45 replies to this topic

[Revolutionist]

Here's a nice read!
http://online.wsj.co...aste_primary_hs

It's not about the schools
It's not about the programs
It's not about more money
It's not about 3rd Grade CSR
It's not even about the board.

Its about parents that make education a priority for their children at home.

"In a survey of the research, Michigan's Department of Education summarizes the findings neatly: "The most consistent predictors of children's academic achievement and social adjustment are parent expectations of the child's academic attainment and satisfaction with their child's education at school. Parents of high-achieving students set higher standards for their children's educational activities.""

[stacycam]

Well, I hope all that's true. If so, our family is on the right track.

Thanks for the interesting read.

[john]

I have long thought there was a close correlation between parent's expectations and children's achievements. I grew up in the Bay Area; in our high school, the questions was not whether or not you were going to college... the question was simply where you were going to college. Not surprisingly, 95% of our graduates went on to college.

[rightwingknot]

Here's a nice read!
http://online.wsj.co...aste_primary_hs

It's not about the schools
It's not about the programs
It's not about more money
It's not about 3rd Grade CSR
It's not even about the board.

Its about parents that make education a priority for their children at home.

"In a survey of the research, Michigan's Department of Education summarizes the findings neatly: "The most consistent predictors of children's academic achievement and social adjustment are parent expectations of the child's academic attainment and satisfaction with their child's education at school. Parents of high-achieving students set higher standards for their children's educational activities.""

While all of the above certainly play an important role in a child's education, we sometimes (yes, even I) forget that education starts and ends with parent expectations. It often gets lost in the discussion. Thank you.

[asbestoshills]

Good article.... Also remember that all students shouldn't go to college and if you ever watch SUze Orman with a caller who has just spent $100, 000 on student loans at Harvard for their master's in Creative Writing, please show them where the unemployment line is.....I think students who take really creative majors should be tested for aptitude and if they don't cut it, go to a trade school or another major that actually gives them a skill and a paycheck.....All of my family who are tradesman, make more money than the ones that have their graduate degrees, with exception of a lawyer and a professor...
Have you ever seen one of those college art majors who just throw crap on a wall and call it a a show? I don't know what is more sad the student or the school that admitted him/her into the program? Schools should offer a contract with the students...If they can't find them a job in their major within a year of graduating, they have to reimburse their tuition....THis would probably raise the standards, at least at some of these schools who charge $30,000 a year so Johny and Jane can express themselves.....The college industry will offer whatever stupid major you want, as long as you pay for it.....At least at UCLA, you have to have a strong portfolio before you enter their master's program...Most others, you do not...

[Parizienne]

I know I am going to have a lot of people disagree with me here.

The essential purpose of going to college is not to get a job. That's what the purpose of vocational school is. The purpose of going to college is to be more highly educated so you can analyze, understand and appreciate the world more profoundly. It may give you background in a particular field that may make you more desirable to an employer than Joe Blow walking in off the street with high school diploma in hand. Someone with an art degree probably won't be doing accounting, but businesses are hiring more people with creative majors because they have learned to think outside the box. College gives you perspective on whatever job you do get. It also says you can set goals on your own without someone holding your hand the entire time and achieve them. The major isn't as important as the experience. I have a friend with a biology degree who went into management and financial services. I have a business degree, and I teach history ( and yes, I had to prove I knew history to do so).

And yes, I realize that many employers expect people to have college degrees. Our society has begun to think college degree = good job. It doesn't always work that way. Employers want college educated people because, allegedly, these people have learned how to think and gained some background knowledge in the process.

Harvard is all about status. Stanford, USC, etc. too. Undergrad programs are undergrad programs, and unless you plan to become an expert in your field ( which few undergrads can do -- they usually need more education to do this), a state college accomplishes exactly the same thing a top tier ivy league college does. The difference is sophisticated networking opportunities for ivy leaguers and more support at the rich colleges so the wealthy little darlings don't flunk out of school. Education quality isn't that much different. Egos are WAY higher, though.



Pari

Good article.... Also remember that all students shouldn't go to college and if you ever watch SUze Orman with a caller who has just spent $100, 000 on student loans at Harvard for their master's in Creative Writing, please show them where the unemployment line is.....I think students who take really creative majors should be tested for aptitude and if they don't cut it, go to a trade school or another major that actually gives them a skill and a paycheck.....All of my family who are tradesman, make more money than the ones that have their graduate degrees, with exception of a lawyer and a professor...
Have you ever seen one of those college art majors who just throw crap on a wall and call it a a show? I don't know what is more sad the student or the school that admitted him/her into the program? Schools should offer a contract with the students...If they can't find them a job in their major within a year of graduating, they have to reimburse their tuition....THis would probably raise the standards, at least at some of these schools who charge $30,000 a year so Johny and Jane can express themselves.....The college industry will offer whatever stupid major you want, as long as you pay for it.....At least at UCLA, you have to have a strong portfolio before you enter their master's program...Most others, you do not...

[rightwingknot]

I know I am going to have a lot of people disagree with me here.

The essential purpose of going to college is not to get a job. That's what the purpose of vocational school is. The purpose of going to college is to be more highly educated so you can analyze, understand and appreciate the world more profoundly. It may give you background in a particular field that may make you more desirable to an employer than Joe Blow walking in off the street with high school diploma in hand. Someone with an art degree probably won't be doing accounting, but businesses are hiring more people with creative majors because they have learned to think outside the box. College gives you perspective on whatever job you do get. It also says you can set goals on your own without someone holding your hand the entire time and achieve them. The major isn't as important as the experience. I have a friend with a biology degree who went into management and financial services. I have a business degree, and I teach history ( and yes, I had to prove I knew history to do so).

And yes, I realize that many employers expect people to have college degrees. Our society has begun to think college degree = good job. It doesn't always work that way. Employers want college educated people because, allegedly, these people have learned how to think and gained some background knowledge in the process.

Harvard is all about status. Stanford, USC, etc. too. Undergrad programs are undergrad programs, and unless you plan to become an expert in your field ( which few undergrads can do -- they usually need more education to do this), a state college accomplishes exactly the same thing a top tier ivy league college does. The difference is sophisticated networking opportunities for ivy leaguers and more support at the rich colleges so the wealthy little darlings don't flunk out of school. Education quality isn't that much different. Egos are WAY higher, though.
Pari

Ditto, Pari. Society continue to have this expectation thrust upon students to 'do well in school so you can get a good job.' (Robert T Kiyosaki, Rich Dad, Poor Dad). There needs to be a huge paradigm shift in upper educational thinking. Many people have a job, J.O.B. (Just Over Broke, Kiyosaki), and many aren't very happy. Rather, students should be prepared for a career (Career meaning you get paid well for something you love to do).

In the 1990's, there was a wonderful program called 'Schools to Career' which began in middle school offering a wide array of courses (usually part of an optional wheel) that began to focus students on where their strengths are. As the vocational abilities or higher educational abilities appeared, the student would be directed in the appropriate educational direction. Sadly, as with many good, excellent educaitonal programs, the funding was cut just as it was making a difference (to satisy the latest political whims of the time for sure).

At one time, it was floated, but I am not sure how far it got, that higher education would be bifurcated into two tracks, City colleges would be strictly for vocational training and state and university colleges would be for higher education. I think that should still be a goal for our system. I know, I know, tuition would be out of reach for some. But, with any paradigm shift there must be a shift in fiscal policy too. Ultimately, though, people would be able to receive the education they need, not just to get a job, but to have a career, even a vocational career.

[Robert Gary]

I know I am going to have a lot of people disagree with me here.

The essential purpose of going to college is not to get a job. That's what the purpose of vocational school is. The purpose of going to college is to be more highly educated so you can analyze, understand and appreciate the world more profoundly. It may give you background in a particular field that may make you more desirable to an employer than Joe Blow walking in off the street with high school diploma in hand.

Ugg, that is what got us down this road of using public funds to pay for degrees in things like art, etc. There is little cost/benefit return to tax payers for those majors. I understand using public funds in public Universities to pay for engineering, science, etc majors because of the increased income tax those graduates will pay. My first degree was in Computer Science and I probably paid the state back 20 times on that investment in income tax alone.



-Robert

[Carl G]

Its about parents that make education a priority for their children at home.

I wish I could find the article, but there is a strong correlation between a father being involved in a child's life and how well they succeed in school. I try to read at least 45 minutes a day to my kids.

The expectation for the kids in our family were that we would all go to college. Our parents expected us to go to school, to do well, and to succeed. But it was never onerous. We never got in trouble for a less than perfect grade; we got in trouble for not trying hard.

I remember watching a tv show where a parent was describing how much they read to their children when they were young, but once they started school, education became the school's responsibility. She no longer engaged her children in educational activities. Needles to say, the children were dropping out of school, getting poor grades, etc. Some parents just don't get it. The number one teacher and child can have is their parent(s).

[Darthvader]

The essential purpose of going to college is not to get a job. That's what the purpose of vocational school is. The purpose of going to college is to be more highly educated so you can analyze, understand and appreciate the world more profoundly. It may give you background in a particular field that may make you more desirable to an employer than Joe Blow walking in off the street with high school diploma in hand. Someone with an art degree probably won't be doing accounting, but businesses are hiring more people with creative majors because they have learned to think outside the box. College gives you perspective on whatever job you do get. It also says you can set goals on your own without someone holding your hand the entire time and achieve them. The major isn't as important as the experience. I have a friend with a biology degree who went into management and financial services. I have a business degree, and I teach history ( and yes, I had to prove I knew history to do so).

Thank you for providing a position to all the businesses that are looking overseas for Math, Engineering, and Software people. "Sorry Art Major Jarred, we need a programmer not a guy with a paintbrush who can analyze the job."

Meanwhile...China, India, South Korea, Russia, etc continue to kick our arse providing smart productive people but all the artsy kids here who can "think outside the box" will seem really cool when they ask you if you want to Supersize your order.

No offense but if anybody follows your thinking they are clueless.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

The essential purpose of going to college is not to get a job. That's what the purpose of vocational school is. The purpose of going to college is to be more highly educated so you can analyze, understand and appreciate the world more profoundly. It may give you background in a particular field that may make you more desirable to an employer than Joe Blow walking in off the street with high school diploma in hand. Someone with an art degree probably won't be doing accounting, but businesses are hiring more people with creative majors because they have learned to think outside the box. College gives you perspective on whatever job you do get. It also says you can set goals on your own without someone holding your hand the entire time and achieve them. The major isn't as important as the experience. I have a friend with a biology degree who went into management and financial services. I have a business degree, and I teach history ( and yes, I had to prove I knew history to do so).

Having worked in the Career Center of two state colleges I concur. For certain fields -- e.g., nursing, accounting, civil engineering -- it is important to have the right kind of training and degree. For many other kinds of jobs, employers who recruit on college campuses want to hire graduates, but the specific degrees they hold is not of prime importance. It is important, however, that those graduates can speak to why they chose their majors and why they are qualified for the jobs they're interviewing for. ("My parents told me to major in ___" or "Since I can't land a job in ___ I thought I'd apply for this" won't cut it.)

Some of the clients I work with today do not have degrees, yet they have a wealth of experience and skills directly related to their current objectives. I encourage them to apply for any job to which they are well suited unless the ad specifically says that a degree is mandatory. Many have landed interviews and job offers when ads originally specified "degree preferred" or "degree required."

Back to the original topic, it is obvious that parents who are involved in their children's education, read to them, help them with their homework, and in general facilitate curiosity and a love for learning, significantly contribute to their children's academic success. The question is how do we motivate parents with limited English and/or limited academic ability to enhance their own skills so they can more fully contribute to their children's learning process?

[Coastal Cohort]

Ugg, that is what got us down this road of using public funds to pay for degrees in things like art, etc. There is little cost/benefit return to tax payers for those majors. I understand using public funds in public Universities to pay for engineering, science, etc majors because of the increased income tax those graduates will pay. My first degree was in Computer Science and I probably paid the state back 20 times on that investment in income tax alone.
-Robert

Are you kidding me????
Double UGH! I asbsolutely value art majors and willingly give my tax dollars to pay for majors like that. Art is an amazing part of our society and I value it just as much as those that design blue tooth headphones and the like.
How can you possibly say that art doens't benefit society? Been to a museum lately???

It's not always about the $$$...

[Coastal Cohort]

Revolutionist - you are right on. I taught 1st/2nd grade for 6 years, and there was a direct link between parental involvement and their child's performance. As a teacher, I could only do so much - I had the kid for 9 months. parents have them for 18+ years...

Kids who are taught (and have parents who model this as well) to respect education, push themselves and engage with their teachers and peers tend to grow up to be really thoughtful, skilled adults who contribute to society.

How do we get that message accross?? I see it being helped with more parent education. Parent workshops in schools, more print ads about valuing education, back to school nights all year where we engage/involve parents and community etc.

Any other ideas?

[Carl G]

It's not always about the $$$...

It is when you are running a $10+ billion state deficit.