Arkady Renko Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 In his eighth year on the job, assuming a 180-day school year, hypothetically, he won't have to spend a single day at work. Nice! 334472[/snapback] But apparently New York State voters are supposed to approve the school budgets because our schools are underfunded. (Interesting that our schools are so amazingly heavy funded already compared to other states, but despite our heavy tax burden, we apparently do not spend enough money on education.)
Fezmid Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 In his eighth year on the job, assuming a 180-day school year, hypothetically, he won't have to spend a single day at work. Nice! 334472[/snapback] You do realize that a superintendent works more than 180 days a year, right...? Also, who's to say that there isn't a cap to the number of days you can aquire? Where I work, I can't bank more than 5 or 6 weeks (for example). CW
Arkady Renko Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 You do realize that a superintendent works more than 180 days a year, right...? 334500[/snapback] Yes, bureaucracy takes up a lot of time.
Alaska Darin Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Darin, I don't doubt at all that the HS is being unnecessarily inflexible here, but I guess I just take it as a case of personal accountability. I think the school should have waived it because of her athletic resume, but in principle I do not agree with the notion that some requirements are somehow unworthy of consideration. It's not like the school told her one month before graduation that she was fvcked. They laid out for her exactly what she had to do in order to graduate *and* they gave her options. She didn't have to drop her AP Bio, she could have dropped chorus. Is singing anymore frivolous than gym? I guess in this case I agree with you, but in general I am against people trying to worm their way out of what is required of everyone else. And I do not agree with the principle that some requirements are essential, but some aren't worth sh*t. Bottom line, she could have avoided this whole mess with minimal effort on her part. Which is why I feel little sympathy for her when she wants to complain after the fact. 334330[/snapback] I don't disagree with anything you say in that post. I just find the things public schools are willing to "draw the line" on increasingly short sighted. A 3 sport letterman can't walk because she didn't take a gym class? What's the benefit of that? Is the message being sent more important than the obvious lack of common sense? In this case, I'd say no. I personally don't understand why gym is only a ONE year requirement anyway. That probably doesn't have anything to do with all the overweight and pissed off kids we have roaming the earth.
stuckincincy Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 I personally don't understand why gym is only a ONE year requirement anyway. That probably doesn't have anything to do with all the overweight and pissed off kids we have roaming the earth. 334537[/snapback] Yes - I had it twice a week, Grades 1 through 12. There was a big flap in the newspaper here about gym - what to do what to do fret fret fret. Some felt that the schools must hire "certified" gym instructors. Cha-ching. Why not just shove the little darlings out the door and make them run around the building for a half-hour?
Alaska Darin Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Yes - I had it twice a week, Grades 1 through 12. There was a big flap in the newspaper here about gym - what to do what to do fret fret fret. Some felt that the schools must hire "certified" gym instructors. Cha-ching. Why not just shove the little darlings out the door and make them run around the building for a half-hour? 334560[/snapback] Ours was every other day.
Arkady Renko Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Ours was every other day. 334598[/snapback] Same here. I hear a lot of schools don't have kids do gym class at all because they want students to spend more time in the classroom. The truth is that kids have been eating crappy food since the beginning of time. Instead of obsessing about junk food, which is fine in moderation, we should getting kids active and having fun while they are doing so. Exercise is much better for the mind and body than simply abstaining from anything that tastes good.
stuckincincy Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Ours was every other day. 334598[/snapback] We had to take swimming in high school. Suits were optional. Can you imagine the furor these days? The instructors were the regular gym teachers - we had 2 of them. Non-swimmers were lined up on the deep end facing the water, and the teacher would shove them in one at a time, and fish them out with a long bamboo pole. After a while, they learned how to swim. It was hilarious - self-esteem? Bah!
UConn James Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 I don't disagree with anything you say in that post. I just find the things public schools are willing to "draw the line" on increasingly short sighted. A 3 sport letterman can't walk because she didn't take a gym class? What's the benefit of that? Is the message being sent more important than the obvious lack of common sense? In this case, I'd say no. 334537[/snapback] I would say it is common sense for the same reason why a student shouldn't be allowed to take 6 gym classes and get an out on World Civ b/c he or she went on a field trip into international waters. High school sports are not equivalent to gym class for the same reason the chess club shouldn't be; it's extra-curricular. There are the J.P. Losmans of the world who'd do that, and then take it to the BOE or the courts. And they'd be right. You bend the rules for one kid, you bend them for everyone.
Sound_n_Fury Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 I would say it is common sense for the same reason why a student shouldn't be allowed to take 6 gym classes and get an out on World Civ b/c he or she went on a field trip into international waters. High school sports are not equivalent to gym class for the same reason the chess club shouldn't be; it's extra-curricular. 334670[/snapback] While I agree, the student and her family did this with eyes wide open, I've got to ask: What's the point of a high school education...is it to get a piece of paper after four years, or is it to prepare young people for college/life/work? It seems the education bureacracy is increasingly placing a higher value on its "rules" than the "outcomes" it's supposed to achieve. A little flexibility could have been applied in this situation, IMO.
Alaska Darin Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 High school sports are not equivalent to gym class for the same reason the chess club shouldn't be; it's extra-curricular. 334670[/snapback] You've made alot of dumb analogies over time, but that's right at the top of the list. Nice "lahjik."
UConn James Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 While I agree, the student and her family did this with eyes wide open, I've got to ask: What's the point of a high school education...is it to get a piece of paper after four years, or is it to prepare young people for college/life/work? It seems the education bureacracy is increasingly placing a higher value on its "rules" than the "outcomes" it's supposed to achieve. A little flexibility could have been applied in this situation, IMO. 334691[/snapback] The 'outcome' ideally derives from the 'rules.' On her transcript, she's short a credit in a required section. "Flexibility" would then mean that one can graduate w/o completely fulfilling the required sections. What does that portend for a slacker who wants to get out of geometry or history? People wax nostalgic about the '40s and '50s, a time when rules were actually enforced; it is precisely our society's "flexability" that allows a loosening of the boundaries at the margins to what we have today. Isabel, at 18 years old, understands that the rules are the rules, made her decision and is moving on. Maybe people should follow her cue.
Alaska Darin Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 We had to take swimming in high school. Suits were optional. Can you imagine the furor these days? The instructors were the regular gym teachers - we had 2 of them. Non-swimmers were lined up on the deep end facing the water, and the teacher would shove them in one at a time, and fish them out with a long bamboo pole. After a while, they learned how to swim. It was hilarious - self-esteem? Bah! 334625[/snapback] My wife and I had that discussion last night. Now a days kids feel so good about themselves that they treat everyone else like sh--. Nice job, public schools.
Sound_n_Fury Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 The 'outcome' ideally derives from the 'rules.' On her transcript, she's short a credit in a required section. "Flexibility" would then mean that one can graduate w/o completely fulfilling the required sections. What does that portend for a slacker who wants to get out of geometry or history? People wax nostalgic about the '40s and '50s, a time when rules were actually enforced; it is precisely our society's "flexability" that allows a loosening of the boundaries at the margins to what we have today. Isabel, at 18 years old, understands that the rules are the rules, made her decision and is moving on. Maybe people should follow her cue. 334722[/snapback] I'm not advocating a similar policy for every instance. I'm saying management descretion should be applied in individual cases where the "greater good" will be served. A slacker does not get the same benefit a better student does. Maybe the school board should re-read Catch-22 to refresh their perspective: http://school.discovery.com/lessonplans/programs/catch22/
UConn James Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 You've made alot of dumb analogies over time, but that's right at the top of the list. Nice "lahjik." 334699[/snapback] How is saying that after-school activities should not count toward in-school credit constitute dumb logic? If you work on the student newspaper or yearbook, it's automatically somehow given that you read Shakespeare and therefore you can skip over eleventh-grade English? Because that is on par with what you are advocating.
Alaska Darin Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Because that is on par with what you are advocating. 334755[/snapback] Sure it is. A 40 minute gym class is WAY tougher than any 2+ hour practice I ever attended. Plus, I learned alot more about picking on the less athletically fortunate (you know, the guys who didn't even own their own sneakers) during sports like dodgeball and floor hockey. Nice leap. Stop digging.
UConn James Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 Sure it is. A 40 minute gym class is WAY tougher than any 2+ hour practice I ever attended. Plus, I learned alot more about picking on the less athletically fortunate (you know, the guys who didn't even own their own sneakers) during sports like dodgeball and floor hockey. Nice leap. Stop digging. 334783[/snapback] "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person." Join the debate club. You might learn something about logical arguments. And hey, maybe you'll get out of World Civ!
Alaska Darin Posted May 12, 2005 Posted May 12, 2005 "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person." Join the debate club. You might learn something about logical arguments. And hey, maybe you'll get out of World Civ! 334791[/snapback] Yeah, I sure wish I could wrap my head around "chess club is to Football practice as Gym is to Literature class," and only because of the time frame each is accomplished in still manage to call it logical. Spock you ain't, Jimbo. That girl accomplished more athletically and learning wise by lettering in 3 sports than probably 75% of the people who "passed" an average high school gym class (which consists of showing up most of the time). Try and fit that under your "lahjikal" dunce cap.
Recommended Posts