Today's musings: The Public School System

So, I have sat by and watched a friend of mine struggle with the hassles created by the public school, and their inefficiency with her son. J. is suspected to have Asperger's Syndrome, and this gives him several added issues "normal" children do not have. As long as the teacher is in good communication with his mother, she was able to stay on top of J.'s behavior in and out of school, as well as the work he was expected to complete on a daily basis.

She did not have that for the last two school years, and as a result, he failed the 3rd and 4th grade. Here is the first problem with the public school system. Even though J. failed his grade, he was still put through to the next grade. Why is this? Is it so important that kids move through school at everyone else's pace, that it matters not whether they actually complete the work and understand it?

This school year was much better. J.'s teacher was in almost constant communication with his mother. Whenever there was a behavior problem in school, the teacher addressed it immediately, getting both sides of the story (something that had not been done in the 2 previous school years), and then e-mailing J.'s mom during a period of downtime in class. S., J.'s mom, would then be there at the classroom at the end of the day, to talk to both J. and the teacher in order to address whatever issue had happened. J. began to realize that his teacher and mom were in total contact, and it affected his behavior. He began to straighten up, and act appropriately. He began getting his homework in on time.

Then, S. moved. Because she was no longer in the same school district, they told her she would need to transfer her kids to the closer school, with 4 months of the school year to go.

She did this. However, the new school tried to let her kids start school without ever having met their teachers, and at this she put her foot down. J. would not begin classes at the new school until they had met his new teacher. It was arranged, and they all 4 (S., J., the teacher and the principle) sat down and discussed J.'s future at the school. S. expressed the need to have good communication with the teacher, so that she could stay on top of J.'s actions and behavior in school, and all were in agreement.

It became apparent, however, that the teacher did not see the need to give J. and S. anything more than she gave any other student. J. was singled out in class, and S. was not notified that anything was wrong until the end of the week when a note was sent home, almost as an afterthought, that something had occurred at some point during the week. At this S. threw her hands up, because how was she supposed to address something that had happened three days ago? J.'s behavior began to deteriorate noticably at home, and at this S. became concerned. Once again, she repeated the need for good communication with the teacher. The teacher informed her that the end of the week notes were the only form of communication she was willing to participate in.

Shortly after, J. came home and announced that he had been singled out in class for having something that did not belong to him. It had been borrowed, but forgotten to be returned. He originally realized he still had the item, and commented to another student that he needed to return it. The teacher, seeing it, became agitated, and took it from J. asking loudly wether or not he wanted to pay the $90 for the stolen item (it was school property from his previous school, loaned by a teacher)? J. told her he planned to return it, but she refused to give it back to him, stating that she would return it herself.

At this, S. decided enough was enough. Communication was almost non-existent, J. was falling behind yet again in the school work, and his behavior at home was drastically worse than it had been in the previous months. Here was yet another problem of the public school system. Rather than thinking about a child's success after 2 years of failure, the school system was only thinking about numbers. Because J. was not in the proper school district, he would have needed an out-of-district transfer. S. was willing to get this, but the school informed her that he would not be accepted because as soon as they moved, another student would be put in that spot, and they would be too full. So instead of adding one extra student so that he would have a chance to succeed for the final 4 months of school, they forced him to fail, yet again. Would one extra student really have caused that big of a difference? I seriously doubt it, especially for such a short amount of time, and isn't our students' education supposed to come first?

S. made the only choice left to her. She took J. out of school. She found an online course funded publically - basically an online public school, but with a completely different curriculum. J. would still be in contact with teachers, and he would still go on outings with other students enrolled in the course, but he would be doing the bulk of his work at home. Since J. has been enrolled, he has completed the required work for the day, and is doing well. Because he is at home all day, S. is able to keep a handle on his behavior in public. She is able to explain to him how his actions affect others. What the school should have been teaching him in addition to his home teaching, she now has to do it all on her own. What a waste of tax dollars the public school system is becoming.

Before I go, there is one more problem of the school system I am seeing that I'd like to share. I am taking an online nutrition course, and we are currently discussing the role of the schools in our children's nutritional intake. This is almost a joke. The schools are given the important taske of educating our students, turning them into fully functioning adults. Well first off, they aren't doing that, since no students going through the regular high school graduates with any kind of marketable skills whatsosever, and they have to spend thousands of dollars to "further their education" just to make anything over minimum wage. Personal experience - graduating from highschool, the only thing I was eligible for was secretarial work, or fast food. Fast food paid minimum wage, secretarial stuff barely more. I then spent $6000 to go to Bryman, which by the way is also a total joke, just to make $10-12 bucks an hour. Nowadays, minimum wage is close to 9 bucks an hour. Is that reasonable? "Here, let's spend several thousand dollars to make a dollar or two more an hour." NOT!!

To further the disbelief, the tuition at Bryman when I attended 4 years ago was $10,000, and I receieved a $4000 pell grant. I was able to find a job okay, but only for 2 days a week at $10/hr. I finally left to work at a temp agency, because even with the inconsistency of work, I was still bringing home more per month. Medical Assisting is a COMPLETE joke, and I do not recommend it to ANYONE!!! The only place you can find a job as an MA is at a small doctor's office, and good luck getting hired, because small businesses usually have all the employees they can handle. AND those that are still hiring MA's are quickly changing over to RN's.

Okay, sorry about my tangent. Back on topic of the school's role in nutrition. Currently, nutrtion courses are being offered, but not until middle school or, in some places, not until highschool. I don't know about every state, but in Washington, I have noticed a definite change in the age puberty begins. First off, we have meat that is given growth hormones, and that is what our kids are eating. In the age of fast food, what kid doesn't have at least one hamburger every week, and many times more? So our kids are maturing more rapidly than they did ten years ago. The aforementioned J. is 11 years old, in 5th grade, and he is already wearing deoderant. My sweat glands didn't mature until I was 13 and in 8th grade (skipped a grade there). So with kids maturing faster, it means their metabolisms are beginning to change earlier as well, and so nutrition and good eating choices should be getting taught at a much earlier age. Not middle school, after they've already begun changing, inside and out. Just as health and sex ed are being taught in 5th grade, so should nutrition.

Here's the funny thing. While the USDA is busy formulating new food pyramids, and emphasis being put on eating healthy, and exercising, the public school is having a fit because they are losing revenue due to the loss of their junk food vending machines! Isn't that a hoot? Revenue is being placed above our kid's health?! When childhood obesity is rapidly becoming an epidemic? It's a complete JOKE, people! Please tell me how this is, in any way shape or form, any kind of right. It is not even logical.

Dont' even get me started on the whole "lack of revenue" balogna people keep trying to shove down our throats. In just the last decade, the schools in San Francisco misused $30 million in bond money, between the years of 1994 and 2001. I'm sorry, but when I hear schools are being given $90 million only to have at least a third of that misused, I absolutely do not feel sorry for the school's supposed lack of funds. They have plenty of money, they just aren't using it properly. When they start using it efficiently, and find they still don't have enough, then I'll start worrying. Until then, I will worry about the quality of education our kids are getting when the schools care more about them, and less about offering extra-curricular activities on the backs of unhealthy, obese children.