No child left behind my ass - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 02-06-2006, 07:42 PM

Bush is such a fucking liar. How the Hell does one say "we must educate our students to be the best qualified and educated in the world" then cut education?

What I see is money earmarked for big business education tools and government programs but not designed to truly help the kids.

Then there is college, that's it keep cutting those loans as tuitions rise at rates only surpassed by healthcare. That keeps people's dreams of a better life alive.

And then there were Bush's promises to help dislocated workers get reeducated to find better jobs..... all this man does is lie and cheat the American people of having chances to advance while protecting corporate welfare and the very rich.

Yet, Bush continues to not touch corporate welfare......

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Quote:

Bush Budget to Cut Deeper Into Education By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer

President Bush's budget would cut money for education, the second straight time has he has sought less school spending after a first term of steady increases.

The Education Department would get $54.4 billion for discretionary spending in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. That would amount to a cut of $3.7 billion, or 6.4 percent, from this year.

Bush would eliminate 42 education programs deemed unnecessary or inefficient, including some money for the arts, technology, parent-resource centers and drug-free schools.

Overall, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said, education has fared well under Bush, with larger percentage increases than any other domestic area outside of national security. But the big increases came early in Bush's first term after he won bipartisan support for his education law.

A year ago, Bush proposed cutting the education budget by 1 percent, to $56 billion from $56.6 billion. Congress eventually approved a slight increase instead — but that included a one-time boost of hurricane relief aid. Some major education programs got less money this year.

School leaders warn that shrinking budgets will hurt their ability to improve learning among students regardless of race or poverty, the goal of Bush's No Child Left Behind law in 2001.

Bush wants a new $100 million in vouchers for poor students to attend private schools or get extra tutoring. The money would go to students at schools that have not met their progress goals for five straight years and must be "restructured" under federal law.

But Congress rejected private vouchers when it passed the No Child Left Behind law. Congress has supported one only voucher experiment, for District of Columbia students.

The education budget is part of a $2.77 trillion plan that Bush sent to Congress on Monday. It shifts money to current White House priorities, under a theme of global competitiveness.

Those include math help for middle-school students, foreign language courses, and training for more high school teachers to lead college-level math and science courses.

Money for the biggest federal education program — aid to poor school districts, known as Title I funding — would stay at $12.7 billion.

Bush would end the federal vocational education program and shift its $1.2 billion toward expanded yearly testing and academic help for high school students. He tried to win approval for the same high school initiative last year, and Congress didn't consider it.

Hardknock · 02-06-2006, 11:40 PM

*sigh*.....

Ustwo · 02-07-2006, 03:53 AM

Yes remember, because throwing other peoples money into wasteful spending programs is the answer!

Such a fucking liar indeed!

Bill O'Rights · 02-07-2006, 06:13 AM

Ok...
A. "Bush is such a fucking liar." is probably not the best way to start a thread, if you are trying to get your point accross. You've instantly alienated a large group that might just be swayed to see your point. Try a somewhat softer approach.

B.What i read was that 42 unnecessary or inefficient education programs were to be eliminated. Great. That what I want. I also read that biggest federal education program — aid to poor school districts was to remain untouched. Again...great. That's what I want.

C. I agree that education needs to be a priority, in this country. It's broken. We know that. However, just dumping more and more money into a failed product is not the answer.

ratbastid · 02-07-2006, 06:36 AM

I agree with every word of what BOR says (aaaaas usual), but it all leaves me with a question. Why not take money out of education intiatives that aren't working and put it back into intiatives that are? Why the net cut in education funding? What are we saving money for? Is education really where we want to be saving money?

We'd save at least that much if we took competitive bids for Iraq reconstruction contracts. As far as the whole budget goes, this is drop-in-the-bucket money. But as far as the education budget goes, this is an appreciable amount. You can feel 6.4%.

If nothing else, this is a poor PR move on the part of the administration. As much as Bush apologists will contort themselves to spin it as "smartening up our spending", there's nothing like that headline gut punch: "Bush Cuts Education".

yellowchef · 02-07-2006, 09:26 AM

I agree with the overall disappointment in the net cut. I dont think the cut should have been made as a whole but a lot of reallocation is needed. There are some programs that are useless and do not do Americans any good and some that are great that just dont have enough funding. So while I think its shitty that funding was cut, I will give Bush credit on working to cut excess programs from the schedule.

I agree wth ratbastid that this is a PR scheme, its mostly just to bad mouth Bush. I personally dont like Bush, in fact Im eager to see him gone. However, I have to agree with this move in the education system. Getting rid of excess is always a plus.

pan6467 · 02-07-2006, 10:21 AM

First, I do sincerely appologize for the tone. I just do not understand someone who promises one thing then does another. I know that's politics but this man continually does it and it is very frustrating and hurtful to the nation.

That said, again, if the man cuts ATPs and corporate welfare, then afterward, he cuts education, I wouldn't say shit. But to leave corporate welfare alone, while cutting social programs and education?????? Even the most partisan GOP has to wonder why?

NO the answer isn't throwing money into something broke, but conversely, it isn't starving something broken either. YOU FIX IT. You look at what is broken, you look at school systems that work, that don't work and you set models and goals for them to achieve. You don't just cut and cut and cut and think less money will fix the system, it won't.

That's what Bush and the GOP do not understand. You cannot try to just starve programs into being more streamlined and efficient. You have to actually find the strengths and work on the weaknesses. To make the cuts and put the money where Bush is, is not fixing anything, it is corporate welfare to the testing companies.

When only 1 school system makes the "voucher system" that program is broken and needs fixed, yet you are throwing money into it knowing noone will get it.

When you say you need to re-educate the displaced workers so that they can find better jobs, then you cut the program that does so..... you are just flat assed lying to the people. If you have no intention to retrain workers, don't say you do.

Same with saying you want to educate students to be more competitive in the world market, then you cut technology education.

You say you want to keep America "Drug free", the education programs are working. So why cut them?

You say you want kids to go to college but you cut grants and loans, but allow colleges to raise tuitions, so that people cannot afford to go. Look at the system, see what is broken and fix it, just cutting the funding won't fix it.

I still do not understand how anyone can want tax cuts, support corporate welfare yet be happy with social and educational cuts. It makes no sense.

Bill O'Rights · 02-07-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

First, I do sincerely appologize for the tone. I just do not understand someone who promises one thing then does another. I know that's politics but this man continually does it and it is very frustrating and hurtful to the nation.

Perhaps. But priorities change. Resources change. Things change. Or, maybe he is just a lying sack of shit. I don't know. But it is certainly not unique to this president, nor even his office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That said, again, if the man cuts ATPs and corporate welfare, then afterward, he cuts education, I wouldn't say shit. But to leave corporate welfare alone, while cutting social programs and education?????? Even the most partisan GOP has to wonder why?

You keep bring up "Corporate Welfare". But in a lot of cases it's necessary...whether we want to admit it or not. Let's say that I'm in charge of opening a new manufacturing plant, for my company. I can locate it in Twinsburg, Ohio...or Johnstown, PA. Johnstown has fairly high unemployment. They want me there...bad. So bad, in fact, that they offer me no property tax on my plant for the first 5 years, and they'll update the infrastructure to my plant before we open it. What will Twinsburg do to compete? Oh...they'll do something, believe me. It's within their best interest to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

NO the answer isn't throwing money into something broke, but conversely, it isn't starving something broken either. YOU FIX IT.

Or trash it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You don't just cut and cut and cut and think less money will fix the system, it won't.

Neither do you feed and feed and feed a fat cat school administration, and expect the system to be fixed. It won't. I believe in more mony spent on students, and less on administrators. That's a whole other thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You say you want to keep America "Drug free", the education programs are working. So why cut them?

I see a lot of dealers in the 'hood, wearing D.A.R.E. t-shirts. Ironic at best, no? Besides, as much as I want premium channels, on my cable TV...when times get tight...they've got to go. Sacrifices. Sometimes they hurt, but it's trimming the excess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You say you want kids to go to college but you cut grants and loans, but allow colleges to raise tuitions, so that people cannot afford to go.

I hate to say "Back in my day"...but I will. I worked full time, went to school part time, and paid for the whole thing out of pocket. The whole thing, as my 8 years of military service meant nothing in the way of educational benefits, because I enlisted in a 6 month gap between GI Bills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I still do not understand how anyone can want tax cuts, support corporate welfare yet be happy with social and educational cuts. It makes no sense.

My guess is that you are bitter about the cuts because it affects you directly...personally. Some may feel differently that want a plant to open in their town. I'm not saying that you're wrong...because you're not. It sucks. In fact, it sucks a whole awful lot. It always does, when you have to choose phone service over cable TV. Same thing.

Poppinjay · 02-07-2006, 11:55 AM

I think this administrations disregard for education is summed up nicely with the attorney general's testimony before congress that Washington and Lincoln both authorized electronic surveillance.

He really must of misunderstood what Ben was doing with that key and kite.

Bill O'Rights · 02-07-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

I think this administrations disregard for education is summed up nicely with the attorney general's testimony before congress that Washington and Lincoln both authorized electronic surveillance.

Are you kidding me?

Ok...that's got to win the prize for the funniest thing seen today.
Where did that quote come from, anyway?

NCB · 02-07-2006, 12:00 PM

Good. The federal govt doesnt need to be in the business of running/funding local schools. I wish the cuts were deeper and the DoE was eliminated all together

Poppinjay · 02-07-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Are you kidding me?

Ok...that's got to win the prize for the funniest thing seen today.
Where did that quote come from, anyway?

It was during the recent hearings. The local Air America affiliate has been playing it back all day. You can read about it here:

http://tinyurl.com/9k2x8

aceventura3 · 02-07-2006, 03:00 PM

In 2003 Washington D.C. spent $11.8k/student. Utah spent $4.8k/student. Were would you want your child to go to school?

The amount of money spent on education means almost nothing when compared to other factors in determining an effective school system.

Yes, we can keep throwing money at the problem. But sooner or later we have to realize that money is not the problem.

seretogis · 02-08-2006, 12:29 AM

I am adamantly opposed both to federal education funding without any strict performance requirements and "corporate welfare." Failed businesses (and schools) should go out of business and be replaced by successful ones, not subsidized by the American people.

Private schools and private "learning centers" like Sylvan are extremely effective and efficient when compared to the overall failure of the public school system. Politicians do not send their children to public school because they know that it is a failed system. Instead of dumping more money into something that no-one-who-can-afford-otherwise uses, how about learning from success and incorporating it?

pan6467 · 02-08-2006, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

I am adamantly opposed both to federal education funding without any strict performance requirements and "corporate welfare." Failed businesses (and schools) should go out of business and be replaced by successful ones, not subsidized by the American people.

Private schools and private "learning centers" like Sylvan are extremely effective and efficient when compared to the overall failure of the public school system. Politicians do not send their children to public school because they know that it is a failed system. Instead of dumping more money into something that no-one-who-can-afford-otherwise uses, how about learning from success and incorporating it?

I can agree and respect with your post Ser.

I would add though that education is quite possibly the most important aspect of our infrastructure and should be better taken care of.

If you have sub par teachers teaching (and face it teachers make squat, private school teachers as a whole make less than public), and students are not well prepared and they go to college and become teachers it becomes a domino effect to where it gets dumber and dumber.

We need to fix the top as well as the bottom. Cutting college loans and expecting quality people to come out and be poorly paid teachers is not realistic.

ratbastid · 02-08-2006, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I believe in more mony spent on students, and less on administrators. That's a whole other thread.

Actually, Bill, that's exactly this thread. The question is: why the "less money" part of the equation without the "more money" part. That's what doesn't make sense here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

\Besides, as much as I want premium channels, on my cable TV...when times get tight...they've got to go. Sacrifices. Sometimes they hurt, but it's trimming the excess.

Okay, but the elephant in the room is that massive budgetary anchor dragging us down to the bottom of the sea: the war in Iraq. When you talk about federal funds these days, it ALL has to come back there. I'm all for pushing money around in the Education budget. But $239 billion is appropriated for a war we seem destined to lose, and we're cutting $3.7 billion from education!? Any way you slice it, it seems wrong to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

It sucks. In fact, it sucks a whole awful lot. It always does, when you have to choose phone service over cable TV. Same thing.

Yeah, but the thing is: Iraq is the phone service. Education is cable TV. As the OP says: this budget is re-jiggered to "reflect White House priorities". Which makes it all seem plan as day to me.

aceventura3 · 02-08-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Cutting college loans and expecting quality people to come out and be poorly paid teachers is not realistic.

Credentialed teachers are a big thing with teachers unions. Private schools often use people who do not have teaching credentials, people who teach because they either want to 'give back' or simply because they love to teach, they do not do it for the money.

We live in a country where on average we spend $9K to $10k per student. Why does it cost so much to share knowlege with our children? To say the system needs to be fixed top to bottom is an understatement.

I would bet if we gave you $100k/year and 10 children to teach, you would do a hell of a job (well actually for business, economics and political science you would have to send them to me so they have a fighting chance in life, otherwise you would do fine) and not think you were under paid.

snowy · 02-08-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We live in a country where on average we spend $9K to $10k per student. Why does it cost so much to share knowlege with our children? To say the system needs to be fixed top to bottom is an understatement...
I would bet if we gave you $100k/year and 10 children to teach, you would do a hell of a job (well actually for business, economics and political science you would have to send them to me so they have a fighting chance in life, otherwise you would do fine) and not think you were under paid.

As someone who's intimately familiar with the ins and outs of the education system (grew up with educators for parents and am studying to be one myself) I can tell you the reason why it costs so much to educate children...well, there are a few reasons.

1) Parents no longer want to take personal responsibility for raising their children. They see it as the school's job to constantly supervise, discipline, and educate their children. Sex ed? Parents don't want to talk about that--that's the school's job. PE? Parents can't be bothered to help their kids exercise--that's the school's job. Disciplining Johnny when he acts up? School's job. Getting a student extra help for falling behind? Well, isn't that what we have alternative schools for? After-school programs?

2) Special Education. Since we decided that we wanted to "mainstream" this portion of the student population, costs have risen substantially. These kids clearly need more specialized educational help in the form of teacher's aides and other assistants. The problem is that while SOME of these kids can get by in public schools with minimal assistance, most of them can't--and that increases the amount we spend per student, whether that student is special ed or not. If we want education to be an equal opportunity enterprise, then we have to accept these costs. Personally, I think school acts more as respite care for the parents of these children than actual school (especially in the case of medically fragile handicapped).

3) Insurance/legal fees. Schools, like everyone else these days, are super-paranoid about getting sued. The average large school district in this country almost always has at least 1 lawsuit pending against them. That takes money away from actual education for certain.

4) Bureaucracy. Large school districts love bureaucracy. My dad was once one of 8 Curriculum and Instruction people for a school district with three high schools. Do we REALLY need 8? No, in fact we didn't--when push came to shove, three got laid off and my dad took early retirement. The rise in standardized testing has also contributed to the amount of bureaucracy in education.

5) Sports. If your school district has not yet switched to a pay-to-play system, your after-school sports are costing taxpayer dollars.

6) Activities. Again, this goes with sports. Unless there is an activity fee charged to students, this cost gets passed on to taxpayers.

7) Learning disabilities. God knows how many kids have one of these these days. And each kid fits under a section of the Americans With Disabilities Act called Section 504. The result of this? More paperwork for teachers as each kid with a learning disability has to have an Individual Education Plan. Do learning disabilities exist? You betcha. Are they overdiagnosed? Of course. There's got to be a more cost-effective way to integrate students with learning disabilities into public school but we've yet to discover it.

So there you have it.

As for teacher pay, when I'm done with my final degree (a Master's), I can expect to make $28,000 a year. My boyfriend, by contrast, will be making $55,000 a year with a Bachelor's. Not quite fair, is it? But most teachers I know aren't there for the pay--they're there for the personal rewards they get from teaching. Unfortunately because of the bureaucracy, standardized testing, and the constant threat that "if your test scores drop too low, you'll lose funding," teaching isn't nearly as rewarding as it used to be.
---

My problem with the original article dealing with the education budget is the section that says the money was eliminated from programs that were "deemed unnecessary or inefficient." Who deems them such? An outside, nonpartisan source? I don't think so.

The fact is, if we truly want to fix education in this country we're going to have to put politics aside. That's the only way to discover what's really wrong here, and we certainly don't want to throw good money after bad.

aceventura3 · 02-08-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

My problem with the original article dealing with the education budget is the section that says the money was eliminated from programs that were "deemed unnecessary or inefficient." Who deems them such? An outside, nonpartisan source? I don't think so.

I live in a city that passed a multi-million dollar bond initiative for the schools. Part of the funds where to be used for a weight room for the football team at one of the highschools, a swiming facility for the district swim teamsm and for a performing arts program. A year after the initiative passed, the district complained that the libray books to student ratio was among the lowest in the state.

Why don't teachers support pay for performance?

Why can't school systems get rid of bad teachers, teacher just going through the motions?

snowy · 02-09-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why don't teachers support pay for performance?

Why can't school systems get rid of bad teachers, teacher just going through the motions?

Because they're all union

and it's harder to get rid of a union than you think.

ratbastid · 02-10-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

In 2003 Washington D.C. spent $11.8k/student. Utah spent $4.8k/student. Were would you want your child to go to school?

I missed this when it was first posted... As a victim of a couple years of Utah public schools (until my folks hauled my happy ass out of there and into private school), I can guarantee you Utah isn't a state where effective public education is taking place. The Mormon belief in large families is at the source of most of it--schools are WAY overcrowded and WAY underfunded.

I can't speak about DC's education system, but I have a hard time believing it could be as bad as Utah's.

aceventura3 · 02-10-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I missed this when it was first posted... As a victim of a couple years of Utah public schools (until my folks hauled my happy ass out of there and into private school), I can guarantee you Utah isn't a state where effective public education is taking place. The Mormon belief in large families is at the source of most of it--schools are WAY overcrowded and WAY underfunded.

I can't speak about DC's education system, but I have a hard time believing it could be as bad as Utah's.

If they doubled or tripled what they spend in Utah what kind of improvement would they get? Or, are the problems rooted in issues other than money?

ratbastid · 02-10-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If they doubled or tripled what they spend in Utah what kind of improvement would they get? Or, are the problems rooted in issues other than money?

I think the single biggest issue is the student/teacher ratio. Average class size, last time I looked, was over 60. Which absolutely is something you can successfully throw money at.

Now, it would take some money, possibly more than double or triple the current budget. The physical infrastructure is overtaxed too--there's only so many square feet of classroom space. To really impact it, you'd need new schools or expanded school buildings (most schools have parking lots crammed with temporary classroom trailers), and new teachers.

If you were smart, you'd start a program to really highly qualify the teachers you brought in (or kept, I suppose). Which takes money too.

So, no, money's not the solution, but it's necessary to the solution.

stevo · 02-10-2006, 01:55 PM

If we're talking about teachers here, I've got a teachers story. My wife's friend is getting her master's in education right now. Everything is done online. I've seen the work she has to do. Believe me, its not worth the title of "Master's" The reason she's going to be a teacher is because (in her words) "its the easy way out." She wanted to be in pediatrics, but couldn't pass chemistry after one shot so she quit.

Right now she substitutes elementary and middle school. A couple weeks ago a 6th grader came up to her and asked her the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. She said "I don't know. They're the same thing just with different words."

When she told that story to my wife, my wife told her that she's disgusting and was very mad at her. She couldn't understand why. She said she was going to be a 1st grade teacher anyway, so she wouldn't have to know those things.

Now I know there are plenty of people who teach because they care and they really want to help children grow up to be smart, competent, valuable citizens. But for every one of them there is one like the girl I just described. Then you have the teacher that cared at first, but then after years of babysitting becomes jaded and stops caring all together.

I think the whole system needs to be overhauled. If the education system was comprised of a number of private entities I would bet each school would try and higher the most competent teachers they could find. Our schools now a days aren't teaching kids anything. They are only going through the motions, promoting kids to the next grade because self-esteem is more important than actually learning how to read. Its a disgrace.

stevo · 02-10-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I think the single biggest issue is the student/teacher ratio. Average class size, last time I looked, was over 60. Which absolutely is something you can successfully throw money at.

Now, it would take some money, possibly more than double or triple the current budget. The physical infrastructure is overtaxed too--there's only so many square feet of classroom space. To really impact it, you'd need new schools or expanded school buildings (most schools have parking lots crammed with temporary classroom trailers), and new teachers.

If you were smart, you'd start a program to really highly qualify the teachers you brought in (or kept, I suppose). Which takes money too.

So, no, money's not the solution, but it's necessary to the solution.

Florida passed a class size amendment a couple years ago and its a disaster. Now the state is short thousands of teachers. Schools are running out of room to put new portables. I agree that smaller teacher to student ratios is better for younger kids in a learning environment. But I think the answer lies in a new system, not just an upgrade to the current one.

Ustwo · 02-10-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

If we're talking about teachers here, I've got a teachers story. My wife's friend is getting her master's in education right now. Everything is done online. I've seen the work she has to do. Believe me, its not worth the title of "Master's" The reason she's going to be a teacher is because (in her words) "its the easy way out." She wanted to be in pediatrics, but couldn't pass chemistry after one shot so she quit.

As a side note, when I took the GRE they listed average scores by field of study. Guess where the education majors ended up. It was quite scary.

My children will be attending private schools where amazingly the teacher quality is better despite lower pay and perks. Wonder why that is.

aceventura3 · 02-10-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I think the single biggest issue is the student/teacher ratio. Average class size, last time I looked, was over 60. Which absolutely is something you can successfully throw money at.

Now, it would take some money, possibly more than double or triple the current budget. The physical infrastructure is overtaxed too--there's only so many square feet of classroom space. To really impact it, you'd need new schools or expanded school buildings (most schools have parking lots crammed with temporary classroom trailers), and new teachers.

If you were smart, you'd start a program to really highly qualify the teachers you brought in (or kept, I suppose). Which takes money too.

So, no, money's not the solution, but it's necessary to the solution.

If a new teacher makes on average $28k and has 28 students, that cost per student is $1k. Let's say we double that and add another 50% for benefits, then the teacher cost is $84K. Now the cost per student for the teachers is $3K. Now lets rent a class room, 2,000 sq ft. at $24k per year (including utilities), or $857/student. Now lets spend 1K/per student on books and supplies. We are now at $4857/student.

In this country we spend about $10k/student. based on the above that leaves over $5k for administration/insurance/sports/music/trips/food/computers/etc. per student.

I think we have waste in the system.

JumpinJesus · 02-10-2006, 07:46 PM

I don't know how many teachers there are posting in this thread, but allow one to respond.

I teach for Chicago Public Schools. I teach in one of the worst performing schools in the city. There are countless reasons for why so many of our schools are failing. Please bear with me if I don't quote endless sources or post links to hundreds of websites to back up my claims. I've performed a lot of this research in the past and don't quite feel up to googling for the next 3 hours just to reply to this thread. If you don't mind, we can agree that if needed, I can find the information.

My ideas for fixing the system are as follows:

1. Either eliminate the Dept. of Education or give the federal government the authority to legislate education.

Since the federal government has no legislative authority over education, the only power it can hold over education is the money it doles out. Since the government isn't keen on just tossing money, they place conditions on the money it gives. These conditions are what No Child Left Behind is about. Due to the large diversity of student populations around the country, finding one standardized measure is difficult, yet is necessary to avoid challenges to the Act. Get rid of all federal funding and return the money to the states or give the federal government authority to legislate education.

2. Do away with compulsory education.

This is one of the more controversial fixes that most educators or politicians won't even dare mention. The reason is because it places the responsibility of preparing students for schooling squarely on the shoulders of the parents and the students themselves. Most behavior problems in a school stem from a student's inability to perform at the level required for that particular grade. Acting out is a means of detracting attention from the fact that they are unable to accomplish their tasks. This acting out takes educational time away from every other student and impedes their performance as well. By removing compulsory education, students are no longer required to attend school. Forced attendance is abandoned for a system that only allows entrance to an educational facitily once a student has proven a willingness to make efforts to learn.

This will also have the added effect that public schools will no longer be viewed as free day care centers for parents who don't know what to do with their kids. I was once told by a parent whose child refused to do any work and would tear up any paper or assignment given him, "He's your responsibility until 3:30. Don't bother me with what he does here." Sadly, this is a very common response from these particular parents.

It will also greatly reduce student populations in schools, thus allowing for the removal of teachers who are unwilling or incapable of doing their jobs.

3. Eliminate standard pay scales. Make salary increases similar to other professions - based on performance.

Do not confuse this with tying teacher salaries with student test scores. I have a small class size (20 students). However, in my 6th grade class, 14 of my students are reading at a 3rd grade level or lower. In order to guarantee my students pass the standardized tests, I would have to guarantee a minimum 3 years growth in one year. While this can be possible with highly motivated students, it is a very daunting task with students who refuse to read because of their insecurities. However, I believe a teacher must show student improvement. Any teacher who can't show student growth or shows a decline in student performance must defend their job or risk losing it. Salary increases must be performance-based, but that must be more subjective than simply checking test scores.

4. Any legislation passed concerning education must be done with the input of educators.

Contrary to the popular opinion of many, teachers are required to have at a minimum a 4 year degree from an accredited college and in order to teach in a public school must pass state examinations that - again, contrary to popular belief - do not consist of 2+2=4 type questions. A lot of legislation passed by states stems from lawsuits and uninformed citizenry who believe that anyone can teach so therefore they have an equal footing with teachers when it comes to education. While there are many intelligent people who are not educators, the notion that anybody with a child is an expert on education is a fallacy and any legislation concerning education that does not include the input of educators is, at best, lacking.

5. Offer competitive salaries that offer an incentive to keep quality educators and allow for competition among prospective employees.

In order to maintain certification, a teacher must pursue a graduate degree within the field of education. In many urban districts, the salary increase is insufficient to cover the cost of that education. For example, my wife just completed her Master's Degree. Her tuition costs (via student loan repayment) far exceed her salary increase and will for the next 10 years. This makes seeking a higher degree financially foolish for most teachers. Yet, without that higher degree, certification cannot be renewed.

Also, there is truth to the saying, "You get what you pay for." Countless teachers leave the profession within 5 years due to pay. While there are many teachers who love their profession, it's safe to say that a landlord or bank won't accept "love" as a payment. My wife is currently weighing career opportunities that will double her salary. Why stay in a profession that refuses to acknowledge education and experience with commensurate pay?

These measures may not be perfect, but from someone on the inside, they seem a lot more effective than current measures being used to "improve" education.

Elphaba · 02-10-2006, 08:37 PM

Excellent observations from someone who is in the trenches. Thanks, Jumpin. May I add the obligation (that has been mentioned by other teachers here) to mainstream special education children into the classroom? I believe the idea to be a worthy intent, but the execution of it needs some reconsideration.

In the same regard, I think we have been too long wedded to the notion that if you are age 'x', then you belong in grade 'y'. Anyone in education can tell you that there is a continuum of ability within a specific age group, and to ask an elementary school teacher to teach to the entire bell curve of 20 to 30 six-years-old strikes me as a task doomed to failure.

I would prefer to see teachers with a specialization (Language, Science, Math, etc) teaching children in a class of like abilities, irrespective of their age. (Yes, very "Home on the Prairie" of me). Children often excel in one area and not another over the course of their education. It only makes sense to me that our educators teach to an homogeneous group in terms of ability. No child is left behind and no child is held back as is true with teaching to all children of a given age with a wide range of abilities.

These are just my thoughts that I believe would improve our public school system. I am not a teacher, so please consider my opinions uninformed and worth a good bashing. I will not be offended.

Dungeon_Shade · 02-10-2006, 10:11 PM

Quite honestly, I hate the "no child left behind" policy. I am a student who grew up in the midst of this political debacle, and I must say, this act brought down the children that had more work ethic and are generally brighter. The really intelligent kids in my classes ended up being brought down, as the teachers had to educate everyone equally. In turn, they became bored, causing them to not do as well in school as they should. I believe that super-intelligent children need special needs, just as those who are not as smart require special attention too. The more intelligent students need to be pushed, or face utter boredom, and waste their intellect. If their intellect is wasted, these intelligent kids often burn out really quickly. They start taking drugs, getting drunk, or whatever things kids do, just because they are so damn bored. This causes them to loose their intelligence. I am speaking from experience, because all of the really bright kids I ever knew are the ones who are already bored with life, and fucked up on alot of drugs and alcohol, something that could have been prevented if they were pushed harder.

SecretMethod70 · 02-11-2006, 01:25 PM

Elphaba, the idea of splitting students up into "tracks" according to ability seems like it makes sense, and that's exactly what is done in most high schools in this area at least. However, what it effectively does is ensure that those who are better at reading stay better at reading and those who are behind stay and get further behind. It labels students as "slow" students and "fast" students according to their previous ability, and ensures that those labeled as "slow" both feel the stigma of not being as fast or as good of learners as their "fast" counterparts, and also that they continue to learn and be taught at the "slow" pace. Do this over four or more years, and you create a very tangible difference between two groups of students that didn't necessarily need to be there.

Contrast this to my experience in university, where the only segregation of students is in the existence of an "honors program" which requires application and is very selective. Most students, regardless of past ability, after having been accepted, choose from the same classes. The result is that the classes are populated with students of very high ability as well as students on the lower end of the spectrum. This does not "bring down" the students of high ability. Most of my classes are in political science, so they consist largely of discussion and debate, and the presence of less able students does not prevent those who are highly intelligent from participating in discussions at their own level. If anything, it forces those less able students to at least attempt to rise up to said level. Furthermore, it does so without putting a stigma on these students as "slow" learners or anything like that.

Elphaba · 02-11-2006, 03:13 PM

SM, I completely agree with you that every student at university should be measured by the criteria set for the course. My thoughts were directed at elementary school age groups and that "No Child Left Behind" might be more effective if the teacher is working with students of similar ability. I might have been clearer had I said students of similar prior learning experiences. Not all six-years-old are alike in that some may have been exposed to reading at age four, while others might not had acquired word recognition. I think that range of difference in ability would be very difficult for the teacher who must focus on bringing the least prepared children up to an acceptable ability for that grade level. As Dungeon pointed out, the better prepared students may end up being the ones left behind in the long run. My opinion is that NCLB may have the unintended result of producing mediocre students overall.

SecretMethod70 · 02-11-2006, 03:39 PM

Thing is, elementary school is exactly where it's most imperative that students are not put into pre-determined tracks where it is already decided for them that they are and are not capable of some things, or at least that they are less capable than others. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not saying I think it's the best thing to put all students together, at least in districts similar to where JumpinJesus teaches where there is a much wider range among students at any given age, but the unfortunate reality is when students are segregated into tracks, the focus is rarely on pushing the students in the lower tracks to eventually be on par with the students in the upper tracks.

Ustwo · 02-11-2006, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Thing is, elementary school is exactly where it's most imperative that students are not put into pre-determined tracks where it is already decided for them that they are and are not capable of some things, or at least that they are less capable than others. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not saying I think it's the best thing to put all students together, at least in districts similar to where JumpinJesus teaches where there is a much wider range among students at any given age, but the unfortunate reality is when students are segregated into tracks, the focus is rarely on pushing the students in the lower tracks to eventually be on par with the students in the upper tracks.

By default there will be students who will not be on par with the upper tracks.

Personally I think a problem with schools is they often teach to the lowest common denominator, this in turn will retard the growth of those students who are quite frankly, smarter.

I see no fault in separating the students as long as the lower tracks have a way to join the upper tracks if they are willing. If the school says 'no you can't go into advanced math' when a student wishes too that will result in some students not being able to improve and is wrong, but when they do move there should be no guarantee they can stay there if allowed to move. If they fail, back down they go.

Another issue is that its not just educational abilities here but behavior as well. Often the underachievers are the bullies and other sorts of disruptive elements. Its not fair to lump these people in with those students who are trying to learn. Schools should be allowed to separate these types.

Regardless, it should be quite obvious that lack of money is not the answer. If this were true then most private schools should be worse than public schools. Private school teachers are often working for less pay and almost always less benefits then a public teacher, the students often have less in the way of equipment and facilities, but somehow they score higher on exams. Now obviously there can be many factors at work in this, but the fact that the lower budget private schools will normally outperform their public counterparts shows that money, or a lack there of may not be the issue.

xepherys · 02-14-2006, 09:18 AM

First of all, Poppinjay, that story is friggin' HILARIOUS. Politics has become better comedy than most comedy these days.

pan- did Bush promise to increase SPENDING on education, or make education better? I'm not a Bush defender or supporter by any means, but the two are not nessecarily the same.

I do agree, however, that taking away from the net budget doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But then, education is also a primary function of the state government as well. Barring Michigan and her douchebagness Jennifer Granholm, all states have had positive economic growth since 9/11 at this point. Why don't the put some of that growth into education. I mean, some states have, but many have, obviously, not. Again, it's great to bitch at the fed and wonder why they don't come to the rescue, but people locally could do more about it, too. Vote in the slight millage increase. Yes a few people without kids may have to pay a couple extra dollars a year to buy some kids books. It makes the COMMUNITY better. *shrug*

Ustwo · 02-14-2006, 12:11 PM

As an unrelated note, can we get the title of this thread changed? I keep thinking its going to be a bad Catholic priest joke every time I read it.

Bill O'Rights · 02-14-2006, 12:50 PM

Nah...I left it that way for a reason.

ZeRoGRaViTY · 02-14-2006, 01:45 PM

What do you think is a better proposal for fixing the education crisis facing the US today. In my county alone of Monroe in upstate NY money has been the issue. In 2006 alone our budget has cut 300 nurses and nurses aids from our schools, 250 aids to disabled children to get them from class to class, 57 teaching positions have been uprooted right from under the teachers unions feet. That is just grades 7 - 12. Gov. pataki's 2 + 2 program ran short this year leaving SEVEN THOUSAND students to fend for their own to find a college to obtain a BA. This program was developed primarily so students can attend a 2 year community college to obtain an associates, then the state gives assistance in placement and tuition to a four year college for a BA. Understood that money is not the answer for ALL education crisis answers but, come on now. The cost of one new jet to go fight in the iraq war would solve many many problems at least one community faces in the education and future of their children and future of this community.

FoolThemAll · 02-14-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

As an unrelated note, can we get the title of this thread changed? I keep thinking its going to be a bad Catholic priest joke every time I read it.

Based on the title, I'm thinking, "this is a good thing...especially if pan is a vegetarian."

aceventura3 · 02-15-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeRoGRaViTY

Gov. pataki's 2 + 2 program ran short this year leaving SEVEN THOUSAND students to fend for their own to find a college to obtain a BA. This program was developed primarily so students can attend a 2 year community college to obtain an associates, then the state gives assistance in placement and tuition to a four year college for a BA. Understood that money is not the answer for ALL education crisis answers but, come on now. The cost of one new jet to go fight in the iraq war would solve many many problems at least one community faces in the education and future of their children and future of this community.

The young adults going to college could get a part-time job.

Or, they even work a full-time job and go to school part-time. When I went to school I worked on average 30 hours per week during the school year, and had plenty of time for a full class load, study, student government, friends, family, and fun.

College expenses do not come as a surprise. If the parents or grandparents save $50/month when a child is born, the child would have in the range of $15k to $20k for expenses. Some people smoke $50 per week in cigaretts, or spend that much per month on the WWF pay per view.

No amount of money will fix a system when people within that system fail to take any personal resposibility.

02-07-2006, 03:53 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Yes remember, because throwing other peoples money into wasteful spending programs is the answer! Such a fucking liar indeed! __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-07-2006, 06:13 AM	#4 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Ok... A. "Bush is such a fucking liar." is probably not the best way to start a thread, if you are trying to get your point accross. You've instantly alienated a large group that might just be swayed to see your point. Try a somewhat softer approach. B.What i read was that 42 unnecessary or inefficient education programs were to be eliminated. Great. That what I want. I also read that biggest federal education program — aid to poor school districts was to remain untouched. Again...great. That's what I want. C. I agree that education needs to be a priority, in this country. It's broken. We know that. However, just dumping more and more money into a failed product is not the answer. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

02-07-2006, 09:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
yellowchef Addict Location: Shalimar, FL	I agree with the overall disappointment in the net cut. I dont think the cut should have been made as a whole but a lot of reallocation is needed. There are some programs that are useless and do not do Americans any good and some that are great that just dont have enough funding. So while I think its shitty that funding was cut, I will give Bush credit on working to cut excess programs from the schedule. I agree wth ratbastid that this is a PR scheme, its mostly just to bad mouth Bush. I personally dont like Bush, in fact Im eager to see him gone. However, I have to agree with this move in the education system. Getting rid of excess is always a plus. __________________ the voices in your head are not real--but they still have some really great ideas. always remeber you can choose your friends, but you can't choose your family. But..you CAN choose the insane asylum where you have them all put away! Last edited by yellowchef; 02-07-2006 at 09:31 AM..

02-07-2006, 10:21 AM	#7 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	First, I do sincerely appologize for the tone. I just do not understand someone who promises one thing then does another. I know that's politics but this man continually does it and it is very frustrating and hurtful to the nation. That said, again, if the man cuts ATPs and corporate welfare, then afterward, he cuts education, I wouldn't say shit. But to leave corporate welfare alone, while cutting social programs and education?????? Even the most partisan GOP has to wonder why? NO the answer isn't throwing money into something broke, but conversely, it isn't starving something broken either. YOU FIX IT. You look at what is broken, you look at school systems that work, that don't work and you set models and goals for them to achieve. You don't just cut and cut and cut and think less money will fix the system, it won't. That's what Bush and the GOP do not understand. You cannot try to just starve programs into being more streamlined and efficient. You have to actually find the strengths and work on the weaknesses. To make the cuts and put the money where Bush is, is not fixing anything, it is corporate welfare to the testing companies. When only 1 school system makes the "voucher system" that program is broken and needs fixed, yet you are throwing money into it knowing noone will get it. When you say you need to re-educate the displaced workers so that they can find better jobs, then you cut the program that does so..... you are just flat assed lying to the people. If you have no intention to retrain workers, don't say you do. Same with saying you want to educate students to be more competitive in the world market, then you cut technology education. You say you want to keep America "Drug free", the education programs are working. So why cut them? You say you want kids to go to college but you cut grants and loans, but allow colleges to raise tuitions, so that people cannot afford to go. Look at the system, see what is broken and fix it, just cutting the funding won't fix it. I still do not understand how anyone can want tax cuts, support corporate welfare yet be happy with social and educational cuts. It makes no sense. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-07-2006, 11:55 AM	#9 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I think this administrations disregard for education is summed up nicely with the attorney general's testimony before congress that Washington and Lincoln both authorized electronic surveillance. He really must of misunderstood what Ben was doing with that key and kite. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-06-2006, 11:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	sigh.....

02-07-2006, 06:36 AM	#5 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I agree with every word of what BOR says (aaaaas usual), but it all leaves me with a question. Why not take money out of education intiatives that aren't working and put it back into intiatives that are? Why the net cut in education funding? What are we saving money for? Is education really where we want to be saving money? We'd save at least that much if we took competitive bids for Iraq reconstruction contracts. As far as the whole budget goes, this is drop-in-the-bucket money. But as far as the education budget goes, this is an appreciable amount. You can feel 6.4%. If nothing else, this is a poor PR move on the part of the administration. As much as Bush apologists will contort themselves to spin it as "smartening up our spending", there's nothing like that headline gut punch: "Bush Cuts Education".

02-07-2006, 03:00 PM	#13 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	In 2003 Washington D.C. spent $11.8k/student. Utah spent $4.8k/student. Were would you want your child to go to school? The amount of money spent on education means almost nothing when compared to other factors in determining an effective school system. Yes, we can keep throwing money at the problem. But sooner or later we have to realize that money is not the problem. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

02-08-2006, 12:29 AM	#14 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I am adamantly opposed both to federal education funding without any strict performance requirements and "corporate welfare." Failed businesses (and schools) should go out of business and be replaced by successful ones, not subsidized by the American people. Private schools and private "learning centers" like Sylvan are extremely effective and efficient when compared to the overall failure of the public school system. Politicians do not send their children to public school because they know that it is a failed system. Instead of dumping more money into something that no-one-who-can-afford-otherwise uses, how about learning from success and incorporating it? __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

02-10-2006, 01:55 PM	#24 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	If we're talking about teachers here, I've got a teachers story. My wife's friend is getting her master's in education right now. Everything is done online. I've seen the work she has to do. Believe me, its not worth the title of "Master's" The reason she's going to be a teacher is because (in her words) "its the easy way out." She wanted to be in pediatrics, but couldn't pass chemistry after one shot so she quit. Right now she substitutes elementary and middle school. A couple weeks ago a 6th grader came up to her and asked her the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. She said "I don't know. They're the same thing just with different words." When she told that story to my wife, my wife told her that she's disgusting and was very mad at her. She couldn't understand why. She said she was going to be a 1st grade teacher anyway, so she wouldn't have to know those things. Now I know there are plenty of people who teach because they care and they really want to help children grow up to be smart, competent, valuable citizens. But for every one of them there is one like the girl I just described. Then you have the teacher that cared at first, but then after years of babysitting becomes jaded and stops caring all together. I think the whole system needs to be overhauled. If the education system was comprised of a number of private entities I would bet each school would try and higher the most competent teachers they could find. Our schools now a days aren't teaching kids anything. They are only going through the motions, promoting kids to the next grade because self-esteem is more important than actually learning how to read. Its a disgrace. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

02-10-2006, 07:46 PM	#28 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	I don't know how many teachers there are posting in this thread, but allow one to respond. I teach for Chicago Public Schools. I teach in one of the worst performing schools in the city. There are countless reasons for why so many of our schools are failing. Please bear with me if I don't quote endless sources or post links to hundreds of websites to back up my claims. I've performed a lot of this research in the past and don't quite feel up to googling for the next 3 hours just to reply to this thread. If you don't mind, we can agree that if needed, I can find the information. My ideas for fixing the system are as follows: 1. Either eliminate the Dept. of Education or give the federal government the authority to legislate education. Since the federal government has no legislative authority over education, the only power it can hold over education is the money it doles out. Since the government isn't keen on just tossing money, they place conditions on the money it gives. These conditions are what No Child Left Behind is about. Due to the large diversity of student populations around the country, finding one standardized measure is difficult, yet is necessary to avoid challenges to the Act. Get rid of all federal funding and return the money to the states or give the federal government authority to legislate education. 2. Do away with compulsory education. This is one of the more controversial fixes that most educators or politicians won't even dare mention. The reason is because it places the responsibility of preparing students for schooling squarely on the shoulders of the parents and the students themselves. Most behavior problems in a school stem from a student's inability to perform at the level required for that particular grade. Acting out is a means of detracting attention from the fact that they are unable to accomplish their tasks. This acting out takes educational time away from every other student and impedes their performance as well. By removing compulsory education, students are no longer required to attend school. Forced attendance is abandoned for a system that only allows entrance to an educational facitily once a student has proven a willingness to make efforts to learn. This will also have the added effect that public schools will no longer be viewed as free day care centers for parents who don't know what to do with their kids. I was once told by a parent whose child refused to do any work and would tear up any paper or assignment given him, "He's your responsibility until 3:30. Don't bother me with what he does here." Sadly, this is a very common response from these particular parents. It will also greatly reduce student populations in schools, thus allowing for the removal of teachers who are unwilling or incapable of doing their jobs. 3. Eliminate standard pay scales. Make salary increases similar to other professions - based on performance. Do not confuse this with tying teacher salaries with student test scores. I have a small class size (20 students). However, in my 6th grade class, 14 of my students are reading at a 3rd grade level or lower. In order to guarantee my students pass the standardized tests, I would have to guarantee a minimum 3 years growth in one year. While this can be possible with highly motivated students, it is a very daunting task with students who refuse to read because of their insecurities. However, I believe a teacher must show student improvement. Any teacher who can't show student growth or shows a decline in student performance must defend their job or risk losing it. Salary increases must be performance-based, but that must be more subjective than simply checking test scores. 4. Any legislation passed concerning education must be done with the input of educators. Contrary to the popular opinion of many, teachers are required to have at a minimum a 4 year degree from an accredited college and in order to teach in a public school must pass state examinations that - again, contrary to popular belief - do not consist of 2+2=4 type questions. A lot of legislation passed by states stems from lawsuits and uninformed citizenry who believe that anyone can teach so therefore they have an equal footing with teachers when it comes to education. While there are many intelligent people who are not educators, the notion that anybody with a child is an expert on education is a fallacy and any legislation concerning education that does not include the input of educators is, at best, lacking. 5. Offer competitive salaries that offer an incentive to keep quality educators and allow for competition among prospective employees. In order to maintain certification, a teacher must pursue a graduate degree within the field of education. In many urban districts, the salary increase is insufficient to cover the cost of that education. For example, my wife just completed her Master's Degree. Her tuition costs (via student loan repayment) far exceed her salary increase and will for the next 10 years. This makes seeking a higher degree financially foolish for most teachers. Yet, without that higher degree, certification cannot be renewed. Also, there is truth to the saying, "You get what you pay for." Countless teachers leave the profession within 5 years due to pay. While there are many teachers who love their profession, it's safe to say that a landlord or bank won't accept "love" as a payment. My wife is currently weighing career opportunities that will double her salary. Why stay in a profession that refuses to acknowledge education and experience with commensurate pay? These measures may not be perfect, but from someone on the inside, they seem a lot more effective than current measures being used to "improve" education. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

02-10-2006, 08:37 PM	#29 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Excellent observations from someone who is in the trenches. Thanks, Jumpin. May I add the obligation (that has been mentioned by other teachers here) to mainstream special education children into the classroom? I believe the idea to be a worthy intent, but the execution of it needs some reconsideration. In the same regard, I think we have been too long wedded to the notion that if you are age 'x', then you belong in grade 'y'. Anyone in education can tell you that there is a continuum of ability within a specific age group, and to ask an elementary school teacher to teach to the entire bell curve of 20 to 30 six-years-old strikes me as a task doomed to failure. I would prefer to see teachers with a specialization (Language, Science, Math, etc) teaching children in a class of like abilities, irrespective of their age. (Yes, very "Home on the Prairie" of me). Children often excel in one area and not another over the course of their education. It only makes sense to me that our educators teach to an homogeneous group in terms of ability. No child is left behind and no child is held back as is true with teaching to all children of a given age with a wide range of abilities. These are just my thoughts that I believe would improve our public school system. I am not a teacher, so please consider my opinions uninformed and worth a good bashing. I will not be offended. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

02-10-2006, 10:11 PM	#30 (permalink)
Dungeon_Shade Crazy Location: Grand Junction, CO	Quite honestly, I hate the "no child left behind" policy. I am a student who grew up in the midst of this political debacle, and I must say, this act brought down the children that had more work ethic and are generally brighter. The really intelligent kids in my classes ended up being brought down, as the teachers had to educate everyone equally. In turn, they became bored, causing them to not do as well in school as they should. I believe that super-intelligent children need special needs, just as those who are not as smart require special attention too. The more intelligent students need to be pushed, or face utter boredom, and waste their intellect. If their intellect is wasted, these intelligent kids often burn out really quickly. They start taking drugs, getting drunk, or whatever things kids do, just because they are so damn bored. This causes them to loose their intelligence. I am speaking from experience, because all of the really bright kids I ever knew are the ones who are already bored with life, and fucked up on alot of drugs and alcohol, something that could have been prevented if they were pushed harder. __________________ "If you can hear this whispering you are dying."- Pink Floyd

02-11-2006, 01:25 PM	#31 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Elphaba, the idea of splitting students up into "tracks" according to ability seems like it makes sense, and that's exactly what is done in most high schools in this area at least. However, what it effectively does is ensure that those who are better at reading stay better at reading and those who are behind stay and get further behind. It labels students as "slow" students and "fast" students according to their previous ability, and ensures that those labeled as "slow" both feel the stigma of not being as fast or as good of learners as their "fast" counterparts, and also that they continue to learn and be taught at the "slow" pace. Do this over four or more years, and you create a very tangible difference between two groups of students that didn't necessarily need to be there. Contrast this to my experience in university, where the only segregation of students is in the existence of an "honors program" which requires application and is very selective. Most students, regardless of past ability, after having been accepted, choose from the same classes. The result is that the classes are populated with students of very high ability as well as students on the lower end of the spectrum. This does not "bring down" the students of high ability. Most of my classes are in political science, so they consist largely of discussion and debate, and the presence of less able students does not prevent those who are highly intelligent from participating in discussions at their own level. If anything, it forces those less able students to at least attempt to rise up to said level. Furthermore, it does so without putting a stigma on these students as "slow" learners or anything like that. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-11-2006 at 01:34 PM..

02-11-2006, 03:13 PM	#32 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	SM, I completely agree with you that every student at university should be measured by the criteria set for the course. My thoughts were directed at elementary school age groups and that "No Child Left Behind" might be more effective if the teacher is working with students of similar ability. I might have been clearer had I said students of similar prior learning experiences. Not all six-years-old are alike in that some may have been exposed to reading at age four, while others might not had acquired word recognition. I think that range of difference in ability would be very difficult for the teacher who must focus on bringing the least prepared children up to an acceptable ability for that grade level. As Dungeon pointed out, the better prepared students may end up being the ones left behind in the long run. My opinion is that NCLB may have the unintended result of producing mediocre students overall. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

02-11-2006, 03:39 PM	#33 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Thing is, elementary school is exactly where it's most imperative that students are not put into pre-determined tracks where it is already decided for them that they are and are not capable of some things, or at least that they are less capable than others. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm not saying I think it's the best thing to put all students together, at least in districts similar to where JumpinJesus teaches where there is a much wider range among students at any given age, but the unfortunate reality is when students are segregated into tracks, the focus is rarely on pushing the students in the lower tracks to eventually be on par with the students in the upper tracks. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-14-2006, 09:18 AM	#35 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	First of all, Poppinjay, that story is friggin' HILARIOUS. Politics has become better comedy than most comedy these days. pan- did Bush promise to increase SPENDING on education, or make education better? I'm not a Bush defender or supporter by any means, but the two are not nessecarily the same. I do agree, however, that taking away from the net budget doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But then, education is also a primary function of the state government as well. Barring Michigan and her douchebagness Jennifer Granholm, all states have had positive economic growth since 9/11 at this point. Why don't the put some of that growth into education. I mean, some states have, but many have, obviously, not. Again, it's great to bitch at the fed and wonder why they don't come to the rescue, but people locally could do more about it, too. Vote in the slight millage increase. Yes a few people without kids may have to pay a couple extra dollars a year to buy some kids books. It makes the COMMUNITY better. shrug

02-14-2006, 12:11 PM	#36 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	As an unrelated note, can we get the title of this thread changed? I keep thinking its going to be a bad Catholic priest joke every time I read it. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-14-2006, 12:50 PM	#37 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Nah...I left it that way for a reason. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

02-14-2006, 01:45 PM	#38 (permalink)
ZeRoGRaViTY Upright Location: Rochester, NY	What do you think is a better proposal for fixing the education crisis facing the US today. In my county alone of Monroe in upstate NY money has been the issue. In 2006 alone our budget has cut 300 nurses and nurses aids from our schools, 250 aids to disabled children to get them from class to class, 57 teaching positions have been uprooted right from under the teachers unions feet. That is just grades 7 - 12. Gov. pataki's 2 + 2 program ran short this year leaving SEVEN THOUSAND students to fend for their own to find a college to obtain a BA. This program was developed primarily so students can attend a 2 year community college to obtain an associates, then the state gives assistance in placement and tuition to a four year college for a BA. Understood that money is not the answer for ALL education crisis answers but, come on now. The cost of one new jet to go fight in the iraq war would solve many many problems at least one community faces in the education and future of their children and future of this community.