Perhaps the real problem is not to be found with the schools, their funding, teachers' abilities, etc. but with the parents (or lack thereof) who are responsible for raising the kids. Anyone who has raised a child knows the hours spent in school are just the beginning. The child has to arrive rested, not sleep deprived because of home conditions that keep them up until 3 in the morning. The child has to be well nourished, not nutrition deprived because of poor eating habits. The child has to be monitored and encouraged to study, to get homework done, and of course to show up at school, not ignored or told school is not important.

The education reform debate has gone on for decades, but largely without talking the most important problem -- parents who either don't care or are unprepared to be parents. And don't start in about poverty. Historically, poor families -- some with a lot less than available in today's welfare state -- have insisted on their kids getting quality educations. Its an "urban culture" problem, and therein lies the main reason we can't have an honest conversation about it. Political correctness, invented to prevent hurt feelings, has ironically created the conditions under which the kids are hurt a lot more.

b sarbane - It's not just an "urban culture problem." The "urban" element isn't race, it's concentration. In another article the discussion is about the suburban families who've fallen into poverty. They key, however, is suburban - they're in a supportive environment where the expectations are still college prep, and the goal is an upper middle-class life-style.

Your primary point is more than valid, however - if nothing is done to address parenting that does not support the academic success of children, they will spend 75% of their time in an environment where texting, Call of Duty 3, Skyrim, Jersey Shore, Judge Judy and other socially vacuous influences are far more important than getting an A on a math test.
And when children attend school where the majority of the families are not school focused, the disconnect is too great for large-scale academic "reforms" to be successful.

Mary Ann... I've said it in other places, but your critique of social promotions is spot on... keep pushing that. If we don't, we might as well print the Peter Principle on every diploma we hand our seniors.

Ms. Towler,

With regard to "this schools thing" --- I must say it is surprising, if not insulting that, apparently you had to visit your sister's private school in Atlanta (of all places) before experiencing the epiphany described in your article, particularly as it relates to social promotion and basic skills development. One reason why I say Atlanta (of all places) is because surely the conditions which you observed at your sister's "private school" are not anywhere near characteristic of the inner-city public schools of Atlanta, which are still reeling from one of the largest standardized testing, cheating-scandals in U.S. history, and which (like the overwhelming majority of urban, public school districts, including Rochester), can't seem to "get this schools thing right.". Of course, there are historic reasons, conditions, and explanations underlying the failure to "get things right," which are too numerous and complex to spell out here.

With regard to your apparent epiphany, the reason why I'm surprised, if not insulted, is because each time that I campaigned for a seat on the Rochester Board of Education, (2003, 2007, 2009 and 2011) I made it crystal clear to you and other City reporters (during so-called endorsement interviews) that basic skills development (reading, writing and math) represent the foundation of all knowledge, and that where each and every student is concerned --- the Rochester City School District (RCSD) needs to become focused with laser-like precision on developing those skills. I have also said to you during each interview that:

- widespread, pervasive, systemic, social promotion, which has been occurring in the RCSD for many decades, is in fact criminal.

- social promotion contributes greatly to the huge, high school failure and dropout rates within the RCSD, and within urban schools in particular, across the nation.

Yet, apparently, in order to believe that which I have been telling you for years, you either had to hear it from your sister, or had to come to your own conclusion, years later, after visiting a private school in Atlanta (this past Thanksgiving). In any case, I'm glad you are (apparently) finally convinced that this is a fundamental issue and problem in the RCSD.

As it relates to "admitting that we're not willing to do whatever it takes to give Rochester children [as well as millions of other predominantly black and brown children throughout this racist nation-state] the education they deserve" --- whether people admit it or not --- that's obviously a given, a longstanding factual reality --- period. I have long argued that if the historic, education crisis that exists among predominantly black and brown children throughout this nation --- existed among white children --- the U.S. government would have declared that the situation represents a national emergency, and "whatever it takes" to produce a solution --- would have already taken place.

With regard to this critically important issue, you may want to have a discussion with Rochester Board of Education Commissioner Willa Powell (who declared via a recent blog that my assertion "that there is a lack of political will, and second, that no one cares enough about poor, black and brown children and families to take action" is incorrect. She also declared that "private conversations are laying the groundwork for action." My response: Don't hold your breath.

Howard J. Eagle
RCSD Parent

To Howard: With all due respect, I didn't suggest that I had an epiphany. I've been saying this for 40 years. It's a sin that this community continues to look for gimmicks to educate inner-city children. Sadly, as you point out, in my sister's private school - for children whose parents can afford to pay - educators are doing whatever it takes to help children. Do we need to have a teacher-student ratio of 1-to-5 to achieve success in Rochester? I don't know. I do know that shuffling the deck chairs won't work. And I see no indication that the entire community is willing to do whatever it takes. It's easier, and more comfortable, to point fingers.

To: Ms. Towler:

As it relates to your latter comment above, for once, perhaps in a long time --- you and I are nearly in total agreement.

With regard to your question as to whether or not "we need to have a teacher-student ratio of 1-to-5 to achieve success in Rochester" --- that might well be necessary in some cases, but certainly not in all instances. Either way, as you noted, it shouldn't matter. That is, if we are "willing to do whatever it takes to give Rochester children the education they deserve."

Although it is desirable ---I don't believe that we necessarily need or will ever get "the entire community to do whatever it takes" in order to produce widespread, fundamental, permanent change and improvement within the RCSD. However we do need a critical mass, i.e., substantial numbers of parents, grandparents, guardians, students, educators, politicians, activists, and anyone else who claims to be serious about helping to produce change and improvement --- working together constantly and consistently around agreed-upon, concrete, realistic, achievable, goals, strategies, and tactics. This is what we (the Community Education Task Force --- CETF) mean when we talk about building a deadly serious movement --- one that will not take 'no' for an answer.

With regard to concrete, realistic, achievable, goals --- there is no better place to begin than by ending social promotion, and confronting the State regarding the need to replace the current, overall, standardized test-driven, mandated approach --- with increased local control --- so that we can take the necessary time and steps to lay proper foundations (development of adequate reading, writing and math skills) for all of our students --- as a first step.

This is the type movement that CETF is laboring to build. In my view, either people want to help or they don't. If they do, they should step forward and say so. All else is rhetoric and noise.

I can only comment on the one child that my wife and I are raising in our home, and sending to School #58 to complete her education. I say "complete," because the duty of education falls first and foremost on my wife and I as parents; it is our duty to not only instruct, but to provide books, the discipline of study and reading time, and still expose our child to enough physical activity and social activities to produce a well-rounded individual. We strive to meet all these goals, as we believe that teachers can only work with what parents send them; perhaps we ought to focus our attention on what is happening with children, particularly in poverty, from the ages of birth through preschool and see what positive changes we can make? We might even need to go further back, if parents are unable to lead their children to success because of limitation of their own, be it literacy, time, or other more stressful reasons such as drugs or alcohol, these are situations to be addressed. Well begun is half done, they say.

Maybe public schools are already doing better than we think. According to The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby's blog, public-school students' scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress are steadily improving.

"How are really poor children in really poor neighborhoods doing on the NAEP? ....Let's see how various groups are doing, on a nationwide basis, in the eight years from 2003 through 2011. As we do, let's recall that very rough rule of thumb: Ten points on the NAEP scale is often said to be roughly equal to one academic year:

"Fourth grade math: According to those data, black fourth-graders gained eight points in reading during that eight-year span. So did Hispanic fourth-graders. Kids receiving reduced-price lunch gained nine points during that span. (This includes children of all races and ethnicities.) Kids receiving free lunch (the 'really poor children') gained eight points too.

"Fourth grade reading: Black fourth-graders gained eight points. Hispanic students gained six points. Reduced-price students gained seven points. Free lunch kids also gained seven.

"Eighth grade math: Black eighth-graders gained ten points. Hispanic students gained eleven. Reduced-price kids gained ten points. Free lunch kids gained twelve.

"Eighth grade reading: Black eighth graders gained four points. Hispanic students gained seven points. Reduced-price students gained five point. Free lunch kids gained seven.

"To the extent that we trust that very rough rule of thumb, those are substantial score gains; some of the gains are just large," Somerby writes.

Why does this data get ignored? Could it be that improved performance by non-white and poor children just doesn't fit the prevailing narrative that public schools are bad and getting worse? Suppose the narrative is wrong. Then what should we do?

Mr. Tetta,

It's wonderful to know that you and yours are doing well. Perhaps this means that you and/or your wife might be freed up to dedicate a little time to helping us fight for the type of systemic changes and improvements (support systems), which will be necessary to ensure that the masses (yes, literally the masses) will also have opportunities to do well. If so, please send us a note at: cetf-internal@lists.rocus.org.
--------------------------

Mr. BillNRoc,

Believe me, "the narrative" is NOT "wrong." If anything, the so-called "prevailing narrative" grossly underestimates the severity of the very old, ongoing crisis. If you don't believe me --- just check out bottom- line statics for black and brown youth vis-a-vis those for whites --- such as high school and college graduation and dropout rates, and unemployment and incarceration rates. In fact, many of us contend that if there was a similar crisis among white youth --- State and Federal Governments would have declared a national emergency long ago.

Thank you,
Howard

B Sarbane - Your words are so right, and so eloguently stated. As Rush Limbaugh has implied, life is choices. Why do some choose poverty? Is it for the limited security at the top of our hierarchy of need? I believe so. It is not due to a lack of public funds; that is for sure. And to believe the majority of people obtaining master degrees to teach children in the first place lack desire to help children would be pathetic to admit to.
And our class sizes, due to special education inclusion models, are not 25 students to a teacher. The school capital plans have not changed to include inclusion models, so the result is to have (within a space of 5 to 6 rows of desks) space for the inclusion factor along with what is referred to as regular education. Depending on the level of special need, the enrollment is split between the two categories; causing only approximately 15 children for regular and 10 for special (if that after you take into consideration the space for another teacher's desk and workstation for at least 2 other assistants). We have day care size classes that include 2 teachere; one for each category And at least 1 assistant called a paraprofessional (in many cases 2 paras). So, we end up with 3-4 adults for about 25 kids. The staffing level is done on enrollment regardless of whether the children show up on a regular basis, and there are many that show up only 2 days a month in order to collect the families welfare check (here's a key that could be changed to force more accountability - don'tcha think???), which has led to very small active student populations with respect to teacher ratios, and this is very costly. And as the public has been made aware, ettendance is terrible! So, why do taxpayers provide funds for kids that don't even show up? Should higher attendance mandates be required if a family receives a welfare check? I certainly think so. It should be the opposite. Children should only be allowed to miss 2 days; rather than just attend 2 days to be rewarded with the security our social programs provide! Therefore, we provide significant adult support to our classrooms, but the level of classroom support has been very costly to taxpayers, which simply isn't affordable anymore, since the rich shipped our jobs to countries with thatched huts and no plumbing.
Society has become very socialistic in supporting people to the point that the term entitlement is now coined as the phrase for our countries programs. Society is trying hard to help its citizens become productive members of our society, but it appears there's a lack of interest from the people we're trying to help. Society can't force people to do the right thing; become motivated to be productive members of society and take care of themselves. They aren't doing it, and now we've bankriupt ourselves in the process. Its a matter of green at this point. We're limited at what we can do. Regardless of how and what level of productive choices are made, we're out of money to try and change those that have not indicated they want to work at it, and are content with the lmited security our social programs provide. Changing our social welfare program to become a workfare program as was done successfully in (I think) New Hampshire, but I doubt they allow their kids to attend school only 2 days a month in order to get a legal handout from their State......

Mr. or Ms. rukosini,

You're wrong, and so is Mr. or Ms. Sarbane. The major thing that's wrong with your critiques --- is that you provide absolutely NO context regarding the deep-seated, complex issues, which you attempted to discuss in a manner that implies the conditions just magically materialized. There is no way that you can possibly understand, much less help produce viable solutions for such complex, historic, issues and problems (without placing them into proper and objectively accurate, historical context). Also, I'm wondering if you really believe that "now we've bankriupt ourselves in the process. Its a matter of green at this point. We're limited at what we can do. Regardless of how and what level of productive choices are made, we're out of money...?" If your latter quote is true ---- one sure would not know it by looking at conditions within the lily white, suburban, public schools and districts of this county, state and nation, but that's different --- right?

This false claim of being broke is so wrong. President Reagan convinced the voters that we are out of money and this has been the belief (or at least the expressed opinions) of people for thirty years now. If we have approximately 250 trillion dollars in investments worldwide, as I have read, can we expect the greatest philanthropic generation in the world to start to take up the slack soon? Once we stop taxing them unfairly, and forcing them to share, they say, private donors will arise and finance everything the government is now doing. Libertarian nonsense!

If you don't mind that people of color have 4% of the net worth, or that the women of this world only own 1% of the property, then you might be a libertarian.

This libertarian point of view is becoming so common. It is just a natural outgrowth of life in the first world, they believe, that folk living on Monroe Avenue on one side of an imaginary line have a lower graduation rate than those on the other side. Or it is the government that has perverted the natural order of things?

Nonsense.

My opinion of indicating we're in deep financial trouble is not just based on statements all over the news, but by also taking the time to review just how mcch debt we have.
Here is the United States Debt Clock: www.usdebtclock.org/

I highly suggest everyone take a real good look at it. It is scary, and we're in trouble. Our country's been raped financially by the wealthy, and others including outher countries, and certain professions. If the debt per citizen includes the population that can't pay any taxes and are supported by our socialistic policies, then just imagine how really bad it is.
I don't know whether commentators here have children, but they and their children are in way over their heads and they don't even know it. I can only imagine the class warfare that will be going on in the future. Is "occupy" the beginning?