Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

adamcadre.ac

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 764 posts

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#141

Post by adamredwoods »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #93
spangry wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because standards would hinder "equity" in educational outcomes. The SF Board of Education recently voted to end selective admissions for Lowell High School in favour of a lottery, citing lack of diversity and "pervasive systemic racism". The board positions are elected so these sorts of policies are presumably what the people of San Francisco want.

There is an effort underway to recall members of the SFBOE: https://www.recallsfschoolboard.org/ There is a father who has been out every weekend collection collecting petitions. On one occasion, someone tried to thwart the attempt by stealing some of the petitions. Even though there is clear video evidence and the public has identified the man, the police haven't arrested him, and SF politicians have not even mentio…

I am baffled why they are doing a recall? According to the site, the main reason states because their kids have not gone back to school. To me, that's not a good enough reason for a recall (recalls cost money). Public schools are under state and county health guidance.

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#142

Post by kyboren »

treis wrote: post #95
unishark wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So rather than putting students that learn slowly into classes that move slowly, you keep them in normal classes where they drag along lost behind everyone else, and possibly drag the rest of the class down with them. I don't see how that is better for anyone involved, unless you think the credential is all that matters.

Because in practice concentrating the problem kids into one class tends not to help them. They get warehoused and fall further behind before being dumped onto society at 18.

So instead, let's put them with the high-achievers and force those high-achievers to do the teacher's job of tutoring them at the expense of their own educational opportunity.

I can see why schools likes it. But it's terrible policy and hurts the higher-achieving students, who will be the backbone of our increasingly winner-take-all knowledge- and services-based economy.

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#143

Post by kyboren »

jdhn wrote: post #30

Stuff like this is why I roll my eyes every time I hear that schools are underfunded and how we need to give them just a little more funding, and surely things will get better. If they're just going to pass students anyways, what's the point of increasing the funding?

That trope needs to die. California's schools are not underfunded. California spends a record amount on education[0], over $18k per child.

"Reflecting the changes to Proposition 98 funding levels noted above, total K-12 per-pupil expenditures from all sources are projected to be $18,837 in 2020-21 and $18,000 in 2021-22—the highest levels ever (K-12 Education Spending Per Pupil). The decrease between 2020-21 and 2021-22 reflects the significant allocation of one-time federal funds in 2020-21."

[0]: www.ebudget.ca.gov/2021-22/pdf/BudgetSummary/K-12Education.pdf

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#144

Post by dragonwriter »

professoretc wrote: post #114
analog31 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing devils advocate for a moment, as grading works right now, a kid can quickly dig themselves into a hole that they have no realistic way to get out of, e.g., by utterly bombing on an exam or missing a few assignments early in the semester. The motivation for that kid to progress any further is zero, yet they are imprisoned in the classroom for the duration of the semester. This hits very close to home for me, a…

> a kid can quickly dig themselves into a hole that they have no > realistic way to get out of, e.g., by utterly bombing on an exam > or missing a few assignments early in the semester. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. The authors of _Grading For Equity_ spoke at my school and the reasoning they gave for eliminating 0-grading (i.e., not using 0 as the lowest possible grade) was because it's basically impo…

> . The authors of _Grading For Equity_ spoke at my school and the reasoning they gave for eliminating 0-grading (i.e., not using 0 as the lowest possible grade) was because it's basically impossible to recover from.

It’s easy to recover from if you don’t use a stupid method if aggregation, but that takes actually thinking about what it is you are trying to measure; for instance, if you grade by % in each of several competency areas throughout the year, and have a final grade catehory standards (cumulative, so you get the highest grade where you’ve met all the standards):

D: median of competency area medians meets minimum proficiency standard

C: median score within every competency area meets minimum passing standard

B: median of competency area medians meets high proficiency standard or median in at least one competency area meets excellence standard

A: median of competency area medians exceeds excellence standard

(standards might be something like passing 70%, high proficiency 80%, excellence 90%, but the exact numbers aren’t the point.)

That will give you a measure of overall competence that isn't particularly sensitive to outlier scores on a single assignment, even if the assignment has components across many competency areas.

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#145

Post by mmarq »

yonran wrote: post #139
mmarq wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anything about this particular Lowell High School, but selective admissions at the high school level achieve excellency by filtering out "bad" students, which are usually students from disadvantaged backgrounds. If a public school is of very high quality, selecting 10 year olds at random is not much less fair than choosing them based on their grades or extracurricular activities or an essay. Unless we as…

Did you read the article? Yes, selective admissions filter out “bad” students including the type of students who don’t care about school who hold back students who do care; the problems of the article are virtually nonexistent at Lowell. I don’t think Lowell was particularly selective (I think something like 50% of applicants get in) and there were plenty of poor students (including myself) who benefited from an acad…

> Did you read the article? Yes, selective admissions filter out “bad” students including the type of students who don’t care about school who hold back students who do care

What do we do about these 10 year olds? We assume they are not "high school" material and we put them in the school for dumb kids? Do these 10 year old not care about school because there is something intrinsically wrong about them and so the school system can't do anything about it?

> The failure of schooling starts much earlier than the admissions test, and it is wrong to infer from disparities in test results that the test itself is racist (as the ringleaders of the SF Board of Education assumed).

The admission test is not racist per se, but if it results in, say, blacks not being admitted to an institution, it exist in a framework that materially enables racism. We are talking about a high-school, which enrols 12 year olds to teach them basic trigonometry and some basic notions of history and literature (in the best case scenario) and not about Hydra hiring PhD candidates to build a death ray. When properly motivated, everybody with a 80+ IQ can succeed in high school, one may argue that you could pick them at random.

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#146

Post by dehrmann »

bushbaba wrote: post #124
rcpt wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also in the name of equity the UCs are now ignoring the SAT

You can ban the sat and grades and still measure for academic rigor. For example those who placed in a state math competition are likely to have higher academic abilities. Or those who had an article published in the news…etc. All this does is make grades no longer a measure used. And allow the wealthy to better position their kids at the detriment of the middle class. California’s strive to force outcome hurts the m…

> You can ban the sat and grades and still measure for academic rigor

It's harder to normalize performance across schools without a standardized test.

> those who placed in a state math competition are likely to have higher academic abilities

That sounds like a state-run math SAT that would have the same problems.

> And allow the wealthy to better position their kids at the detriment of the middle class.

The upper middle class is where it's actually interesting. There aren't enough wealthy people for the SAT to be a driver of mass inequality. They're already sending their kids to elite private schools, so as long as the Ivies keep favoring those schools, the status quo remains. The most important thing you can to to prepare for the SAT is do lots of practice tests. Those aren't that expensive. Anyone working class or higher can afford them. SAT classes help somewhat, but less than being somewhat familiar with the test. They're moderately expensive. Tutors are where it's interesting, and that's in upper middle class territory.

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#147

Post by treis »

kyboren wrote: post #142
treis wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in practice concentrating the problem kids into one class tends not to help them. They get warehoused and fall further behind before being dumped onto society at 18.

So instead, let's put them with the high-achievers and force those high-achievers to do the teacher's job of tutoring them at the expense of their own educational opportunity. I can see why schools likes it. But it's terrible policy and hurts the higher-achieving students, who will be the backbone of our increasingly winner-take-all knowledge- and services-based economy.

That's quite the straw man you've built there.

Nobody is talking about forcing the high achievers to do the teacher's job. The question is how we allocate the fixed amount of educational resources we have. You want us to choose the high achievers so that these early winners can turn that lead into even greater success later. Unstated in your post is what happens to those low achieving students. But it's pretty easy to assume that they're going to be the losers in the winner take all economy.

The other option is to help the low achieving students so that more of them can participate in that winner take all economy. I'm not sure how to argue that this latter option is preferable since it seems so obvious to me that it's the right choice to make.

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#148

Post by tedd4u »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #90
analog31 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing devils advocate for a moment, as grading works right now, a kid can quickly dig themselves into a hole that they have no realistic way to get out of, e.g., by utterly bombing on an exam or missing a few assignments early in the semester. The motivation for that kid to progress any further is zero, yet they are imprisoned in the classroom for the duration of the semester. This hits very close to home for me, a…

Nothing is going to work while everything is paced by year. In 7th grade, in the fall you are taught X, so if you miss it the only solution is to take it next time: next fall with the next year’s 7th graders. In an ideal infinitely funded world, if you took 20% longer to learn X, you’d just go slower, not be left behind.

A great deal of research has gone into just this concept, often called "mastery-based learning." Sal Khan is one well-known proponent (look for the requisite TED talk).

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#149

Post by rahimnathwani »

adamredwoods wrote: post #141
rahimnathwani wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an effort underway to recall members of the SFBOE: https://www.recallsfschoolboard.org/ There is a father who has been out every weekend collection collecting petitions. On one occasion, someone tried to thwart the attempt by stealing some of the petitions. Even though there is clear video evidence and the public has identified the man, the police haven't arrested him, and SF politicians have not even mentio…

I am baffled why they are doing a recall? According to the site, the main reason states because their kids have not gone back to school. To me, that's not a good enough reason for a recall (recalls cost money). Public schools are under state and county health guidance.

The board could have opened schools months ago, but chose not to.

The board opened some schools for a single day at the end of the school year, just to qualify for state funding to pay teachers.

The board spent time (whilst schools were closed) deciding how to rename schools, something which has zero impact on educational outcomes.

The board has a member who made racist remarks on Twitter and, despite not losing her position, is suing the school board: https://missionlocal.org/2021/03/alison-collins-school-board...

These are other reasons to be dissatisfied.

More concerning to some people is that becoming a member of the SFBOE is a common launching point for the SF Board of Supervisors.

Re: Life as a public school teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2021

#150

Post by lubujackson »

mmarq wrote: post #129
spangry wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because standards would hinder "equity" in educational outcomes. The SF Board of Education recently voted to end selective admissions for Lowell High School in favour of a lottery, citing lack of diversity and "pervasive systemic racism". The board positions are elected so these sorts of policies are presumably what the people of San Francisco want.

I don't know anything about this particular Lowell High School, but selective admissions at the high school level achieve excellency by filtering out "bad" students, which are usually students from disadvantaged backgrounds. If a public school is of very high quality, selecting 10 year olds at random is not much less fair than choosing them based on their grades or extracurricular activities or an essay. Unless we as…

This kind of narrow thinking is what has caused schools in SF to suck for everyone. Because Lowell doesn't exist in a vacuum and the arguments that privileged people have a leg up doesn't really make a difference - it is similar logic to burning libraries because some folks can't read.

So what happens when you dumb down the only decent public high school for students to aim for? The parents have three options: send your kid to school where they learn nothing (maybe get a tutor and self-learn?), send them to a private high school which costs north of $50k/year in SF (some are more like $65k... and that is IF you can get in!), or you move somewhere else. But there has been a country-wide effort to dumb down public schools combined with softer discipline (thanks to lawsuit fears), so you might simply end up at a private school anyway.

Add this together and you can see how pushing equitable results by attacking merit-based options only widens class and economic divides.

Post reply on HN