Orton's Arm Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 They're numbers. You wouldn't understand them anyway. 832564[/snapback] I understand the number zero, which is exactly how much you've contributed to this thread.
Orton's Arm Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 Simple, the trend has been the past two or three years to move away from this, and the students need more time to learn if they receive this bad info Yeah, of course. but then again we should have a C student in charge of who heads the Department of education either dry.gif But of course students are going to do better in better schools, but i believe that you should crowd students into schools forcing others to be shut down, when we can give more individual attention (which is huge) and improve the existing schools that we have. I agree to a point there, the disadvantaged kids are the ones who are getting the shaft the most, and coming from a poor background i am huge on trying to get the poor the best education possible. The only solutions i see as reasonable are making sure that every school in the state has a baseline amount of money per student being spent that can be supplemented by a state fund or federal funds. The other is requiring all teachers to have a quality education w/ training in education and in the content they are teaching (ie a social studies teacher having a history/ archaeology major) as well as a masters' degree, and continuing education oppurtunities to keep their methodology up to date. A lot of what you suggest involves keeping the existing system intact as much as possible; with incremental reforms such as more personal attention or increased requirements for teachers. I tend to see the school system's problems as much deeper. The federal government influences education. Does the president, for example, care about educating children? Can future presidents be expected to care? Not necessarily. They have to appear to care, which is something very different. What about teachers' unions? Their track record is to actually oppose the real education of children in this country, for example by dumbing down textbooks. They clearly don't believe it's in their intrinsic interest to care. On the contrary, as long as the U.S. education system is messed up, they can always say that more money is needed to fix it. More money=more unionized teachers and bureaucrats=a bigger, richer, more powerful union. Then there is the American educational bureaucracy; which like American government bureaucracies in general tends to be inefficient and wasteful. The worse the education system gets, the more money politicians will tend to throw at it to try to fix the problem, and the bigger and more powerful the bureaucracy will tend to become. The problem with the U.S. education system is that money and power have been given to those who aren't necessarily interested in the education of children. You can't fix that problem with longer school days, or better-qualified teachers. You fix the problem by moving money and power into the hands of those who most want children educated--their parents. Once you do that, the other problems will tend to go away on their own.
justnzane Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 A lot of what you suggest involves keeping the existing system intact as much as possible; with incremental reforms such as more personal attention or increased requirements for teachers. I tend to see the school system's problems as much deeper. The federal government influences education. Does the president, for example, care about educating children? Can future presidents be expected to care? Not necessarily. They have to appear to care, which is something very different. What about teachers' unions? Their track record is to actually oppose the real education of children in this country, for example by dumbing down textbooks. They clearly don't believe it's in their intrinsic interest to care. On the contrary, as long as the U.S. education system is messed up, they can always say that more money is needed to fix it. More money=more unionized teachers and bureaucrats=a bigger, richer, more powerful union. Then there is the American educational bureaucracy; which like American government bureaucracies in general tends to be inefficient and wasteful. The worse the education system gets, the more money politicians will tend to throw at it to try to fix the problem, and the bigger and more powerful the bureaucracy will tend to become. The problem with the U.S. education system is that money and power have been given to those who aren't necessarily interested in the education of children. You can't fix that problem with longer school days, or better-qualified teachers. You fix the problem by moving money and power into the hands of those who most want children educated--their parents. Once you do that, the other problems will tend to go away on their own. 832574[/snapback] The sad fact is that the federal government puts a ton of requirements on education when constitution it is a state's right, and the fact they horribly underfund any iniative they pass. When the federal government claims to really care about education, it spends only 3% of its yearly expenses on education, thus leaving it on the local gov'ts to flip the bill. I agree that those who have the power in the education system have little actual experience in the classrooms, and that is what matters most. You have some very ignorant people who get limited input from a few, and misconstruct the hell out of it until you get a program like NCLB that is a total failure by almost every teacher's opinion. However, i disagree with giving the money to the parents because you will create a system of education where the best schools will be overcrowded and lose their effectiveness. In reality, we need more funding in poor school districts (which are the vast majority of the schools that are failing) and we need to do more to get the parents involved with the education process. sadly, many parents are not involved with their kids education, until they find that their kids are failing. Parents need to help their kids learn, instead of thinking that kids will be able to do it all on their own. Also, some actually think of school as tax funded babysitting, and do not give their kids the support that is needed.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 I understand the number zero, which is exactly how much you've contributed to this thread. 832567[/snapback] I'm crushed. I was so badly looking for your approval.
EC-Bills Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 I'm crushed. I was so badly looking for your approval. 832638[/snapback] Looks like you are stuck with having low self-esteem.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 Looks like you are stuck with having low self-esteem. 832641[/snapback] I thought I did, but it seems to have regressed toward the mean today, so I must have been wrong...
UConn James Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 In reality, we need more funding in poor school districts (which are the vast majority of the schools that are failing) and we need to do more to get the parents involved with the education process. sadly, many parents are not involved with their kids education, until they find that their kids are failing. Parents need to help their kids learn, instead of thinking that kids will be able to do it all on their own. Also, some actually think of school as tax funded babysitting, and do not give their kids the support that is needed. 832578[/snapback] Explain how doing what your first sentence suggests will help. In this state, one of the better education systems in the country, the budgets of the cities are (and I'm not drawing this number of of the air) over 5 times that of smaller towns, per student. Cities like Hartford, Bridgeport, etc. still rate poorly in test scores. There comes a point where continuing to pump money into them is a waste; and how is it fair to the kids in the smaller towns --- and no, not all of them affluent, especially here east of the river --- who get so much less and do so much better? No, it is not right to 'give up' on those kids, but keeping it structured like this is crap. I begin to side with those people who propose that education funding should come almost entirely from the city/town taxes rather than the larger state and federal pot, where it is disproportionately spent on schools where the problem is that the kids don't care, and no amount of money will make them do better. You see the stereotypical fat mothers on TV, screaming that the city doesn't spend enough and that's why their kids aren't doing well. That they need new computers and new books and this, that and the other, and you're like .... 'Well, what the f--- happened with all the money you already get?' Does the inner city have some kind of 10,000% markup on Roget's Thesauruses? P.S. I missed several pages, can someone tell me how an abortion thread got on the topic of school funding? Or should I not even ask?
justnzane Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 Explain how doing what your first sentence suggests will help. In this state, one of the better education systems in the country, the budgets of the cities are (and I'm not drawing this number of of the air) over 5 times that of smaller towns, per student. Cities like Hartford, Bridgeport, etc. still rate poorly in test scores. There comes a point where continuing to pump money into them is a waste; and how is it fair to the kids in the smaller towns --- and no, not all of them affluent, especially here east of the river --- who get so much less and do so much better? No, it is not right to 'give up' on those kids, but keeping it structured like this is crap. I begin to side with those people who propose that education funding should come almost entirely from the city/town taxes rather than the larger state and federal pot, where it is disproportionately spent on schools where the problem is that the kids don't care, and no amount of money will make them do better. You see the stereotypical fat mothers on TV, screaming that the city doesn't spend enough and that's why their kids aren't doing well. That they need new computers and new books and this, that and the other, and you're like .... 'Well, what the f--- happened with all the money you already get?' Does the inner city have some kind of 10,000% markup on Roget's Thesauruses? P.S. I missed several pages, can someone tell me how an abortion thread got on the topic of school funding? Or should I not even ask? 832652[/snapback] Ok statistically schools that have a wealthier base tend to do far better than those of a poorer base. Many states have a law or a court ruling against property taxes being the only way a school generates funds, as it is considered discriminatory. When it comes down to it, part of the reason poor students do bad is because of living in a culture of poverty, and schools that are full of poverty are basically screwed, unless you are able to find some way to motivate them and be creative enough to do it. That said many larger school districts like the city school districts in this area like rochester have a lot of mismanagement involved. The problem with poorer parental bases is that they are less willing to stand up against this crap. Also, a poorer base is likely to emphasize school, partially because they are less educated themselves (statistic generality there). the biggest issue is that very few of the poor believe that the american dream can still happen. and working for the state of new york, i have to say that sometimes they really do find some of the most expensive overpriced garbage to buy. a lot of it is that management should be replaced is the schools do not make any progress, and that is one of the few bright spots of the no child left behind act. this turned into an education debate when i made a remark comparing prison spending to educational spending the past 25 years, and holcombs arm and i have been debating
UConn James Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 Ok statistically schools that have a wealthier base tend to do far better than those of a poorer base. Many states have a law or a court ruling against property taxes being the only way a school generates funds, as it is considered discriminatory. When it comes down to it, part of the reason poor students do bad is because of living in a culture of poverty, and schools that are full of poverty are basically screwed, unless you are able to find some way to motivate them and be creative enough to do it. That said many larger school districts like the city school districts in this area like rochester have a lot of mismanagement involved. The problem with poorer parental bases is that they are less willing to stand up against this crap. Also, a poorer base is likely to emphasize school, partially because they are less educated themselves (statistic generality there). the biggest issue is that very few of the poor believe that the american dream can still happen. and working for the state of new york, i have to say that sometimes they really do find some of the most expensive overpriced garbage to buy. a lot of it is that management should be replaced is the schools do not make any progress, and that is one of the few bright spots of the no child left behind act. 832675[/snapback] From the point of view of John Q. Taxpayer.... How is any of that my problem, or my fault, to the tune that I have to contribute $16,000 per student who doesn't live w/in 75 miles of me? Cities don't have businesses to tax and rural areas do? How is tying property taxes to education funding "discriminatory"? It's not discrimanatory; that's just one of the bullsh-- words they say to justify dumping even more money when the more money they already have doesn't do anything.
justnzane Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 From the point of view of John Q. Taxpayer.... How is any of that my problem, or my fault, to the tune that I have to contribute $16,000 per student who doesn't live w/in 75 miles of me? Cities don't have businesses to tax and rural areas do? How is tying property taxes to education funding "discriminatory"? It's not discrimanatory; that's just one of the bullsh-- words they say to justify dumping even more money when the more money they already have doesn't do anything. 832682[/snapback] yeah, but that is the legal view, personally with our gov't system as it exist there is no way that the schools are gunna be fair.
Wacka Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 From the point of view of John Q. Taxpayer.... How is any of that my problem, or my fault, to the tune that I have to contribute $16,000 per student who doesn't live w/in 75 miles of me? Cities don't have businesses to tax and rural areas do? How is tying property taxes to education funding "discriminatory"? It's not discrimanatory; that's just one of the bullsh-- words they say to justify dumping even more money when the more money they already have doesn't do anything. 832682[/snapback] Your sounding conservative! Welcome to our side!
blzrul Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 From the point of view of John Q. Taxpayer.... How is any of that my problem, or my fault, to the tune that I have to contribute $16,000 per student who doesn't live w/in 75 miles of me? Cities don't have businesses to tax and rural areas do? How is tying property taxes to education funding "discriminatory"? It's not discrimanatory; that's just one of the bullsh-- words they say to justify dumping even more money when the more money they already have doesn't do anything. 832682[/snapback] How do you folks on the board, then, feel about someone who doesn't live within 75 miles of you fighting and dying for your freedom in a foreign country? Suppose those people used this same selfish "logic" to decide they couldn't be bothered risking their lives for people who they don't know? I guess that's the difference between selfless heroes and selfish chickenshits.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 12, 2006 Posted November 12, 2006 How do you folks on the board, then, feel about someone who doesn't live within 75 miles of you fighting and dying for your freedom in a foreign country? Suppose those people used this same selfish "logic" to decide they couldn't be bothered risking their lives for people who they don't know? I guess that's the difference between selfless heroes and selfish chickenshits. 832750[/snapback] To be honest I wouldnt sign up for the army/navy/air force if I didnt thing their was a risk of me dying. Period. When you sign that contract, KNOW, you have a chance of dying due to it.
bills_fan Posted November 13, 2006 Posted November 13, 2006 Ok statistically schools that have a wealthier base tend to do far better than those of a poorer base. Many states have a law or a court ruling against property taxes being the only way a school generates funds, as it is considered discriminatory. When it comes down to it, part of the reason poor students do bad is because of living in a culture of poverty, and schools that are full of poverty are basically screwed, unless you are able to find some way to motivate them and be creative enough to do it. That said many larger school districts like the city school districts in this area like rochester have a lot of mismanagement involved. The problem with poorer parental bases is that they are less willing to stand up against this crap. Also, a poorer base is likely to emphasize school, partially because they are less educated themselves (statistic generality there). the biggest issue is that very few of the poor believe that the american dream can still happen. and working for the state of new york, i have to say that sometimes they really do find some of the most expensive overpriced garbage to buy. a lot of it is that management should be replaced is the schools do not make any progress, and that is one of the few bright spots of the no child left behind act. Which is why you allow the competitive market forces to take over instead of throwing more money at the problem. Read vouchers. Giving folks a choice, will force schools to become better more efficient etc. in order to gain more voucher $$. It will help eliminate the waste.
justnzane Posted November 14, 2006 Posted November 14, 2006 Which is why you allow the competitive market forces to take over instead of throwing more money at the problem. Read vouchers. Giving folks a choice, will force schools to become better more efficient etc. in order to gain more voucher $$. It will help eliminate the waste. 835337[/snapback] in reality, it will be segregation of schools all over again. I agree that throwing money blindly is not the way, but targeted funding that be spent in a specific way, like it was 15-20 years ago, would likely be far more efficient, as many needs get overlooked for whatever the local school administration's agenda is
Orton's Arm Posted November 14, 2006 Posted November 14, 2006 in reality, it will be segregation of schools all over again. I agree that throwing money blindly is not the way, but targeted funding that be spent in a specific way, like it was 15-20 years ago, would likely be far more efficient, as many needs get overlooked for whatever the local school administration's agenda is 836119[/snapback] I don't see how school choice would result in segregation, unless black parents chose to send their children to different schools than the ones white children went to. Some black parents might decide to make this choice, for the same reasons that some blacks choose to attend historically black colleges. But that choice rightfully belongs in the hands of black parents, and shouldn't be up to some bureaucrat who thinks he or she knows best. You other objection would seem to have more merit, in that there's the chance good schools would be flooded with new students. However, if they're good schools in the first place, they'll be wise enough to know their own limitations. They'll realize how much they can hope to usefully expand in a given year, they'll set the number of enrollment slots accordingly. Over time, the best schools will expand their enrollments; so fewer and fewer children will be turned away. There will be one exception to this: schools targeted at specific groups, such as the gifted, or special needs children, or children of a specific religious affiliation. Schools like that shouldn't try to become general purpose, because they would lose the things that make them unique.
justnzane Posted November 14, 2006 Posted November 14, 2006 I don't see how school choice would result in segregation, unless black parents chose to send their children to different schools than the ones white children went to. Some black parents might decide to make this choice, for the same reasons that some blacks choose to attend historically black colleges. But that choice rightfully belongs in the hands of black parents, and shouldn't be up to some bureaucrat who thinks he or she knows best. You other objection would seem to have more merit, in that there's the chance good schools would be flooded with new students. However, if they're good schools in the first place, they'll be wise enough to know their own limitations. They'll realize how much they can hope to usefully expand in a given year, they'll set the number of enrollment slots accordingly. Over time, the best schools will expand their enrollments; so fewer and fewer children will be turned away. There will be one exception to this: schools targeted at specific groups, such as the gifted, or special needs children, or children of a specific religious affiliation. Schools like that shouldn't try to become general purpose, because they would lose the things that make them unique. 836138[/snapback] i wasn't as clear as i could have been there. I meant segregation by Socioeconomic status. you do may a case for the theory of the voucher system, however, i do not feel that it is as perfect as one would hope. I am in general agreement with the ideology except i feel that it basically have some elitist elements to it, and become de facto rich v. poor segregation
Orton's Arm Posted November 14, 2006 Posted November 14, 2006 i wasn't as clear as i could have been there. I meant segregation by Socioeconomic status. you do may a case for the theory of the voucher system, however, i do not feel that it is as perfect as one would hope. I am in general agreement with the ideology except i feel that it basically have some elitist elements to it, and become de facto rich v. poor segregation 836247[/snapback] What we have now is a rich versus poor system. Rich people's chidren can attend private schools. Poor people's children can't. Vouchers would make the system more egalitarian in that everyone could now afford the tuition for a private or parochial school of his or her choice. Maybe some private schools would raise their tuitions to keep out the non-rich. But other schools, run by wiser people, would achieve exclusivity through aptitude tests. A poor kid might never get the chance to go to the "rich kids' school." But with a voucher system, an intelligent poor kid could attend the "smart kids' school," and get a better education than at the rich kids' school. And hey, maybe colleges would tend to favor applicants from the smart kids' school over the rich kids' school. You never know.
mike1011 Posted November 14, 2006 Posted November 14, 2006 in reality, it will be segregation of schools all over again. I agree that throwing money blindly is not the way, but targeted funding that be spent in a specific way, like it was 15-20 years ago, would likely be far more efficient, as many needs get overlooked for whatever the local school administration's agenda is 836119[/snapback] Which is a welcome re-addition back to our society. When people are inefficient (voluntarily) they deserve to be treated different for their laziness.
mike1011 Posted November 14, 2006 Posted November 14, 2006 I don't want to give too much of a hackneyed response, but I was a teacher, I dealt with teachers and the argument always runs that if more more money was allocated for education things would improve. I flat out disagree. If more money was spent wisely than less money is needed overall. We don't need new computers in every school. Schools would be better off without computers until 11th and 12th grade. If there are computers for earlier years in school it's only to become proficient in how to use them and basic programming, but never for any other reason. Googling words and knowledge is not the best way to learn initially. It could be introduced, but let kids learn how to look things up, be inventive and intuitive, and then let them learn how to use their intuition on a computer. Why in the world are their calculators now in every classroom? Kids can't multiply to save their lives. Computers with spell checkers ruin a child's opportunity truly learn how to spell and use grammar, not to mention work on penmanship. Do you want to fix the schools? Abolish the teacher's unions, stop tenure, and make a teacher's job like everyone else's: IF YOU DON'T PERFORM YOU DON'T WORK. Tenure is a made up term by the education system to give themselves job security with no accountability. If teachers were actually teaching kids instead of giving anecdotal stories, telling them to write on their feelings, giving them tools to learn rather than learn the material without ways to actually learn without a machine, it's time to change the entire system. Last time I checked Asia has 5% of our resources per child and a vastly superior system. Teachers teach over there because they have to. Slap tenure and a union backing on a teacher and they will only work to enrich their position and stature.
Recommended Posts