Are we still one of the only states that requires 4 years of PE for a HS diploma?

Where are the cutbacks in athletic programs when times are tough? Yes, we did the pay-to-play option, but that's always been the way it is with all music programs. I'm also recalling the year we cut back a period; we lost one of the bands that year as a result of the district not allowing PE to be dropped. I think it's great that we have PE options - but I don't think 4 years is necessary, when 4 years of the arts is not. Exercise for the body, exercise for the brain - they're both necessary. One shouldn't be sacrificed for the other.

Now, I honestly don't know how old the football equipment and facilities are. I do know, however, that the marching band is using instruments that were new back when John Philip Sousa was a lad.

Why is *87 offering a class that takes five field trips? That means kids miss the rest of their scheduled classes and the district pays for a sub to come in and handle the teachers classes. How does that work in a difficult economic time? Why can't students that go down town on their own all the time as it is-schedule their visits to these places/events? Why does the tax payer pay for this?

If I recall - those field trips were subsidized by the class; I remember writing a lot of checks that year. So don't fret about your taxpayers' money. I won't answer the rest of your ridiculous questions that show a real lack of understanding about the importance of the arts, the actual classwork entailed, and the typical life of the typical teenager.

oh scribbler...you fed him! no no! (although everything you said is true. including the fact that these kids will remember those wonderful trips for the rest of their lives..i've been a chaparone on several...makes you proud to be a GBW parent.)

Yes Bio, we are still one of the only states that requires it. While it is a good thing to have, as Scribbler said, excersize for the brain is JUST as important as that for the body.

GWDAD: I was under the impression that the parents paid for it....every field trip I went on included a fee to help cover admission and bus fees, etc....the same has held true for my children thus far as well. And FYI: not all kids have the opportunity to go downtown at all (let alone regularly) and even those who do don't necessarily have the opportunity to attend these places.

Howdy: It's good to hear that the kids behave when their parents aren't around....I oftentimes fret about that, lol.

I believe it was in this forum (and probably also the Park District one) that a few people wondered why athletics and extracurricular sports are generally favored over The Arts and other comparatively intellectual pursuits when it comes to funding. That got me to thinking about the subject... and drafting the following ramblings. These thoughts represent nothing more than a flow-of-conscienceless theory based on little more my personal real-world experience. In it, I have attempted to treat (or offend) both sides equally. —Ted E.

There appear to me that there are only two types of people, often labeled as “Type A” and “Type B” personalities. The world is split roughly 50-50 between the two.

To oversimplify... the Type A’s are the competitors. The “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” people. They are the Jocks of the world whose drive and desire motivates them to seek positions of power and authority in business, the military, politics and social situations. Without these outgoing risk-takers, we’d still be living in trees.

The Type B’s are the kinder, gentler, empathetic folks, as in, “can’t we all just get along?” They’re the negotiators for whom “winning” isn’t the point, but reaching a consensus that makes everybody happy is. They tend to be the artists, writers and other intellectuals of the world who rarely seek positions of leadership (although it is sometimes thrust upon them). Without them, we’d all be living Spartan lives, indeed.

Neither personality is right or wrong. They just are. (And don’t point out as an exception the self-made, successful and wealthy businessman who gives millions to The Arts... I’ll guarantee you it was his wife who made him do it.)

We’re all born as one Type or the other; toddlers tend to reveal which path they will take early in life. It is rare that someone changes their basic personality during their lifetime; it usually takes some sort of rare, life-changing brush with death experience to flip a person from one to the other.

Although men are generally assumed to be the “born leaders” and women “the weaker sex,” both genders seem to be equally divided between the two types. There are plenty of competitive, sports-loving women and artistic, sports-hating men.

The Type A’s are more inclined to seek immediate gratification (win the game this weekend, win the trophy this season, increase profits this quarter) whereas the Type B’s often focus more on long-term ideals (educate a child now for a payoff that will not be realized for decades, work to raise money for a hospital for years that may not save a life for a generation, hug a tree today to save the planet in 100 years.)

Both perspectives are necessary, useful and offer commendable results. But neither side understands or has much respect for the other. Both sides think they can change the other’s thinking with the “force” of their arguments, be it physical or verbal. (The pen isn’t mightier than the sword, pens and swords are simply different weapons wielded by different kinds of people. Sometimes words win. Sometimes brawn.)

Which brings us to the interests of and decisions made by elected officials. The vast majority of people who reach and hold positions of power and authority do so because they have the competitive drive necessary to achieve what they have defined as success. These are generally the same people who appreciate competitive sports, winning “at any cost,” and so on. They neither understand nor appreciate intellectual pursuits that do not have an obvious short-term goal — such as art, drama, music, writing and so on (although they will cheer the school marching band if it places first in the state competition, and they will admire the writer who has the number one book on the best-sellers list. But this is a respect for being a winner, not for music talent or writing skills.)

Interestingly, in the rare cases when Type B's take over a school board and work to expanded support for The Arts, it is [i]not/i[ at the expense of sports, because they wish to offer “something for everybody” in an attempt to make everyone happy.

So you’ve probably figured out my point: The competitive Type A's are the ones who most often serve on school (and other) boards. They understand and appreciate the value of competition, athletics, and everything that involves pursuing an immediate, obvious and clearly defined winning goal. Nothing wrong with that.

The Arts, however, are rarely perceived by Type A's as being competitive and having a finite and easily quantified and specific goal (don’t tell the Oscars, Emmys, Tonys, Pulitzers etc.) or even as offering a path to possible lucrative careers (don’t tell hollywood or successful practicioners in commercial graphics, industrial design, creative writing, architecture, and all the others talented people doing real-world work in The Arts.) Even in engineering and the sciences, not everyone measures success in terms of immediate results or dollars earned.

To the Type A competitor, extracurricular activities in high school aren’t worth doing unless they include the risk of death or serious injury. To the Type B non-competitor, if it involves the risk of death or serious injury, it isn’t worth doing.

In any case, it’s mostly the Type A competitors who run things, and thus control the budgets for what is to be funded. In their world, The Arts are perceived as having no particular economic payoff, and thus get little support.

And that’s the way it is.

Very insightful, Ted....interesting perspective to chew on for a while.

High schools are the last places where students can obtain a well-rounded education with exposure to academics, athletics AND the arts. When Glenbard stops offering electives like art or music, it will have fallen short of its own mission statements.

As for cutting administrators, I agree. Consider also: how many people work for Chris McClain in the district business office?

High School is a little late to be exposed to the Humanities. Parents must be involved more in their offspring's arts education as well as the empirical studies. If you wait for knowledge it will always pass you by. Don't expect anything from the schools unless you are an active participant. Don't rely on others. These kids ought not to be raising themselves. You may dislike what I say here, but I have a son who is an honors student at University Of Oregon, a well-rounded, disciplined, happy young man who is literate and artistic as well as scholarly. This did not occur by accident or by a laissez-faire approach to his primary or secondary education. If you want more from budgets and administrators, contribute more or be silent. And stop voting GOP, it rots your brain.

quote:

And stop voting GOP, it rots your brain

Agree or disagree with the statement, that was funny.

You have a point about parental involvement. However, some parents don't know enough about these things themselves to teach them to their children. It's one thing to support what a teacher teaches your child (regardless of age), but to take on that responsibility entirely takes an incredibly educated and patient individual. We rely on the experts to be our children's teachers, to a degree. We can always disagree with what they teach, or supplement it with our own teachings, but they're experts for a reason....we're not.

High school is not too late to be exposed to the humanities. It's never too late. Granted I agree that children should be exposed initially earlier than that, but the way you worded that it didn't sound like that's what you meant.

Lastly....using your logic here, all students should be home-schooled then, right? I mean, that would definitely be parents taking responsibility for their children's educations and not relying on others....so is that what you believe?

quote:

Lastly....using your logic here, all students should be home-schooled then, right? I mean, that would definitely be parents taking responsibility for their children's educations and not relying on others....so is that what you believe?

No,definitely not. You are logic chopping. Kids need the stimulus of other kids in a regulated learning environment. Socialization has always been an important function of schooling. And besides, most home schooled students, from what I've noticed, are deficient in grammar, vocabulary, and expression;and prone to religious absurdity. Parental involvement need not be that anal or rigid. The most important thing a parent can do is read to his or her child right from infancy. When they are in school, awareness concerning their world is crucial. Talking, asking questions, having an idea what the homework is and being available for help--all pluses. It's also wise to take an active role in PTA and to be apprised of local government's role in your child's education. Fewer budgetary surprises that way.

You might say, who has time? I reply, these are children, the treasures of the Earth: TAKE THE TIME OR DO NOT HAVE THEM. Harsh, yes, but who needs another generation of ill-equipped slackers? The world is passing this country by and we are not competing with our best and brightest. We can alter that course. If we dare.

Thank you for clarifying. I agree whole-heartedly with what you said now. However, I'm still not clear on your stance regarding the humanities classes being cut from the GW curriculum....would you expand on that as well, please?

quote:

Originally posted by GESingleMom2:
Thank you for clarifying. I agree whole-heartedly with what you said now. However, I'm still not clear on your stance regarding the humanities classes being cut from the GW curriculum....would you expand on that as well, please?

Sorry about that. Got on my soapbox. As to the humanities getting cut from the GW curriculum... I think it's awful. And not very creative as far as solutions go. Ironic, that. But it is happening all over America. Some have suggested that cutting athletics would be preferable, and though I am inclined to agree (abolishing PE or limiting it to two years is appealing), there are school districts that have pared down sports as well. Not sure what's left because even math and science have taken their hits. In California, Driver's Ed was one of the first programs to get the ax--and it shows. (Imagine 40 million people with substandard automotive skills. If it weren't for Illinois transplants like me, the roads would be even more dangerous! My wife says it's all the nonnatives and their idiosyncrasies.) My point is that I do not believe for one second that school administrators anywhere are looking hard enough to find ways to work with less money. Maybe if their jobs were on the line? In the meantime it's up to parents. None of us should count on Government for help. But a good supportive community makes life a lot easier. I like to think that Glen Ellyn remains that way. It was pro-kid when I was a young shaver there. We had a genuine No Child Left Behind before anyone used that buzz phrase.

This is naive and sunny, but why not a volunteer program wherein the humanities are covered as extracurricular activities? It might be fun and surely there is room and space available after school.

Pay sports people less and educators more. This great Republic sometimes has the weirdest priorities...

Lol, I know what you mean about the Driver's Ed thing. I had a friend who moved to Nebraska the summer before our sophmore year and when she told me that they didn't have to take Driver's Ed to obtain their licenses, I was dumbfounded. Then I spent a weekend out there and it all made sense.

You're certainly not alone in your theories about administrators not looking hard enough. They're all (well, maybe not all, but at least the majority of them) looking to CYA and that's it. Job security would be great....but when you work in the public industry, particularly that of the school system, it's not about you as an individual....it's about the community and the students.

FWIW, I still think GE is one of the most family-oriented towns in this area. It's part of the reason I don't want to move anywhere else.

quote:

You're certainly not alone in your theories about administrators not looking hard enough. They're all (well, maybe not all, but at least the majority of them) looking to CYA and that's it. Job security would be great....but when you work in the public industry, particularly that of the school system, it's not about you as an individual....it's about the community and the students.

I must disagree. School administrators must be accountable to the State of Illinois Board of Education, District School Board Members,
students, and taxpayers. Administrators are hired by the district school board to manage their school district. Essentially administrators have 4 bosses. CYA? That's offensive.

The problem isn't administrators. The problem is the "{school boards.}" Most school board members view their term as a stepping stone to further their own political careers. Most are ill equiped to understand the educational process and most do not attempt to learn the process.

It was intended to be offensive . I don't see very many administrators doing what needs to be done to better our schools for our children....which is their jobs. I see many of them trying to ensure job security as a primary goal....which is NOT their jobs.

quote:

The problem is the "{school boards.}"

The problem is much more complicated than that. There is accountability on every level and as middle-management....it's the administrators respondibility to find a happy medium between what's best for the kids with what resources are given, and keeping the board happy. Neither is an easy task, but adding the CYA factor only makes it that much more complicated.