Remix.run Logo
etempleton 4 days ago

In the US there are a few obvious things, but everyone acts as if we are powerless to solve them:

1. Cell phones in classrooms.

I don’t know how or why they were ever allowed. They should have to be in a backpack or in a locker and off during class.

2. Not removing students with bad behavior from classrooms and schools.

The current thinking on how to handle a student who is seriously misbehaving and potentially violent is to remove all of the other students from the classroom versus just removing the problematic student in question. This is because there have been instances where a child has been physically removed and has gotten seriously injured. The thinking on expulsion is that it should essentially never happen because kids who get expelled have bad outcomes later in life. But the net effect is that one bad student can hold an entire classroom hostage and there is nothing the teacher can do. This is obviously detrimental to all of the kids who are compliant and behaving. It also causes burnout which leads me to the next major issue facing public schools.

3. Good teachers are quitting

It isn’t worth it to teach in America. You need a lot of expensive education. You get paid very little. You have no power to remove a student who are major disruptions and make it impossible to teach. And, in many districts, teachers are being accused of trying to indoctrinate children because we live in a politicized world.

4. Too many parents aren’t parenting

The number of kids who are not potty trained by kindergarten continues to rise. This is an issue of parents not wanting to do something that is hard and takes patience.

5. Lowering Standards

When faced with kids failing the solution should never be to lower long held standards. The kids are the same, they are just as capable, it is all of the above that is different.

Bonus. We feed kids junk in schools

This has been going on for decades. Why is it so hard to make fresh food for kids? It could probably cost about the same if done properly. The answer is it takes some effort and people have to think about it.

monkeyelite 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> In the US there are a few obvious things, but everyone acts as if we are powerless to solve them

Yes but they aren’t the things you said:

1. Schools are filled with disruptive kids who use up time and resources and are not removed. 2. Teachers have no enforcement authority so they cannot do any of what you said, including removing phones. 3. Teachers and administrators are generally not smart or capable and continue to spend resources on everything except time spent reading, writing, and doing math. 4. Teachers are trapped in a web of legal red tape, bad incentives, and horrible metrics. 5. The US is segregated by by class and education.

stonemetal12 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Is 1 even true? I can't say I have ever heard of a school that allows phones out in class. Taking them till the end of school, or making a parent come claim them is the standard punishment I have seen.

bwestergard 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Anecdote: I have spoken to primary school teachers on the east coast of the United States who report that in recent years, there were not supported by parents and administrators when trying to separate kids from their phones ins school.

tstrimple 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes it's true but it's not limited to or even primarily phones. It's disruptive students who cannot sit still or listen to lessons regardless of whether they have a phone or not. Phones are an easy scapegoat for shit parents who won't do anything to set their kids on the right path. Anything wrong their kids do must be because of someone else. Ban the phones all you want. These parents will still be shit parents and their kids will still be disruptive in classes. We cannot tackle anti-social behaviors because it's largely a protected political and religious class.

stinkbeetle 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Cellphones is true, but it's mostly just another symptom of the disruptive kids.

The ones trying to do their best, who are not rude and inconsiderate of others, are usually quietly paying attention regardless of whether or not they have a phone with them. The disruptive ones are going to cause other ways to play up even if they could not have their phones with them.

monkeyelite 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Taking them implies they have respect to give them to you or you are willing to use force to get them. Neither exist.

Sending them home implies there is a parent who cares and will come.

etempleton 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. It is an issue because 1. Phones are incredibly expensive now so if something happens to it parents are pissed. 2. The high prevalence of school shootings creates a feasible reason why students and their parents want their phones on their person.

Some school districts are starting to create firmer rules around this.

stetrain 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This was the case in schools 15+ years ago, but recently a lot have had more problems with parents complaining about teachers taking away their child's phone.

Part of it is that phones are more expensive, a $900 iPhone vs a $100 Nokia.

Another is (perhaps founded) anxiety about their child needing to have a way to communicate to the outside world in an emergency situation like a school shooting.

Also people get used to things, and modern parents have grown used to being able to text and check on their child any time of day at any location versus sending them off on their bike with no phone and telling them to be back by the time the street lights come on.

It's definitely a problem that needs to be addressed and it needs strong backing from higher levels of administration so it doesn't become an argument of each teacher versus angry parents.

arcfour 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Another is (perhaps founded) anxiety about their child needing to have a way to communicate to the outside world in an emergency situation like a school shooting.

Yes, a situation less likely to happen than being struck by lightning. Very founded!

Not to mention you can just, I dunno, borrow anyone else's phone and have one or two phone numbers memorized? Assuming if they are in an emergency and alone they are not going to be saved by a phone.

stetrain 4 days ago | parent [-]

It's rare, but scary, and humans are often bad at judging things that are rare but scary.

I'm not saying it's a good net reason to let kids keep their phones, it's just founded in some real things that have happened in this country, including a famous case where kids were calling/texting parents while police waited for over an hour before entering, while blocking parents who had arrived from entering the school.

Letting kids have their phones isn't an actual solution to that problem, but right now in a lot of places that's the argument each teacher has to have with each parent. It's better for the state, county, etc. to pass an explicit policy about phones in the classroom so teachers can just point to that policy instead of having to rehash the argument with every parent.

etempleton 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Districts need to make district-wide policies and have clear action steps that happens if a student is caught with the phone out.

monkeyelite 4 days ago | parent [-]

What are some examples of consequences they would enforce?

etempleton 4 days ago | parent [-]

First offense > phone goes in a lock box for the day Second offense > in school suspension Third offense > out of school suspension

monkeyelite 4 days ago | parent [-]

Schools won’t suspend problem students

tiborsaas 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> 2. Teachers have no enforcement authority so they cannot do any of what you said, including removing phones.

If it's school policy, the teacher could say that offending students can get suspended or some similar measure.

atwrk 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Re point 2: In Germany, among other countries, you have social education workers (a college-educated job) in school for these situations. Such behavior has underlying causes, e.g. problems at home (fresh divorce, drugs, poverty-related stress) recent trauma (accidents, death of a loved one, abuse), mental illness (AHDS etc.). Treat the cause and the behavior changes.

ToucanLoucan 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Most schools here have those too. The problem is in the United States children are treated just a hair better than chattel slaves and their parents can basically do anything they want up to the line of actually killing them, and the state does very little.

And, even in the cases where the state should and could do something, the line for those services is incredibly long and the child will be properly fucked up by the time they get to the front.

bpt3 4 days ago | parent [-]

So the state, which is incompetent/ineffective in your description above, should be given even more power in this situation?

Parents in the US don't have any more rights than those elsewhere.

ToucanLoucan 4 days ago | parent [-]

I mean, it's ineffective because it's under-resourced. Child welfare offices and family services in general have been gutted by the politics of austerity in the name of tax cuts and balancing budgets after the aforementioned tax cuts. You can take the best damn engine in the world and if you run it on barely any fuel, you will get barely any power.

I've never understood this pervasive logic in our culture where a government service that's deemed ineffective has it's budgets and staffing cut. How is that supposed to help anything?

And, in regards to the state getting more power; yes but no? I don't think it's a matter of the state needing more power than it has, I think it's a matter of children needing more legal protections for themselves as people. Like it's wild how authoritarian the American system makes parents, whether they desire that power or not. Parents routinely keep their children from going to school because the schools values "don't align" with theirs, but that's not a choice a parent should be making, not really? If a parent is all about that Jesus life and is blessed in whichever way to not really need to function in society, bully for them. That's not necessarily true for their children and they aren't the ones who will suffer the consequences of that choice, their children are but the children largely have no say in the matter until it's FAR too late.

We're the only developed nation that has not signed onto the UN's charter for children to have rights as people themselves as opposed to simply the property of their parents, subject to the whims of people who supposedly have their best interests in mind, but with absolutely zero recourse for that child if that child disagrees with those whims. It's very strange to me that children effectively exist, in the "land of the free," within tiny totalitarian states until such time as they turn a completely arbitrary age, at which point they're expected to be plus or minus functioning adults, with whatever teaching their parents permitted and completed before then, with, in many places, NO oversight whatsoever.

bpt3 4 days ago | parent [-]

> I mean, it's ineffective because it's under-resourced. Child welfare offices and family services in general have been gutted by the politics of austerity in the name of tax cuts and balancing budgets after the aforementioned tax cuts. You can take the best damn engine in the world and if you run it on barely any fuel, you will get barely any power.

Tax cuts at the state and local level, which is where these offices receive funding, are not happening on a widespread level to my knowledge. Increases in my personal state and local tax rates have outpaced inflation for approximately the last decade, and yet somehow every government agency feels they have a budget crisis.

> I've never understood this pervasive logic in our culture where a government service that's deemed ineffective has it's budgets and staffing cut. How is that supposed to help anything?

Because no matter how effective a government agency is, the solution is always to give it more money. No matter how wisely it uses any additional money it receives, any issues the agency has are blamed on a lack of funding by many and the only conceivable solution is to increase funding. And there are many places where these agencies are not being cut, but are still not effective.

There is rarely any serious assessment of whether every function currently performed by the government needs to continue to exist.

Take a look at the budget of any government. By and large, their budgets have increased substantially year over year, yet has the quality of service improved or even been maintained? Schools are the perfect example of my point. Throwing money at the problem isn't the answer.

> And, in regards to the state getting more power; yes but no? I don't think it's a matter of the state needing more power than it has, I think it's a matter of children needing more legal protections for themselves as people. Like it's wild how authoritarian the American system makes parents, whether they desire that power or not.

Children have legal protection from abuse and neglect, the standard of which has been continually raised in my lifetime (which is great to be clear).

> Parents routinely keep their children from going to school because the schools values "don't align" with theirs, but that's not a choice a parent should be making, not really? If a parent is all about that Jesus life and is blessed in whichever way to not really need to function in society, bully for them. That's not necessarily true for their children and they aren't the ones who will suffer the consequences of that choice, their children are but the children largely have no say in the matter until it's FAR too late.

This hits on the crux of the issue, and I don't have an answer to be clear. You are highly concerned about some kid slipping through the cracks because his parents are nutjobs. Other people (I fall more on this end of the spectrum, but certainly acknowledge your point) are more concerned about watching their kid's math/science/english teacher bumble their way through the material but being told that the school is doing a great job and they have no right to pull them out to ensure their time in school isn't wasted.

> We're the only developed nation that has not signed onto the UN's charter for children to have rights as people themselves as opposed to simply the property of their parents, subject to the whims of people who supposedly have their best interests in mind, but with absolutely zero recourse for that child if that child disagrees with those whims.

Who cares, the UN is meaningless, particularly around the concept of positive rights that liberals love to invent with no way of actually providing.

Minor children do have rights that increase as they approach the age of majority in their state.

> It's very strange to me that children effectively exist, in the "land of the free," within tiny totalitarian states until such time as they turn a completely arbitrary age, at which point they're expected to be plus or minus functioning adults, with whatever teaching their parents permitted and completed before then, with, in many places, NO oversight whatsoever.

That's not how things work now in the US. Do you live there?

And let's say we give kids more rights than they have now, are you willing to relieve parents from their legal and financial responsibilities and have the state take them on instead, because the kids can't do it themselves (which is the point of them having a legal guardian)? How will you fund and manage that exactly?

pantalaimon 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah and it's not working at all

porridgeraisin 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think a major issue is the lack of a feedback loop. Cheap money in america means that no matter what country you're currently in, it's financially beneficial to migrate to the US. One of the happy paths towards this end is migrating for college or higher education.

In other countries' colleges without this unlimited input second to local students, there is a feedback loop connecting the college back to the local schools. This ensures that schools keep up. In america this is not required, since no matter what standard say UW sets, the corresponding tutoring centres in India, China and Singapore will adapt to that within weeks. And they can send as many students as UW can possibly ever want.

It also doesn't help that international students bring in more money than local students.

1970-01-01 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Point 5 has been a thing for a very long time with respect to sports. The kid is marked-up a few points on tests if they're the reason the basketball team is winning.

casey2 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From your list it's hard to explain why jurisdictions such as San Diego (reading 4th grade male) test score have risen continuously since the 2000s seems like, if the students are defecating themselves at ever-increasing rates test scores would go down there too.

Or is San Diego immune to these problems? I think the reality is that these test scores aren't majorly affected by literally any of the things you listed.

bpt3 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

On 2, the US DOEd has decided for at least the last couple decades that it is inherently racist if a school's punishment metrics are misaligned with their demographics (e.g. white kids are 50% of the school population but receive only 40% of suspensions).

That environment makes it risky to punish anyone, and a lack of order causes or compounds almost every other item on your list (which I largely agree with).

tadzikpk 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 2. Not removing students with bad behavior from classrooms and schools

This is basically _the_ reason people send their kids to private schools

thinkingtoilet 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

States are starting to pass bans for phones in schools which is a wonderful thing so we are making progres there.

hamdingers 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 4. Too many parents aren’t parenting

You attribute this to increased laziness, and that might contribute, but there are other factors at play.

For one, it takes significantly more hours of work from both parents just to provide basic food & shelter than it did a few decades ago. Calling parents who work more hours than any previous generation in history "lazy" is itself lazy and misses the point.

etempleton 4 days ago | parent [-]

Did not say “lazy” as you misquote, just that it isn’t happening.

ToucanLoucan 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1. Good luck. Have you ever tried to take an iPad kid's iPad? Be ready for the fight of your fucking life.

2 and 5 are handily down to No Child Left Behind which is frankly some of the worst legislation ever devised for education.

3 and 4: And these factors are only getting worse as worse and worse kids enter the school systems. Nobody wants to deal with them, including their parents.

Bonus: It's not hard, but we won't allocate the money. School lunch lady is a job considered a punch line because for some reason our culture thinks it's easy to serve food to several hundred people in 45 minutes when the people in question aren't old enough to buy cigarettes, but good fucking luck getting money and people allocated to actually do that.

dbish 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you can't take a kid's iPad away the parents have made major mistakes and the only option is for the school to directly address this addiction head on.

etempleton 4 days ago | parent [-]

I see it with a lot of parents that use iPads and other devices to pacify their kids. Yes, it is easy, but when they are so addicted to it that they can’t put it down it is a problem.

linalgmixer 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, it’s a fight sometimes. Do it anyway. When we give in to avoid a blow‑up, we teach “meltdown = win.” That’s not fair to the kid long‑term. Set the limit, prep the transition, follow through.

dartharva 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any person who has such an "iPad kid" has completely failed as a parent. That they can't have everything their way is literally the first moral value children are taught in functioning societies; if this basic need is not being met then we are truly living in a dystopia.

djeastm 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>1. Good luck. Have you ever tried to take an iPad kid's iPad? Be ready for the fight of your fucking life.

If a parent has a child that is addicted to an iPad or any other device, the blame is squarely on the parent having let the child use the addictive device so much in the first place. If there needs to be a "detox" period for the child's addiction, so be it, but throwing up one's hands and giving up is parental negligence.

ToucanLoucan 4 days ago | parent [-]

Oh I completely agree. But it isn’t the parents problem, it’s the teachers, and the teacher is uniquely un-equipped and disempowered to deal with it. They have a room full of kids to attend to and one having a meltdown because they’ve lost their dopamine dispenser and have no emotional regulation capability ruins that entire class.

djeastm 4 days ago | parent [-]

Fair enough, I misunderstood your point. It's so strange to me that teachers are having to deal with any of these behavioral issues. I seem to recall it being the domain of Assistant Principals and what we called "resource officers". Any disruption more than a childish comment meant a trip to the principals office escorted by an officer. That was it. Teaching could continue.

etempleton 4 days ago | parent [-]

The issue is you can no longer physically remove a child. So getting them there is the problem if they are not going willingly and if they are a big enough problem they need to be removed it probably means they aren’t doing anything willingly.

jjani 4 days ago | parent [-]

> The issue is you can no longer physically remove a child

What change has made this impossible?

whoiskevin 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

kulahan 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

This article mostly talks about a program for girls in developing countries, not US students in general, and it barely touches on the topic of food. What happened to NPR? They were my favorite a few years ago, but man this is a bad article.

As an aside: I’m fine ending literally any girls’ program that doesn’t have a boys’ equivalent. Boys are in huge trouble.

Anyways, this doesn’t support your point well, since it ends by saying they ended up coming to an agreement in ‘16 that still focuses on fruits, veggies, and whole grains.

scythe 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not that simple:

https://archive.ph/wyFT0

>This year the federal government reimbursed most schools between 77 cents and $4.58 per lunch meal

>[...]

>“You’re wasting white milk and money,” wrote Ben, who identified himself as a fourth grader. “Another reason you should bring back chocolate milk is because students are super MAD.”

Anyone who has ever bought a lunch knows that you can't get something that's healthy and tastes decent for $4.58. Then there's another wrench thrown in the system by insisting on using fresh ingredients like Gordon Ramsey is watching, which forces deeper cuts on everything else. Some public health officials seem to be chasing a mirage of the artisan school chef who forages for edible clover on the school grounds. The result is that students are handed the cheapest apple money can buy and most of them throw it away.

spogbiper 4 days ago | parent [-]

I could actually put together a lot of healthy great tasting meals for $4.50 a serving when cooking for 100s of students at a time. At $0.77, probably not.

grogenaut 4 days ago | parent [-]

Show the BOM and labor costs and I'll believe you