
3) ALL systems of education are unregulated as afar as "accredidation" and rated according to curricula rigors - those offering IP courses rated higher than those offering basic educational coursework. NOTE - both receive the same funding through the vouchers - the more vouchers the more funding.
4) All systems of education are then under a true competitive field in which none are given more financial incentive other than by the parents who desire a certain education for their child - the more who participate, the more wealth the school has to operate.
5) Parents with no children would receive an equal amount on vouchers in which they may spend on life expenses such as health, food, shelter.
6) Because funding for education comes largely from land holding folks, a system aligned with sales tax would replace the current "school tax" that is assessed. All then would share equally in the burden which in the current system leaves out a vast number who live on other people's property.
7) Educational vouchers would not pay for any extra-curricular activities, events, or the like. This would eliminate most athletic and fine art programs except from educational places in which parents would put this as a priority and self fund.
8) Any student may be dismissed without cause at anytime by the parents being given back the voucher in full (no part returns for this would prevent schools from dismissing students over frivolous reasons).
9) No parent can remove the student without agreement between the school and parent in arbitration that will compensate the school for the time the child has spent in the educational setting.
10) All schools are "open enrollment" and unless there is no more classroom space, must enroll a child when presented a voucher - regardless of (whatever).
​

I could go into more detail, and actually during the 70's presented a similar plan to a Texas Senator - it didn't go anywhere.

But, he did acknowledge that such a scheme not only would change the whole priority of the education system, but get parents involved, eliminate discipline being an issue in the schools, promote parental accountability, and return the "public schools" to actually being "public schools" rather than the "state run" institutions of dubious educational value.

 

Liberals say we must take God out of the schools because of the wall between church and state, but another option would be to take government control of doctrine out of the schools via vouchers, because government control hinders the free practice of religion also. Thus, in my opinion, vouchers is the only constitutional way to publicly fund schools.

 

Unless the teacher, with the collaboration of school administrators, has the authority to remove disruptive students from the classroom, the school will fail. This number, which is very high now, would diminish back down to where it was 60 or so years ago, when teachers could use force and paddling to establish discipline in the classroom. Unless the modern teacher can "yellow card" (give a time out) "red card" (suspend) and "black card" (expel) unruly students, the school will fail. Bullies will prevail, and three on one beatings will be condoned by bus drivers and students alike.

 

Does anyone find it strange that when we took God out of the public schools we saw a decline in educational achievement and an increase in school violence?

 

Actually, no, it isn't. It is the socialist-liberal view of history that is spoon-fed to our students today. Typical is this from your young acquaintence:

He has no information upon which to base that opinion other than what his brain-washers wanted him to know. The reality is we should have been in Vietnam -- in fact, I was. But we should not have fought the war the way we did. It was a losing proposition. But, being dictated by the milquetoast doves who still, to this day, steadfastly refuse to see the dangers of socialism/communism, the policies doomed the war from the outset. The socialist/liberal media officially identified itself as such on January 27, 1969 when Walter Cronkite, "Uncle Walter" as he was fondly and probably intentionally known (who wouldn't trust a kindly old uncle and believe what he had to say?) said in a thickly veiled editorial that looked very much like a closing news item, declared Vietnam "unwinnable." Suddenly, the whole country was confronted with the "truth" that the hippies and anti-war bums were "right."

"Gosh, we better get out of there! It's unwinnable!"

44 years later, we're paying the price for not answering the "coup" with a proper response. That day, the socialists won. And look where we are now ...

 

While I think it is debatable whether we should have engaged in Nam, there is no debate that if we engaged, we should have had an end game strategy where we destroy Soviet and Chinese transports, either rail or ships. Unless we were prepared to end the ability of the north to wage war, we should not have engaged.