Outraged [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

whitak24

11-10-2003, 02:49 PM

do you know what exactly has happened to these schools?

i know that in michigan they were looking at going to 4 longer days per week -- still the same number of instructional hours, but compressed into 4 days. basically, it allows them to cut the "overhead" expenses of running a school -- busing, cafeteria, janitorial, heating, etc.

it's not the best option - obviously you have a lot of relatively low income people (janitors, cooks, etc) getting their incomes cut 20%, and i don't know how effective an extra hour of class is, particularly for younger students. but you gotta admit that it's better than some of the alternatives, such as closing 20% of the schools and over-crowding the remaining 80%.

(of course, if they wanted to cut something that would be worth cutting, how about getting rid of intermediate school districts. talk about a pointless waste of money on well-paid bureaucrats. the functions they perform, if any, could easily be performed by either local districts or state depts. of ed)

and i don't think the federal government is exactly the right place to place your ire. when it comes down to it, federal funding constitutes a pretty minimal portion of state education expenditures. and state budgets are in a BAD position. regardless of what people (ie arnold) would like everyone to belive, most states cut out a good share of the fat last year. this year, there's not much to cut without either affecting core services or programs so popular that no one wants to see them cut. a lot of "good" programs are being cut -- at least this cut (if in fact instructional hours are the same) isn't critically injuring public ed.

The Happy Squirrel

11-10-2003, 03:14 PM

un-frickin-be;ievable

ray

11-10-2003, 03:23 PM

maybe with kids home more often, parents will take time to teach them something. i blame parents when their children do something wrong, not their schools.

rajatQ2

11-10-2003, 03:29 PM

This means even more TV for kids in that area.... How sad.

Anyway, whitak is probably right that the Feds have nothing to do with this. but, if Bush were a man who cared about education then he would take an interest in this florida problem. I can't beleive we voted this moron into office, mr. C Student

ufcrusher

11-10-2003, 03:39 PM

I heard things along the line of what Whitak was saying...less days but longer hours. I would also agree that the main problem is state budgets rather than the federal government.

We have friends in Oregon who were teachers and had been for a while (so we arent taling about new teachers here) that were in danger of losing their jobs because the Oregon state budget was so bad.

Additionally, I have a friend who lost her teaching job outside of Philadelphia due to the state budget there. My aunt who has taught at a school for my entire life told me that a lot of the younger teachers were in danger of losing their jobs as well, but not necessarily at her school.

As for the idea of public vs. private schools and the vouchers. I really dont think that the people who pay with vouchers are really capable of that covering the majority of their tuition with the vouchers. Its those extra funds that enable these schools to stay open while the public shools need to close.

Personally I went to public shool, but my public school would be the equivalent of many peoples private schools. I would not send my kids to a public school, even the school I went to has changed in character sufficiently whereby I wouldnt want to subject my children to it.

bachviet

11-10-2003, 03:52 PM

That's a stupid thing to do. It has nothing to do with the government though because it's up to the local school districts. I think I am still sending my kids to public school since it's up the parents to guide them not the schools or teachers.

Merlin

11-10-2003, 03:56 PM

I'm a BIG proponent of private schools. If I ever have a child there is no way in hell they would ever set foot in a public school. No if's and's or but's. And don't give me that poor people can't do it. I had a single mom and lived in the projects growing up and she figured out how to make it happen.

Damn, why is the government in the schooling business anyway? They don't seem to be any good at it.

In all seriousness Canta, if you care for this sibling do whatever you can to get her into a real school. Preferrably one run by Jesuits if available.

revil

11-10-2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Merlin
Preferrably one run by Jesuits if available.
Of all the people, why them?

ray

11-10-2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by bachviet
That's a stupid thing to do. It has nothing to do with the government though because it's up to the local school districts. I think I am still sending my kids to public school since it's up the parents to guide them not the schools or teachers.

Bachviet has the right idea and I agree with him 100%. Parents should be guiding their children, not the schools.

Cantacuzene

11-10-2003, 04:09 PM

Actually, my high school was quite good. We had a better Ivy League and total college placement numbers than the two local private schools. The only difference I see is that in public school kids drink beer and smoke marijuana and in private school they drink scotch and do coke.

As for the federal government, I know their participation in schools is minimal, but it seems to me that we have tons of extra money to throw around for various wars, tax cuts, religious charities and vouchers for private schools but we don't have enough for a real domestic emergency. I blame Democrats in Congress just as much, don;t get me wrong. They didn't step up and try to help, they aren;t making noise.

All I know is, come election day I hope to see Jonathan Edward Bush and his trophy wife and drug abusing daughter thrown out of Tallehassee.

welfareloser

11-10-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by lilbigblue
maybe with kids home more often, parents will take time to teach them something. i blame parents when their children do something wrong, not their schools.

riiiight, because it's SOOO easy for a parent to jsut decide to stay home every monday :rolleyes:

think, mcfly; think!

IF someone was actually able to tell their employer "as of next week, i'm just gonna not come in on mondays" and get by with it, this would still mean a loss of 20% of one parents' wages.

most likely, they're either going to have to find a different job or find daycare one day a week (NOT easy in the middle of a school year, and NOT easy for just one freakin day a week.) daycare costs are around $40 per day. that's at a center... pay a person minimum wage for the 6-8 hours you're at work (which is what most will ahve to do)

i'm all for stay-at-home parenting, but once the kids are in school, even the most gung-ho stay-at-home moms tend to go back to work. this is absolutely inexcusable. instead of raising tazes (god forbid) they're passing the cost on to those who can afford it least... the working parents of young kids.

and an extra hour and a half per day of school is also stupid. kids can't concentrate for that long. the extra hour and a half per day is going to be time wasted in the name of "no, everything's still the same, see? we didn't do anything bad!"

this is one thing that taxes damned well ought to go up for. for every incremental bit that school becomes more heinous, more difficult to tolerate for the children subjected to it, that many more kids on the fringe are going to drop out, and become criminals or other types of societal burdens. it's not saving money at all. they'll just rais the freakin taxes in ten years to pay for the new jails in florida.

ray

11-10-2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Merlin
I'm a BIG proponent of private schools. If I ever have a child there is no way in hell they would ever set foot in a public school. No if's and's or but's. And don't give me that poor people can't do it. I had a single mom and lived in the projects growing up and she figured out how to make it happen.

I attended a private school for 17 years (elementary, junior high, high school, college). There are reasons why my parents put me in a private school and though I fought with them all the time as a child, looking back, I would have done the same thing to my children. It is possible that I will send my kids to a public school initially, but I assure you that my children will be graduating high school from a private institution.

ray

11-10-2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by welfareloser

snip

If the public education system is failing today's children, then tell me why the parents' don't make an effort to teach them, even if they have busy work schedules?

I mean, it's like the parents who blame society when their child grows up to be a terrorist. Nothing pisses me off more than parents who truly believe that they are not responsible for their child's actions no matter what age they are.

avlena

11-10-2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by lilbigblue

If the public education system is failing today's children, then tell me why the parents' don't make an effort to teach them, even if they have busy work schedules?

I mean, it's like the parents who blame society when their child grows up to be a terrorist. Nothing pisses me off more than parents who truly believe that they are not responsible for their child's actions no matter what age they are.

excuse me, but do you work? fulltime? just because parents can't afford to take an entire day out of work because the schools aren't doing their job doesn't make them poor parents. Parents may not be qualified to teach them anyway! my dad is a college professor, specializing in business math... in middle school, there was a lot of things he couldn't help me out with. not because he didn't try, not because he didn't make the time, but because he couldn't remember his calculus from 30 years ago well enough to teach it.

last time i checked, it is a teacher's job to teach, and a parent's job to parent. it's not the parent's responsibility to teach their child english, calculus, biology, etc. that's why we pay taxes to have schools in the first place! it doesn't make a parent irresponsible, or that they're trying to blame society for something they should've been doing. if the parent lets their kid play with loaded guns at age 5, or encourages the kid to rob stores, that's irresponsible on the part of the parents, but don't blame parents for not doing the job of the school as well.

Merlin

11-10-2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by revil

Of all the people, why them?

Because they are better at than anyone. Ask Kevster, he'll back me on this one.

ray

11-10-2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by avlena

excuse me, but do you work? fulltime? just because parents can't afford to take an entire day out of work because the schools aren't doing their job doesn't make them poor parents. Parents may not be qualified to teach them anyway! my dad is a college professor, specializing in business math... in middle school, there was a lot of things he couldn't help me out with. not because he didn't try, not because he didn't make the time, but because he couldn't remember his calculus from 30 years ago well enough to teach it.

last time i checked, it is a teacher's job to teach, and a parent's job to parent. it's not the parent's responsibility to teach their child english, calculus, biology, etc. that's why we pay taxes to have schools in the first place! it doesn't make a parent irresponsible, or that they're trying to blame society for something they should've been doing. if the parent lets their kid play with loaded guns at age 5, or encourages the kid to rob stores, that's irresponsible on the part of the parents, but don't blame parents for not doing the job of the school as well.

Yes, i work fulltime. I've been working some form of job since i was 15 years old. I understand that most parents are not qualified to teach their children fundamental academics, but never in my statements did i say they should be teaching them academics. You hit the nail on the head when you say that parents should be responsible for things such as personal safety involving guns, or the rights/wrongs of stealing/robbing.

In several other threads, including this one, I have been trying to make a point that basic foundations of today's children should be coming from their parents, not from some teacher or an academic institute. Some other people have expressed anger towards the government and the schools because their children are not going to be getting their educations, are not going to be in school 5 days a week anymore, and because of all this, many more kids on the fringe are going to drop out, and become criminals or other types of societal burdens. If ANYBODY is to blame for their children becoming criminals, it's the parents. That's my point avlena.

I am not saying every child should be home-schooled with an academic education. That is what teachers and schools are for. I am simply saying that many children are lacking the basic fundamentals such as manners these days and the fact that many people blame the government and the educational system for their failures as a parent is plain ignorance.

psycho-

11-10-2003, 05:45 PM

I think it's not pinnable individually on Bush. Remember, most people want to pay less taxes and get more.....it's a tough thing to do especially with captured rents from bureaucratic inefficiencies

molecularfire

11-10-2003, 05:45 PM

IF someone was actually able to tell their employer "as of next week, i'm just gonna not come in on mondays" and get by with it, this would still mean a loss of 20% of one parents' wages.

most likely, they're either going to have to find a different job or find daycare one day a week (NOT easy in the middle of a school year, and NOT easy for just one freakin day a week.) daycare costs are around $40 per day. that's at a center... pay a person minimum wage for the 6-8 hours you're at work (which is what most will ahve to do)

No, it's not easy... but the question is, what is your priority? My parents made sure that I always had a ride home after school, and that there was always someone home when I was sick and had to stay at home. Did it mean that they had to sacrifice to make it work, sure. My parents worked in a sweat shop and bought machines for the house so they could work from home. It is easy... no. Did they get everything they wanted career-wise, no. However, they was able to raise their kids well instead of having other people raise their kids for them.

i'm all for stay-at-home parenting, but once the kids are in school, even the most gung-ho stay-at-home moms tend to go back to work. this is absolutely inexcusable. instead of raising tazes (god forbid) they're passing the cost on to those who can afford it least... the working parents of young kids.
This is not completely true. Yes, I don't think a lot of parents could keep up to date enough to tutor their kids in some of the more advanced classes. However, this is not their role as parents. A parent's role in the educational process is to teach their kids to value an education. To teach them the value of hard work and self sacrifice. The vast majority of the kids in my neighborhood that did well (and there wasn't many) didn't have parents who were even college educated. What their parents did though was to ride their a$$e$ to study hard, and to make them realize that you can't always do whatever you want and expect someone else to get the job done for you. If you want to be successful, you have to take responsibility for your actions and make the sacrifices necessary to get the job done.

and an extra hour and a half per day of school is also stupid. kids can't concentrate for that long. the extra hour and a half per day is going to be time wasted in the name of "no, everything's still the same, see? we didn't do anything bad!"
Sorry, but this is absolute crap. 1)Many other countries have longer school days than we do in the U.S. and their kids do a lot better than ours. 2) There are plenty of children in the U.S. who go home and continue to study. Can't concentrate is just an excuse people who are too lazy to study hard use.

this is one thing that taxes damned well ought to go up for. for every incremental bit that school becomes more heinous, more difficult to tolerate for the children subjected to it, that many more kids on the fringe are going to drop out, and become criminals or other types of societal burdens. it's not saving money at all. they'll just rais the freakin taxes in ten years to pay for the new jails in florida.
I completely agree with you on this one. I have been a supporter of laws to kill anyone who has a jail sentence long enough that they cannot reasonably be expected to ever be set free, and use that money to fund education. However, people only give me weird looks when I suggested this.

last time i checked, it is a teacher's job to teach, and a parent's job to parent. it's not the parent's responsibility to teach their child english, calculus, biology, etc. that's why we pay taxes to have schools in the first place! it doesn't make a parent irresponsible, or that they're trying to blame society for something they should've been doing. if the parent lets their kid play with loaded guns at age 5, or encourages the kid to rob stores, that's irresponsible on the part of the parents, but don't blame parents for not doing the job of the school as well.
As a parent, it is your job to be involved in anything that involves your child. It is just irresponsible to say well... this isn't my realm so I'm not responsible for this. If the teachers fail, it isn't my fault, it's theirs. You are the parent. Everything is your responsiblity.

revil

11-10-2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Merlin
Because they are better at than anyone. Ask Kevster, he'll back me on this one.
Bah. They have their ups and downs. Luckily I was able to sidestep all their attempts at my destruction. Although one priest was almost successful at giving me detention everyday for the rest of my high school career... I don't think the priests liked it when I opened up the discount house of worship out of my locker. I guess my absolutions were cheaper than theirs. Perhaps they didn't like the compitition.

ray

11-10-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Merlin

Because they are better at than anyone. Ask Kevster, he'll back me on this one.

I attended Boston College, which has one of, if not, the largest Jesuit communities in the nation. The underlying principles of the school were created and maintained at the highest standards by the Jesuit priests over a century ago and students, faculty and alumni still believe in such beliefs.

One of the reasons why I chose to attend Boston College was because these basic principles have been in place for a century and the school's reputation was better than average. The school never preached anything to us, but it was pretty much understood that one would maintain the highest level of integrity while they were studying at the college and would continue to respect these values after they left.

My father attended Marquette for his undergraduate degree, which happens to be another Jesuit community. Oh, and my top college of choice when I was applying was Georgetown which is also a Jesuit college. I was rejected from there, but c'est la vie.

I have never been religious, but something about Georgetown and Boston College attracted me to their schools. I honestly don't know why I applied, but perhaps it was a subconscious decision.

ray

11-10-2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by molecularfire

snip

well said.

I agree with your statements that anything that involves your children involves you as a parent. As far as your children not performing well/learning in school, I believe that this is a combination of the responsibility of the teacher and the student and lastly the parents. Teachers do work hard and are not compensated enough, imho, but I have had plenty of teachers that were just plain awful. How did that result? I did poorly in their classes and received low grades. However, it is also my fault for not taking the initiative to seek help when I realized that my teacher was awful. I was essentially too lazy and too unmotivated to care about school. Lastly, it is important for the parents to help motivate and encourage their children to go that extra mile.

welfareloser

11-10-2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by molecularfire

No, it's not easy... but the question is, what is your priority? My parents made sure that I always had a ride home after school, and that there was always someone home when I was sick and had to stay at home. Did it mean that they had to sacrifice to make it work, sure. My parents worked in a sweat shop and bought machines for the house so they could work from home. It is easy... no. Did they get everything they wanted career-wise, no. However, they was able to raise their kids well instead of having other people raise their kids for them.

that's great that they were able to. you think that people who work at mcdonalds can do that? some people have their priorities straight - food, shelter, health insurance. some people can't do any more than that.

Originally posted by molecularfire

This is not completely true. Yes, I don't think a lot of parents could keep up to date enough to tutor their kids in some of the more advanced classes. However, this is not their role as parents. A parent's role in the educational process is to teach their kids to value an education. To teach them the value of hard work and self sacrifice. The vast majority of the kids in my neighborhood that did well (and there wasn't many) didn't have parents who were even college educated. What their parents did though was to ride their a$$e$ to study hard, and to make them realize that you can't always do whatever you want and expect someone else to get the job done for you. If you want to be successful, you have to take responsibility for your actions and make the sacrifices necessary to get the job done.

who says they're not taking responsibility? tehy can teach them all tehy wnat at home, when they are all home together at the end of the day and on weekends, but that doesn't excuse the fact that public schools - and remember, EVERY CHILD IS REQUIRED TO ATTEND SCHOOL - are working against parents best efforts by being ineffective, unsafe, inhospitable, recess-less, unstimulating cesspools. IT'S NOT OKAY.

Originally posted by molecularfire

Sorry, but this is absolute crap. 1)Many other countries have longer school days than we do in the U.S. and their kids do a lot better than ours. 2) There are plenty of children in the U.S. who go home and continue to study. Can't concentrate is just an excuse people who are too lazy to study hard use.

yeah, those lazy 7-year-olds, hungry (because a kid should eat about every 2-3 hours) dehydrated since they can't get a drink any time they need, and unable to go to the bathroom when they want to, are really milking that lame excuse for all it's worth. :rolleyes:

kids' attention spans are short. they do less and less well as the day wears on. want scientific proof? i'll produce it. why should it be okay to make it be so damned hard for kids to learn? it wouldn't take much money to make schools MUCH better places.

and tell me which countries have longer school days? european schools have shorter ones. even eastern european ones. and all the mid-eastern ones i can think of. and african. and australian. i suppose asian HIGH SCHOOLS have longer days. but the grade schools? i don't know how long their school days are, but i know they incorporate exercise, music, art, etc into the day... things that are dying quickly in a lot of american schools, especially for the younger kids.

Originally posted by molecularfire

As a parent, it is your job to be involved in anything that involves your child. It is just irresponsible to say well... this isn't my realm so I'm not responsible for this. If the teachers fail, it isn't my fault, it's theirs. You are the parent. Everything is your responsiblity.

where the hell do you think you are getting this from? NOBODY here is advocating an attitude of "my kid's messed up and it's not my fault, it's because of the schools!" public schools are degenerating. we want them better. is it not reasonable to expect that a place we are required to send our children do at least as well as a romanian orphanage? that's all anyone is asking... they keep the cockroaches off em, sure, but i'd like to see a little bit better.

i AM involved in my child's life. i wouldn't want to homeschool him; he is as extroverted as they come, as active as they come, and thrives on human interaction, the more the better. he would shrivel up and die in a homeschool environment. all i want is a reasonably safe and effective school. somewhere that he is safe, that he learns at least something, somewhere that has his best interests at heart, instead of a cheap babysitting cage where he sits and puts in a requisite number of hours with little return. that's not shirking my f#*%#(*ing responsibility. it's simply asking that others live up to theirs as well.

welfareloser

11-10-2003, 06:15 PM

ray

11-10-2003, 06:15 PM

Okay, some issues have been beaten to death.

Welfare, you ask that the public schools are better. What is it that you want from your public schools that they don't already provide? Do you want better teachers, more extracurricular programs, better food? It's rather vague when you say you want the public schools to be better. Maybe you could elaborate what you mean by "better"

Here's another question for everyone. Assuming you were in charge of the educational system in your town. How would you allocate the govt funding to make your school system good enough so that no parents will complain about the system being crappy?

Cantacuzene

11-10-2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by lilbigblue
Here's another question for everyone. Assuming you were in charge of the educational system in your town. How would you allocate the govt funding to make your school system good enough so that no parents will complain about the system being crappy?

1. Enough books for every student to have a take home set.

2. Funding to help teachers get their masters in education or in their subject.

3. Clean classrooms, gyms with good equipment and clean bathrooms. You'd be surprised how much a clean environment helps people be productive. You wouldnt want your kids to live in a slum, why send them to school everyday in a slum.

4. Better electives. I think everyone should take language courses. They should be mandatory, not electives. Electives should be an art or a sport. Most high schools in this country don't have a photography class. Most don't have a weight training class.

ray

11-10-2003, 06:49 PM

Canta:

Those are definitely good uses for the funding, but let me just further the discussion:

Let's say all that is achieved and that everything you've asked for happens. What if students are still testing poorly? What if students are skipping school to do something else? What if students have all the books, but don't actually do homework?

I go back to my other post where the responsibility is on everybody to take advantage of an education.

1) the teacher must be qualified and should encourage/motivate the students, no matter how difficult they are to work with.

2) the student must make an effort to value the teacher and the education they are receiving.

3) the parents must realize when their children need that little extra push.

and i will add 4) educational facilities, resources and curriculum that are conducive to a better learning environment.

I think that in the end, no matter how much money is put into an educational system, it is the student who has to take the initiative to make the most out of the opportunity.

Kevster

11-10-2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Merlin

Because they are better at than anyone. Ask Kevster, he'll back me on this one.

:stupid:

Yes - they are better. The Jesuit curriculum is geared towards making the student a very well-rounded individual. At my school the curriculum looks like this: 4 years mathamatics, 3 years in a single language or 4 years of 2 languages, 4 years of English/writing, 4 years of history, 3 or 4 years of Sciences, 4 years of theology/religious studies, and of course P.E. :)

Merlin and I are both products of Jesuit schools (Merlin at St. Peter's Prep in NJ and I at Jesuit in Sacramento).

ray

11-10-2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Kevster

Merlin and I are both products of Jesuit schools (Merlin at St. Peter's Prep in NJ and I at Jesuit in Sacramento).

Kevster - I can't remember if my high school ever competed against yours in sports, but does The Pingry School ring any bells? That's where Slaus and I went to high school.

IrishSS

11-10-2003, 07:40 PM

First off, let me be upfront. I'm somewhat drunk and I didnt read about the last 10 posts (too long in ym current state).

Anywho, tell me this....

How can we find 87 BILLION dollars to continue the "War" in Afgan. and rebuilding in Iraq (with a large portion going to a company formerly headed by Cheney), yet we cant healthcare for people who cant afford it, food for the hungry or housing for the homeless in our own damned country? And now, we are cutting our children's (read: our future) school time. Absolutely unexcusable. Flame me all you want, but Bush and his administration are a joke. :(

chrissy

11-10-2003, 08:00 PM

Budget cuts in schools has been happening for years. In 1986-87, my HS lost all shop classes (wood, metal, drafting), all band and choir classes -- except for pep band (had to have that for Basketball :rolleyes: ), home economics, photography, and the higher maths and sciences. We also went to a shorter school day -- the teachers all took their "prep hour" the 7th hour and us kids got sent home while they stayed. They had thought about going to a 4 day week. We lost a lot of good teachers because of this.

We were to have lost sports also but some parents organized and raised funds to keep basketball, baseball/softball and volleyball cheerleading and pepband fell into that too.

I dunno, you can blame this government or whatever, but it isn't something that has happened overnight. It's something that has been building for a while now and needs to stop. How? I couldn't tell ya. There has been a lot of issues raised in this thread. And I really haven't seen any completely right answers. But then again, I am just an average Joe with a minimal standard public education.

Cantacuzene

11-10-2003, 08:30 PM

The answer is this country needs to take a long hard look at its priorities and re-evaluate whats important.

chrissy

11-10-2003, 08:48 PM

Canta, I understand that. But your priorties are different from mine, my neighbors or even your neighbors. That is a very broad answer. I do agree with the statement, but everyone has something different as a priority. And unfortunately, our kids are getting the short end.

Kevster

11-10-2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by lilbigblue

Kevster - I can't remember if my high school ever competed against yours in sports, but does The Pingry School ring any bells? That's where Slaus and I went to high school.

Isn't The Pingry School (http://www.pingry.k12.nj.us/) in New Jersey? If so, that would be Merlin. Jesuit's main rivals are mainly the big Delta League schools around Sacramento, but the biggest is Christian Brothers School (the other major Catholic high school in Sacramento).

cheapie

11-10-2003, 09:48 PM

i love it how everyone jumps on bush and the conservates for this travesty. however, if clinton had been in office, i'd bet my life you wouldn't be doing the same thing.

i'm not a huge war or bush fan. but wtf? we've been going down this sorry path for a long time. we've got gvt. programs for every-freakin-thing under the sun, except those that matter most. people on both sides of the spectrum are to blame. too much money spent on ridiculously ineficient public services and way too much spent on the military.

brainsmile

11-10-2003, 10:16 PM

this is the very reason why I refuse to pay florida taxes

ray

11-10-2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Kevster

Isn't The Pingry School (http://www.pingry.k12.nj.us/) in New Jersey? If so, that would be Merlin. Jesuit's main rivals are mainly the big Delta League schools around Sacramento, but the biggest is Christian Brothers School (the other major Catholic high school in Sacramento).

yeah, it's in jersey. i wasn't paying attention up above. LOL.

so Merlin?

Cantacuzene

11-10-2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by cheapie
i love it how everyone jumps on bush and the conservates for this travesty.

YOu'll notice I mentioned in one of my replies that I did put some blame on democrats. But logic for blaming bush is this...

in teh past this country has had some pretty bad recessions. Late 70's, late 80's. They were much worse than what we have now. Schools didn't have to close then. What is the difference? Why didn't Bush senior or Carter have schools close on their watch? I wish I could say for sure what that answer is. All I know is, times were tougher then and they didnt close schools. That leads me to believe education isnt a priority to the current administration, or at least to the current batch of state governors who we have now, of which the majority are republicans.

avlena

11-10-2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by lilbigblue
I think that in the end, no matter how much money is put into an educational system, it is the student who has to take the initiative to make the most out of the opportunity.

of course that's the bottom line in pretty much anything - the individual has to be motiviated. but, i think the school systems could definitely use more money.

take my high school. one of the poorest schools in california (both in terms of quality and monetary). half the students could barely pass the simple tests needed to graduate, so they ended up lowering the bar so more people could pass. seeing as my father is a college professor, he pushed me hard to make sure i could get enough of an education to go to university and be successful. so, in addition to regular classes, 2-3 times a week, i was in class from 7 in the morning, until 10pm at night. After school, i'd grab food, and head over to my college classes, supplementing my english, math, etc. and i ended up making it go college, though many of my peers were unable to do such. so yeah, in this case, i took the initiative and i triumphed. but, i walked into the university at a huge disadvantage from the other kids - i didn't have as many AP courses, i'd barely touched a computer until i got there, my writing skills still lacked. it wasn't that i didn't work hard, but it's rather difficult to excel when you have to work your a$$ off just to catch up with the more priveleged students.

so yeah, i agree, success depends on the parents and more importantly the individual, but we're still doing a huge disservice to our children by offering them such poor public education that working hard means MAYBE they can catch up with the better educated.

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by lilbigblue
Okay, some issues have been beaten to death.

Welfare, you ask that the public schools are better. What is it that you want from your public schools that they don't already provide? Do you want better teachers, more extracurricular programs, better food? It's rather vague when you say you want the public schools to be better. Maybe you could elaborate what you mean by "better"

okay, some "issues" needed to be explained and re-explained until people actually listened and stopped repeating "oh yeah, well the parents coulda fixed all of that."

i did elaborate pretty extensively; you're ignoring it.

i'd be pretty happy if they'd stop LOSING ground. maintain art, recess, music, the presence of all of which are proven to improve overall performance. maintain cleanliness and safety. maintain a schedule of 5 6-hour days instead of 4 7-1/2 hour days. be able to hire teachers with degrees (there are schools verywhere hiring people with any college classes at all to teach science because they can't get actual, qualified teachers.) these are simple necessities. i'd like to think i can send my kids to public school someday and not have them come home in worse shape than they were that morning. it'd be nice if they came home and told me what they learned, who they played with at recess, instead of how they can't see the blackboard from 8 rows back because there are 40 kids in their classroom, how their head hurts because they don't have the facilities and staff to handle letting them get a drink of water and go to the bathroom whenever they need to (something adults take for granted) how he spent the two hours before lunch and the two hours before getting home desperately hungry (try increasing your body weight by 20% in one year and see how often you need to eat... when was the last time you didn't have the option of eating when you got hungry?), that they saw a bloody fight (because there's nowhere else to send bad kids but the regular school), that he's pretty sure his science teacher had miosis and mitosis confused (because she had an associate's degree in fashion design) but he couldn't look it up because he has to share a textbook with another kid who took the book home and forgot to bring it that day.

don't pretend you don't understand my point.

my kids are lucky. my husband and i have degrees out the wazoo, i can stay home for as long as i choose, and we can teach our kids anything. the children of parents with iq's hovering around 80 who work 60 hours a week at mcdonalds deserve a good education too.

Jcranmer

11-11-2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by welfareloser

my kids are lucky. my husband and i have degrees out the wazoo, i can stay home for as long as i choose, and we can teach our kids anything. the children of parents with iq's hovering around 80 who work 60 hours a week at mcdonalds deserve a good education too.

Ok I normally know better then to even get involved in a thread like this. So I already know I am going get flack for this comment, but...

Perhaps people who can do no better with their life then working at a McDonalds shouldn't be having kids to begin with. I mean if you are too poor to raise them and too stupid to use birth control...

I don't know just my 2 cents on the matter. Ok let the flame fest begin. :D

zenbooty

11-11-2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Jcranmer
Ok I normally know better then to even get involved in a thread like this. So I already know I am going get flack for this comment, but...

Perhaps people who can do no better with their life then working at a McDonalds shouldn't be having kids to begin with. I mean if you are too poor to raise them and too stupid to use birth control...

I don't know just my 2 cents on the matter. Ok let the flame fest begin. :D No flame, but I will say that of course hindsight is 20/20. But these people ARE having kids, have ALWAYS HAD kids, and WILL ALWAYS HAVE kids, just like all other strata of the population. The urge to procreate often overpowers abstract financial reasoning, especially amongst the career McDonalds employee set. And since we have to assume that they WILL have kids, and these kids WILL become a burden on society if not educated, it is up to our public education system to provide these kids some kind of real opportunity to learn.

Being a scold and saying, "You shouldn't have children!" may point to one solution to the problem, but it is not a realistic solution unless social engineering on a grand scale (bad thing) is what you're into.

gear02

11-11-2003, 08:07 AM

I'm not going to reply to any single thought since the last time I posted, but here's some thoughts.

Parent's involvement

I said that I would send my kids to private school not because I'm the type of person who blames schools and others for my kids' failures, but because I think the environment for learning is better AND most private schools have better resources (not I said most). I'm looking for small class sizes, enough funding to allow my kids to do what they want, whether it be the arts, science projects, or sports. It's much easier to find such a school in the private sector than in the public school systems. Most of the well educated teachers head for private schools as well, while public schools often have to resort to under qualified teachers. That's also a factor.

What would I do?

1. Pump as much money as I could to education. Education is the silver bullet. Take a bum on the street, give them as much education as you can, and I promise you they won't be bums any longer. Why put money in other community programs if you can make schools tons better?

2. Lower class sizes to around 17. I've had classes in high school where there were 30+ students. It's not fun.

3. Make sure schools have clean classrooms, enough books and desks, and enough resources to teach. It's sad when you can't even have enough seats for students, much less clean classrooms.

4. Pay teachers 2.5x more and lower administrator's pay. Too many teachers
run to the principal level because the pay is significantly higher. Additionally, too many hacks pretend to teach, only caring to become principals. I had principals who where art teachers (who probably couldn't draw a straight line), assistant coaches, and other dumb positions. They had no relevent experience! That's just insane! The power should lie in the real teachers. Make their starting pay at about $50,0000 and make principals simple administrators and it'll be all good.

5. Put cops in school. This is a tough one. First, you have to seriously screen the cops and then monitor them. You have to find tough, fair cops who care about kids and are willing to be extremely friendly and a role model. You have to avoid cops on powertrips as they can cause more trouble. Why the need? First the cops will deter any criminal activity, even the slightest edge will help. However, it cannot resemble a police state, otherwise people will be very unhappy. I've seen cops in my high school who were chatting with kids, being friends to others, and above all role models. In addition, they provide security.

Forign Policy v. domestic policy

I'm not blaming any political party (I hate bush though), but I think politicians like to deal with foreign policy is because these fools think that they should empose their ideals to everyone else, that they will change the world. It makes them feel powerful, and frankly it's easier. The United States is a bully to many other countries. We stick our nose where it shouldn't belong. They need our money and we got some so we can control them. Domestically, the situation is very hard. You got medicare, health care, education, abortion, poverty, crime, etc. All these issues are incredibly hard to deal with. Why do you think terrorism is the rallying cry these days? Do you really think that checking people's shoes deter's terrorists? Do you think terrorists are that stupid to try the same thing again? Heck no, but we implement all these things because it's easier to show progress (security screeners) and stuff. Politicians would think twice about going to war and enforcing silly foreign policies if they themselves had to go.

WhiskeyPapa

11-11-2003, 08:19 AM

I love George Bush. I don't like public schools.

http://www.lemonizer.com/upload/uploadsNov/bush_cdh103.jpg

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Jcranmer

Perhaps people who can do no better with their life then working at a McDonalds shouldn't be having kids to begin with. I mean if you are too poor to raise them and too stupid to use birth control...

I don't know just my 2 cents on the matter. Ok let the flame fest begin. :D

you're not even thinking here. social engineering aside, have you ever eaten at mcdonald's? millions do. it's good stuff. somebody has to make it. what's wrong with that? tens of thousands of people work there - somebody has to do it. i know three people (all women in their upper twenties who i went to hs with) fairly well who work in fast food - generally two jobs, each 30+ hours a week. they're pretty happy with their jobs - a lot happier than some of the angst-ridden, upper-class, twenty-something doofuses i know who change careers every year to try to "find themselves."

and who said anything about too poor to raise them and too stupid to use birth control? they're not on welfare. they have enough money to raise their kids. they have each had exactly the number of children they wanted - one, two, and three, respectively.

they are all sweet, funny, wonderful people, and there is no reason why anyone should look down on them, period. there is nothing more they "should" be doing to "better" themselves. they're fine.

they send their kids to public schools. if the teachers suck, they're not going to be able to do much to help with the actual academics. they're not going to be able to send their kids to private schools (even if they could afford it, black kids in catholic schools - the only private schools around - in the pinch-brained town in which they live have a long, hard row to hoe.)

their kids deserve at least a school that doesn't suck.

awful lot of people in this thread with tunnel vision... well MY parents did it, so everyone can! well, if they're not as good as me, they need to go away!

ray

11-11-2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by welfareloser

i did elaborate pretty extensively; you're ignoring it.

No, I am not ignoring anything. I have just reread EVERY post you've made in this thread and the only things I see you doing are:

1) Blasting the war on Iraq and the American government. Don't like the government in America? Move to a different country.

2)
public schools are working against parents best efforts by being ineffective, unsafe, inhospitable, recess-less, unstimulating cesspools Anybody can complain. But only some people try to make change. If your educational system is that piss poor, maybe you should start finding some other parents who feel the same way and do something about it. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Yes, you are paying taxes for the public schools, but if the administration and teachers are that bad then I think the parents should step in and defend their students rights instead of coming to some online forums and complaining. Be a little more proactive.

3)
all i want is a reasonably safe and effective school. somewhere that he is safe What causes the school to be unsafe? Are there 7 year olds carrying switchblades and 9mm pistols? Are there hoodlums trying to sell your son/daughter crack/cocaine? Are the teachers abusing the children? Are parents abusing children? Are the children forming gangs and claiming their "turf?"

You complain about the problems, but you offer no solutions except that they need to get better so that your son can drink when he's thirsty and use the bathroom when he wants. Why don't you put your wazoo of degrees to some good use and propose a viable change. Come up with ways the community as a whole could improve the schools. Don't just finger point at the government and blame everything on them. I know you pay taxes, and so do I. You know what the kicker is? I don't have any kids. Why the hell should i be paying for someone else's children to go to school? See, I could complain because the government is raising taxes and taking my money. But you don't see me complaining do you?

Merlin

11-11-2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by gear02

Parent's involvement

I said that I would send my kids to private school not because I'm the type of person who blames schools and others for my kids' failures, but because I think the environment for learning is better AND most private schools have better resources (not I said most). I'm looking for small class sizes, enough funding to allow my kids to do what they want, whether it be the arts, science projects, or sports. It's much easier to find such a school in the private sector than in the public school systems. Most of the well educated teachers head for private schools as well, while public schools often have to resort to under qualified teachers. That's also a factor.

You know it is interesting. Everyone wants to throw more money at the education system like it is going to do any good. I've gone to private schools most of my life and I can say that for the most part they don't have better funding, more books, better classrooms etc. Most private schools are barely scraping by. Yes, there are some really high end ones out there but they are the exception rather than the rule. Most of the ones run by local churches etc are on a shoestring budget at best. The public schools have always had better and more numerous resources. Shop facilities were better, texts were replaced more often etc. News flash, a nice gym, modern wood shop (wtf?!? a wood shop, it is a school not a trade guild). and brand spanking new books are not what makes a school more effective. It is the teachers. Plain and simple. Good ones need little more than a blackboard. Also, the teachers make much less money in private schools. My teachers griped about that, but they also said they gave up some salary to teach in an enviornment where the students were more under control, their safety was not an issue, and most importantly, the students wanted to learn.

Public schools are a joke. A sad and expensive joke that should end. If there were vouchers they would end. Which is probably why the teachers unions are so dead set against them.

ray

11-11-2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by welfareloser

they have each had exactly the number of children they wanted - one, two, and three, respectively.

Let me ask you this question. Hypothetically speaking, if you working in a fast food chain making $40,000/year, would you bring 3 children into this world knowing that your $40,000/year wouldn't be able to give your children the best education, decent clothes, 3 meals/day, proper health care, etc?

There are some things that can't be planned, and some that can. Bringing a child into this world requires a lot of planning. I am sure that many of us WANT children, but how many of us are willing to go make babies now? How about when we're making $40,000/year working in a fast-food chain? How about having THREE children, knowing that you'll be working in a fast-food chain?

some people have their priorities straight - food, shelter, health insurance. some people can't do any more than that

It is those people who can't do anymore, that should plan before they go do something they WANT. They are the same people that complain when things don't swing their way. Next time they should think before they WANT.

Merlin

11-11-2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by lilbigblue

You know what the kicker is? I don't have any kids. Why the hell should i be paying for someone else's children to go to school?

It is protection money. Pay them now or they will rob you later.

By the way I agree with you in theory. Paretns should bear the burden of their children, not my. But in actuality it won't work. Too bad.

gear02

11-11-2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Merlin

You know it is interesting. Everyone wants to throw more money at the education system like it is going to do any good. I've gone to private schools most of my life and I can say that for the most part they don't have better funding, more books, better classrooms etc. Most private schools are barely scraping by. Yes, there are some really high end ones out there but they are the exception rather than the rule. Most of the ones run by local churches etc are on a shoestring budget at best. The public schools have always had better and more numerous resources. Shop facilities were better, texts were replaced more often etc. News flash, a nice gym, modern wood shop (wtf?!? a wood shop, it is a school not a trade guild). and brand spanking new books are not what makes a school more effective. It is the teachers. Plain and simple. Good ones need little more than a blackboard. Also, the teachers make much less money in private schools. My teachers griped about that, but they also said they gave up some salary to teach in an enviornment where the students were more under control, their safety was not an issue, and most importantly, the students wanted to learn.

Public schools are a joke. A sad and expensive joke that should end. If there were vouchers they would end. Which is probably why the teachers unions are so dead set against them.

I know that most private schools aren't well off as I think they are, but I'm saying it's easier to find a well off private school than a well off public school.

I don't think teachers are against school vouchers because they are afraid of their jobs. They see vouchers as the government bailing on public schools, as giving up on the situation. They want to see the government providing significant funding improvements rather than a way out.

From what I've read, and not I don't have sources, most students who use the vouchers end up returning to the public school.

ray

11-11-2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Merlin

It is protection money. Pay them now or they will rob you later.

Don't get me wrong. I know that the taxes I pay will be returned in some shape, way or form in the future.

I was just making a point that even though I don't have children going through the public school system, I can still complain since it is MY MONEY that is funding it. But again, I do see the light at the end of the tunnel and I realize that my taxes are for the best. I have every right to complain, but I know that my complaints won't change anything so why bother doing it? If I managed to devise a brilliant cost/benefit strategy that could save taxpayers money but improve the schools, then I would share it with the lawmakers. Until then, I will support what the government is doing.

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by lilbigblue

Let me ask you this question. Hypothetically speaking, if you working in a fast food chain making $40,000/year, would you bring 3 children into this world knowing that your $40,000/year wouldn't be able to give your children the best education, decent clothes, 3 meals/day, proper health care, etc?

There are some things that can't be planned, and some that can. Bringing a child into this world requires a lot of planning. I am sure that many of us WANT children, but how many of us are willing to go make babies now? How about when we're making $40,000/year working in a fast-food chain? How about having THREE children, knowing that you'll be working in a fast-food chain?

It is those people who can't do anymore, that should plan before they go do something they WANT. They are the same people that complain when things don't swing their way. Next time they should think before they WANT.

their children have decent clothes, health care, good food and plenty of it, etc. they even have college funds. they have parents who love them, care for them, encourage them to do well in school, and bend over backwards to make sure that they are not in crappy daycare, but with a parent, grandparent, aunt, etc, at all times... which is a lot more than i can say for any of the physicians, scientists, and businesspeople i know who make in excess of $100,000 a year.

they go to public schools. again, why is it okay for schools to suck? do you just like the idea of a meat grinder that hurts the most vulnerable, so you can be even more self-righteous about how cool you are?

lilbigblue: i thought the answers were obvious, but since you don't get it, here we go: if a school has too few textbooks, the answer is money to buy them. if the school has cut art, the answer is money for a few quarts of tempra paints and an art teacher. if the problem is not being able to eat, drink and piss as needed, the answer is to have a hall monitor to allow children to move freely, enough money to keep the school open for the extra ten minutes twice a day for a snack, enough money for a janitor to clean the floors after the snack. if the problem is a sudden four-day week of long days to save money, the answer is enough money to get back to the 5 shorter days.

the answer to crappy teachers is better teacher. in this country, the answer is money. before the women's movement, a LOT of women were teachers, either before they got married or after their kids were in school or out of the house. there was a huge pool of smart women who taught our children.

now, women can do durned near whatever they want. so all those smart women who were teachers because it was one of the few reasonable options are now in business, science, medicine, ANYTHING that pays better and is less stressful. if pay for teachers was competitive, we would have more and better teachers. maybe south carolina should be paying their teachers $50,000 and their coaches $40,000.

and you are once again pretending to know a lot more than you do in telling me i need to be more proactive. you have no idea what i'm doing irl to try to fix this crap.

i did not blast the war on iraq. i did complain about the government. "love it or leave it" doesn't fix the problem... i'm more PROACTIVE than that.

try to make sense, at least be consistent within the same post.

i'm going to go drop my kid off at school now... his private school... where i help to raise funds to keep the cost low so more people can afford it... where i volunteer in the classroom... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. i have worked my butt off to improve public schools, to effect policy changes, to get them more money, i have been a tutor, i have created science experiments and science field trips for kids who would not have otherwise gotten them. glad you're happy with the status quo - it must make you feel special. i'd rather include everyone than sit back and feel special.

Cantacuzene

11-11-2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by lilbigblue

You know what the kicker is? I don't have any kids. Why the hell should i be paying for someone else's children to go to school?

Oddly enough, I've never been the victim of a terrorist attack and I own no stock in oil companies so I shouldn't have to pay for the war in Iraq. If people wanted to pay for the things governments paid for they wouldnt call it tax, they would call it charity.

attgig

11-11-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by avlena
in middle school, there was a lot of things he couldn't help me out with. not because he didn't try, not because he didn't make the time, but because he couldn't remember his calculus from 30 years ago well enough to teach it.

dayum!!! you were doing calculus in middle school!!! dayumm!!!

Originally posted by lilbigblue
Kevster - I can't remember if my high school ever competed against yours in sports, but does The Pingry School ring any bells? That's where Slaus and I went to high school.

haha you went to pingry???

you rich bast!d :P

ray

11-11-2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by welfareloser

lilbigblue: i thought the answers were obvious, but since you don't get it, here we go: if a school has too few textbooks, the answer is money to buy them. if the school has cut art, the answer is money for a few quarts of tempra paints and an art teacher. if the problem is not being able to eat, drink and piss as needed, the answer is to have a hall monitor to allow children to move freely, enough money to keep the school open for the extra ten minutes twice a day for a snack, enough money for a janitor to clean the floors after the snack. if the problem is a sudden four-day week of long days to save money, the answer is enough money to get back to the 5 shorter days.

You see, everybody else posted what would make the schools better. You never actually put it in writing, hence why I did not get it. I could assume a lot of things, but I was curious to see what you wanted. So no, it was not OBVIOUS as I cannot read your mind. Canta said what he would change in 4 sentences. It took you several posts to actually just type out the exact changes. That's all I asked for. I apologize if i'm too stupid and uneducated to understand what you were driving at Welfareloser. I guess the educational system has failed me.

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by lilbigblue

You see, everybody else posted what would make the schools better. You never actually put it in writing, hence why I did not get it.

Originally posted by welfareloser
how bout we fund ... education ...

Originally posted by welfareloser
this is one thing that taxes damned well ought to go up for.

Originally posted by lilbigblue
I could assume a lot of things, but I was curious to see what you wanted. So no, it was not OBVIOUS as I cannot read your mind.

you didn't have to read my mind. if no recess = problem, recess = better. no art = problem, art = better. and i stated at least twice how to effect these solutions, as quoted above. everybody else got it, and you're not stupid.

Originally posted by lilbigblue
I apologize if i'm too stupid and uneducated to understand what you were driving at Welfareloser. I guess the educational system has failed me.

you knew what i meant, but since you're apparently having trouble arguing with the actual points i'm making, and i had reasonably solid counters to your ad hominem attack, you did your best to denigrate the way i made my points. didn't work very well. but i don't think it's because your schools or even your parents failed you... i think it's just you.

Booyamos

11-11-2003, 11:40 AM

my simple thought on this rather heated discussion.

Children are our future, schools teach children. IMHO Teachers should be the people making the real money. Pay the teachers more, and people will want to teach.

I know plenty of people here in college who would love to be a teacher but realize you cannot live with such low pay.

Our governments priorities are a bit off

ray

11-11-2003, 11:41 AM

Oh, I will be the first to admit that I am 99% illogical and for the most part wrong. I am willing to admit my mistakes and not blame others, such as the government, for my failures.

Your prior statements were rather vague and broad.

"how about we fund...education"
"This [education] is the one thing that taxes damn well ought to go up for"

Okay, how can money be put into recesses? I don't get it. Art programs I can see, but how will money and taxes bring back recess?

I'm lost. Other people suggested books for every student, proper class materials, funding for teachers to pursue further education, more electives and making languages mandatory. Now those are all concrete ideas. Telling me that the government should pour more money into education doesn't provide anything, but actually telling me WHERE that money goes is a bit more beneficial, don't you think? You mention art programs. Should we put ALL that money into Art Programs?

Like I said before, every state is different in their needs. Some states could be doing well, some are clearly not.

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 11:52 AM

yeah, let's get as much money as we can and put it ALL into art programs.

*sigh*

on the first page there was a brief discussion of saving on overhead by compressing the amount of time schools are open. recess costs in terms of overhead.

we need to put enough money into each of the problems to fix each of the problems.

Merlin

11-11-2003, 12:13 PM

I'm not sure throwing money at this problem will make it better. Not until there is some minor indication that the money would be used wisely. I think this is a regular problem for the government. Not everything gets better when throwing money at it.

Cantacuzene

11-11-2003, 12:29 PM

Well throwing money MIGHT not make it better, but starving it of money damn sure won't.

attgig

11-11-2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Kacarp
Children are our future, schools teach children. IMHO Teachers should be the people making the real money. Pay the teachers more, and people will want to teach.

I know plenty of people here in college who would love to be a teacher but realize you cannot live with such low pay.

Our governments priorities are a bit off

:sing:
I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and help them lead the way.
show them how......

ok, I'll stop

but anyways.
with teachers getting paid. it ALL depends on where you're teaching and how long you've been teaching. I know in some of the richer counties of md and nj, teachers get paid 50+ pretty easily once they make tenure. teachers unions are able to leverage pretty decent pay at that point.
i know in my hs, if you were a teacher, got a masters, and made tenure....you could be making 60+.

that's not shabby money for working...oh... 3/4ths of the year.

the problem is where the teachers are REALLY needed. the inner cities and the counties that are middle of the road (but the teacher knows that if they worked for a different school district about 15 miles away, they'd make a bunch more money).

States should standardize pay across the state (not sure if some states do), but i know that NJ didn't while i was going to hs there.

not only that, in order to attract more people to become teachers, there needs to be less of a # of years heirarchy that exists. the shorter you've been working as a teacher (no matter how good you are), the closer you are to the boot list if funding were to die.

there also needs to be better "performance management". I had horrible teachers back during school, that I learned nothing from. Absolutely nothing. yet, they're there every year.

as for "attracting" the best and the brightest... not many school districts will go after an engineer or a business major to become a teacher.
kids declare majors during freshman and sophomore years of college(usually). Then, they go on the specified track during college, and then go to the designated job fairs and recruiting things going on campus. when was the last time a highschool recruited on campus (except for teach for america).

they have to want to become teachers from the beginning. do you really want to attract "bright" people to become teachers by telling them that they'll be guaranteed 6 figures after somewhat years?
I think you'd be attracting the wrong type of people.

zenbooty

11-11-2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Merlin
Not everything gets better when throwing money at it. My temperament certainly does, tho. :D

And on a side note:

I believe that children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride... ("Sexual Chocolate, everybody!")

attgig

11-11-2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Well throwing money MIGHT not make it better, but starving it of money damn sure won't.

write to your local government and school boards. go to your school board meetings every now and then (mine growing up had one every year). run for your local school board. stop blaming the federal government for all the problems when making a difference in your own community isn't that big of a stretch.

psycho-

11-11-2003, 12:59 PM

Funny how people are bashing the public school system. If you are expecting the public school system to proxy for the care your parents are supposed to provide you, there is seriously something wrong.

To believe it's all bush's fault is a knee-jerk reaction to an education system that has been already declining since the early 1960s. To say that it suddenly got bad is to cheat oneself.

I agree that the educational system is poor, but you can work around it with active involvement from the parents...and truth be said, your parents are responsible for whatever loss in adequate education your sister is experiencing.

People should've been outraged about the educational system earlier than this...

Cantacuzene

11-11-2003, 01:04 PM

I'll blame the parties responsible, thanks.

Foremost I blame the local government for not having balls. They raise property taxes for the multi-millionares who live on the beach (7th richest town in america) but when the old richies freaked out they backed off. If the local government is afraid to stand up to the oligarchy they arent much of a government.

Next I blame the state government for cutting education from pre-k to college across the board all the while going full steam ahead on building a multi-billion dollar bullet train system that no one will ever ride.

And finally I blame teh federal government for being irresponsible in spending money on costly foreign enterprises while the domestic situation is in obvious trouble.

The fact that don't have the time to run for the school board or attend meetings doesn't mean I don't have the right to complain or redress the government.

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by psycho-
Funny how people are bashing the public school system. If you are expecting the public school system to proxy for the care your parents are supposed to provide you, there is seriously something wrong.

who are you arguing with? the imaginary people who wrote the imaginary thread you're reading on your planet? you might as well be saying "if you are expecting the purple martians to proxy for the care the orange venusians are supposed to provide you, there is something seriously wrong." it would have been as relevant.

NOBODY WANTS SCHOOLS TO DO PARENTS' JOBS. schools are supposed to provide an education. their ability to do so is being seriously hampered by shrinking funds. THAT'S A BAD THING.

Originally posted by psycho-
To believe it's all bush's fault is a knee-jerk reaction to an education system that has been already declining since the early 1960s. To say that it suddenly got bad is to cheat oneself.

ahhh... the chewbacca defense. good argument!

let's try this again. NOBODY SAID IT WAS ALL BUSH'S FAULT. you're the only one here with a knee-jerk reaction... "somebody said bush... and bad.... *knee jerks* GASP! they think it's all bush's fault!"

i will reference canta for bush's partial resonsibility, and the other parties who also bear some blame.

Originally posted by psycho-
I agree that the educational system is poor, but you can work around it with active involvement from the parents...and truth be said, your parents are responsible for whatever loss in adequate education your sister is experiencing.

i'm going to introduce a revolutionary concept to you... not everybody is above average. in fact, lots of people are below average. there's no way to change that. here's the most revolutionary part of all (hold on to your panties, dear...) below-average people are not morally inferior to you!

some kids are lucky enough to have parents of above-average financial means, above-average educational background, and above-average intelligence. they can counteract a bad school experience to some degree.

some parents just can't. my aunt alice is dumb. she is hard-working, has provided a great life for her family, she's sweet, she's caring, she's giving, and she, with her high school education and job in the ford factory, has ridden her kids' asses to make them work in school. they both went on to college.

my aunt alice has no concept of what college really is... she doesn't understand what the classes are about. she can't do much with a computer. she would never be able to help her kids with their homework, even in middle school. she would have a hard time even knowing if they were getting cheated in their education.

so. school is mandatory. public schools are the schools the government has given us to send our children to - they have to go. why is it okay for these schools to do a bad job? so only the above average have a chance? that's great.

Originally posted by psycho-
People should've been outraged about the educational system earlier than this...

people were outraged about the educational system earlier than this. this sudden compression of days is a serious blow to the effectiveness of schools, and it's okay to single it out as particularly bad.

Originally posted by attgig

as for "attracting" the best and the brightest... not many school districts will go after an engineer or a business major to become a teacher.
...
they have to want to become teachers from the beginning. do you really want to attract "bright" people to become teachers by telling them that they'll be guaranteed 6 figures after somewhat years?
I think you'd be attracting the wrong type of people.

that's a decent point, but only if things go too far in the direction of overpaying teachers.

i think the situation right now is that people who would otherwise want to be teachers are driven away from it by the miserably low pay.

if we up it just a bit, there would be a good balance.

psycho-

11-11-2003, 02:09 PM

welfare-
Sarcasm doesn't work well with me.

I guess the general question is, how much faith do you have that the educational system is going to provide a decent education to your children?

Truth is, minumim QOS (quality of service) requirements don't cut it these days in the working world. I do believe the school systems in most of the country is still meeting somewhere close to a minimum QOS. 2.0 GPA, 60% graduation rate, etc.

Expecting the schools to give beyond minimum QOS is asking alot since they don't have to give beyond the minimum QOS.

So, the question is, what are you asking for?

Finally, there is the argument that whatever level of education you obtain, you still can be a dumb@ss. Private or public, schools will always have smart kids and dumb kids. A richer/private school will not make a better person out of it.

Truth be said, I've studied and worked under some of the best sociologiests and ethnic studies professors and I'm relatively liberal in terms of my views of the education system. But, government intervention can only compensate up to a certain extent..and the compenstation is usually very small for the amount of funding that is required (diminishing returns).

In my opinion...the rest is up to the parents.

attgig

11-11-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
The fact that don't have the time to run for the school board or attend meetings doesn't mean I don't have the right to complain or redress the government.

no, you can still complain. but if all you're going to do is complain here, I doubt it'll really redress the government.

attgig

11-11-2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by welfareloser
that's a decent point, but only if things go too far in the direction of overpaying teachers.

i think the situation right now is that people who would otherwise want to be teachers are driven away from it by the miserably low pay.

if we up it just a bit, there would be a good balance.

miserably low pay by what standards? by their friends who go into business, engineering, consulting, etc etc that start off at 50+ and are well on their way to making 6 figures in a few years because they put 60+ hours in a week.

miserably low pay because they can't buy a plasma tv that their engineering friends got that looks soo attractive?

our freakin consumer-driven society is telling college students that they can't possibly live on such low pay!
pshaw!

No teacher is going to be on or even near the poverty line. if they do, please tell me and I'll rescind this argument.

but it's our society, friends, family who say NO! a TEACHER??? it's such an underpaid job. with your education, you can make something of yourself. be successful. buy a large house in the nice part of town. drive your beamer and get your wife the nice SUV. send your kids to the best private schools. it's for your future. you can be something more than just a teacher.

all that is crap.

The crap that I heard from my parents when I told them i wanted to be a teacher was, that's a woman's job!

if you really think that the pay is so low that you can't support yourself or even live comfortably, you haven't really looked into it.
not only that. you'll have more time available to spend time with your family.

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by attgig

miserably low pay by what standards? by their friends who go into business, engineering, consulting, etc etc that start off at 50+ and are well on their way to making 6 figures in a few years because they put 60+ hours in a week.

miserably low pay because they can't buy a plasma tv that their engineering friends got that looks soo attractive?

our freakin consumer-driven society is telling college students that they can't possibly live on such low pay!
pshaw!

No teacher is going to be on or even near the poverty line. if they do, please tell me and I'll rescind this argument.

but it's our society, friends, family who say NO! a TEACHER??? it's such an underpaid job. with your education, you can make something of yourself. be successful. buy a large house in the nice part of town. drive your beamer and get your wife the nice SUV. send your kids to the best private schools. it's for your future. you can be something more than just a teacher.

all that is crap.

The crap that I heard from my parents when I told them i wanted to be a teacher was, that's a woman's job!

if you really think that the pay is so low that you can't support yourself or even live comfortably, you haven't really looked into it.
not only that. you'll have more time available to spend time with your family.

you're partly right, partly wrong. i do agree that part of the problem is materialism... but teachers in many areas can easily wind up below the poverty line.

a single person, no. poverty level for one person is $8980. every teacher makes more than that per year... but jsut barely. teh minimum starting salary for a teacher with a bachelor's degree is 10,000. for five years experience, it's 11,000. for 8 years, 11,600.

go an extra year, get a master's... that'll get you 11,000, 12,250, 13,000 and 13,750 at 0, 5, 8 and 13 years.

from: http://www.isbe.net/research/pdfs/illinois_teacher_salary_study_02-03.pdf

and trust me, outside of chicago and a few other wealthy communities, lots of school districts only pay the minimum.

for 2003, the poverty threshhold for a family of 4 is $18,400. you can live. you can't support a family.

(poverty level stats from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/03poverty.htm )

and, you qualify for govt aid up to 150% of poverty level... because the livin ain't easy at that level. nobody wants to go to college for four years and try to squeak by, worrying about what they'll do if they get sick, how to save for retirement, how to have a safety net for their kids, what to do if their car breaks down...

rich places that pay well and have relatively few problem kids have plenty of good teachers competing for jobs. rural and inner cities have unfilled positions because it's tougher and they pay less.

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by psycho-
welfare-
Sarcasm doesn't work well with me.

seems to have worked just fine. you actually read and understood for a change instead of creating phantom opposition to argue against, since the rest of your reply is a reasonably, high-quality argument (in that it at least addresses points that were actually made.) :P

Originally posted by psycho-
I guess the general question is, how much faith do you have that the educational system is going to provide a decent education to your children?

Truth is, minumim QOS (quality of service) requirements don't cut it these days in the working world. I do believe the school systems in most of the country is still meeting somewhere close to a minimum QOS. 2.0 GPA, 60% graduation rate, etc.

Expecting the schools to give beyond minimum QOS is asking alot since they don't have to give beyond the minimum QOS.

okay.

Originally posted by psycho-
So, the question is, what are you asking for?

i've made it abundantly clear. i'll restate it. i am asking that budgets not shrink. i am asking that the quality of schools not be allowed to slip due to lack of funds. i am asking that such things as compressed days and disappearing arts programs - things which are PROVEN to deminish overall performance of students - not be allowed to happen.

Originally posted by psycho-
Finally, there is the argument that whatever level of education you obtain, you still can be a dumb@ss. Private or public, schools will always have smart kids and dumb kids. A richer/private school will not make a better person out of it.

of course. but truth be told, the better the schools, the more students will graduate at an acceptable or better level of education. the more students will graduate, period.

people cover a broad spectrum of ambition levels. lets say there are 100 students at a school. the school, at it's current level of funding, graduates 85 at c level or better. lets say funding is cut, and the school compresses weeks to 4 longer days, and cuts the music program. the school will now graduate 75 at c level or above.

Originally posted by psycho-
Truth be said, I've studied and worked under some of the best sociologiests and ethnic studies professors and I'm relatively liberal in terms of my views of the education system. But, government intervention can only compensate up to a certain extent..and the compenstation is usually very small for the amount of funding that is required (diminishing returns).

In my opinion...the rest is up to the parents.

nobody here would disagree with you. nobody's asking for olympic pools in every school or teachers that can afford jaguars. that's a level of very diminished returns. and nobody thinks that the parents shouldn't do their best to make up the difference in their kids' education.

it doesn't cost much to have recess, at least ONE non-academic program (art, theater, music...), and to let kids work at a reasonable pace over five days instead of trying to cram stuff into four days. janitorial services for a clean school, enough money for appropriate climate control, etc... i have a hard time seeing where the returns on these things would not be more than justified. these are basic things that keep school from being an environment that is hostile to learning.

and as for parents... not every parent can fix the fact that their kid can't pay attention because their room is sweltering, the teacher can't teach, etc. they shouldn't have to "fix." ideally, they should supplement a decent education, not have to fight to repair a bad one.

whitak24

11-11-2003, 04:55 PM

oh boy.....the debate has shifted to "why can't we attract quality teachers?" i would define quality as:
1.) people who are at least of average intelligence
2.) people who care about their job and want to educate students
3.) people who have some level of drive to make sure their job is done right
4.) people who actually understand how to educate (ie impart knowledge and understanding) their charges.

that's a tough mix to find, although i think on average, right now, we are failing badly.

Intelligence
one major problem is point #1: quite frankly, most teachers i've known are fairly unintelligent. i think this is one area where higher pay might make a difference. currently, smart people, for the most part, just DO NOT go into education. i don't know why, although part of it is the reputation of the profession -- it's not exactly a "sexy" job. but another aspect is that you wind up making fairly low incomes, which scares off people who have the talents to go into a more lucrative field.

Motivated Teachers

#2 and #3 are tough. i mean, face it. a majority of the population (in my estimation, at least), hate their jobs. much like peter gibbons, they're simply motivated to do the least that they need to do to avoid being fired.

i think #2 and #3 are where we are doing the best and the worst in attracting quality teachers. while many of the people who are teachers got their because of the old (and so derogatory) adage that "those who can do, those who can't teach", at least as many teachers fresh out of college truly want to be there....they really want to help students learn. they may be fairly dumb and not really understand how to actually teach kids, but they are motivated to try.

but how many teachers who have been around 15+ years can you say that about? after a few years of dealing with inefficient administration and rampant bureaucracy, insolent children, obnoxious or uninvolved parents, etc, they lose the spark, and it just becomes a grind to survive.

this is also the most difficult area to address. money alone will not solve the problem. overall, i think you need a less stilted school environment (that means fewer national, state, and district regulations. less mandated curriculum and less administrative heavy-handedness. less of the unions trying to jerk teachers and administration around in an effort to preserve their power. less of administrators jerking teachers and unions around in an effort to incrase their power.)

How parents can help

you also need kids who care and are willing to learn, and parents who will back up the teachers' efforts. here's where parental involvement really matters, and is basically impossible to enforce. if you have parents who have been reading to their kids since age 1 rather than sitting them in front of the television, that's a start. if you have parents who will support teachers rather than trying to tell them how to run their classroom (or worse yet, not caring the least about their children's education), that's even better.

that is, in my opinion, why a financially strapped private school will often provide better education than a cash-flush public school. if you have parents who are ponying up $5000 or $7000 per year to educate their kids, they are usually serious about their kids' education, and are going to make sure the kids are ready to learn, and are going to support the teachers' efforts. (this is also why public v. private considerations are so worthless. the self-selection of quality parents and kids in a private school gives them a much higher chance for good results).

i'm not really sure where more money would solve either #2 or #3, unless you could honestly buy teacher motivation through higher salaries. while i think you might get people somewhat more motivated to do a good job if they were highly paid, i don't think it's a silver bullet, by far.

Teachers who can teach

#4, i think, is key to much of this. even if you recruit the best and brightest to be teachers, they're worthless if they don't know how to impart information to students. i consider myself to be decently intelligent, but if you put me in front of a room of 3rd graders and told me to teach them how to spell, i'd be lost (as those of you who read my posts probably realize, i [i]still[i] don't know how to spell). if you stuck me in front of a bunch of high school freshmen and told me to teach them civics, once again, it would be a disaster. my point is: pure intelligence and knowledge of a subject do not a good teacher make (if you need further proof, just look at my EXTREMLY intelligent, very knowledgeable, and HIGHLY paid law school profs, most of whom are horrible teachers :rolleyes: )

i don't know how we should train teachers, but i know it needs to be something different than what we do right now. my friends in college who were education majors learned next to nothing. they took some worthless theory classes, etc, but when they graduate, they don't really know how to effectively teach reading to a 3rd grader. so you end up with highly motivated and energetic teachers fresh of out of college, most of whom are fairly unintelligent and don't know how to teach.

in a few years, they are still fairly unintelligent, have picked up some teaching techniques from experience, but are completely burned out and hardly care.

some modest solutions

ok, so this is basically a lot of rambling, but i'm trying to point out that there are a lot of aspects to having quality teachers. some of them are really out of the control of the teachers, and others can't really be purchased with higher salaries. so, of course, no easy answers.

some quick-hit solutions:
1.) try to equalize school funding. of course, this never works, because the rich districts are the politically powerful districts and they want part of their funding to go to poor intercity or rural districts where the money is really needed. but if we could at least get some funding to shore up crumbling poor schools and give some boost to the teachers who are near the poverty line

2.) try to revamp administration to make schools more independent and able to function in a vibrant way. face it: whether it's General Motors or the Detroit Public School system, massive organizations with sprawling bureaucracies don't function all that efficiently or adapt all that well.

jase71

11-11-2003, 06:13 PM

Well said, Whitak! :eek:

Originally posted by whitak24

i'm not really sure where more money would solve either #2 or #3, unless you could honestly buy teacher motivation through higher salaries. while i think you might get people somewhat more motivated to do a good job if they were highly paid, i don't think it's a silver bullet, by far.

Maybe I've had one too many beers to write this, but...

Here's my take on it... money won't buy motivation, but it can attract it.

The simple fact is, salary is a common measurement of prestige and importance. The prestige doesn't arise from the higher pay, but the pay is a tangible consequence of the prestige.

There will always be teachers who teach purely for the love of the job. They'd do it for free. They stick with the profession, regardless of hardship. They're the backbone, the core of our educational system.

And there will never, ever be enough of those people to entirely fill the teaching positions in our schools. Those types of teachers are precious, priceless, and extremely rare. We can't manufacture more of them, we can only take advantage of the ones we find.

That means the rest of the positions will be filled by people who do the job for reasons other than a natural love of the job. Not everyone does their job because they love it. Even teachers. Maybe because they're just good at it.. maybe because they like summers off... maybe because their parents did it. Who knows. Do you love your current job? Why do you have it?

That means we need to attract a large number of teachers, and we can't appeal solely to their love of the job. We want motivated, hard working, intelligent people. People bright enough to excel in other fields. We need to convince people to choose teaching over IT, medicine, law, accounting, etc...

And a $20K starting salary isn't going to do that. It'll work for the natual born teacher, but everyone else will nod and smile, and rush off for those IT jobs at $40-50-60-70K a year.

That means we end up filling those remaining teaching jobs out of the people who weren't quite good enough for the higher paying jobs. Our kids are taught by those who didn't make the cut elsewhere. Our school system is the product of 30 years of that problem.

Want better teachers? We need to attract those better people to teach. Teaching needs a shot in the arm. It needs prestige. It needs to pay at least almost as well as other career choices. Not to motivate current teachers, but to attract the bright young stars who would otherwise go elsewhere. With the higher pay scale, and better applicants, we can in turn raise our expectations for teachers.

1.) Make it harder to be a teacher. Gradually, of course. More credits in college. Make teaching programs tough to get into. Minimum GPA to be certified to teach. Bachelors to teach K-8 (already required in most states), and a Masters to teach High School. Or a Masters within X many years... Make becoming a teacher gruelling. Make it a boot camp to weed out the non-motivated. Pay them more, but make them earn the right to be paid more.

2.) The carrot or the stick. Make it easier to both reward AND fire teachers. Higher starting salaries. Bonuses like other professions for good test score results (or whatever metric you choose). Big raises if you deserve a big raise. And a swift kick out the door if you don't. I want my kid's teacher to make (and be worth) $100K a year. Or more. I want him rewarded if scores shoot up, or more students go on to college. And I want him fired if they consistently fall. Treat teachers like CEOs. Big rewards for success, and the door for failure. No more tenure. No more contracts. Better a great teacher for 5 years at $100K a year than a mediocre teacher for life a $30K a year.

3.) No more summers off. Mandatory continuing education during the summers. This goes hand-in-hand with the required Masters up above. You're either teaching summer school, or you're in school yourself. Got a Masters in English? Get started on History. Got history? Get going on Psychology then. No end. It'll also help kill off the "summers off slackers" stereotype.

4.) Less focus on graduation rates and standarized tests. Let teachers fail students without fear of costing the school money for having lower graduation rates. Right now there's an incentive to let them slide on through to boost numbers. We're so busy gathering statistics that we've skewed the process to match them. Now, we aim for statistical goals rather than educational ones. No more standardized tests. Time for a high school graduation test, with a written segment, and an oral segment. No multiple choice. No study guides.

And all this will be expensive as hell. No denying it. But it's about priorities. We can keep slashing budgets, and then slashing again when things get worse... rinse, lather and repeat.. Or, we can take a bold step and actually shake things up and try and fix them.

molecularfire

11-11-2003, 06:31 PM

that's great that they were able to. you think that people who work at mcdonalds can do that? some people have their priorities straight - food, shelter, health insurance. some people can't do any more than that.
With the govt. programs that are currently available, you can provide food, shelter, and health insurance for a family of 7 making about $20,000/year. You wouldn’t be able to afford much else, but this I know for a fact is possible from my own personal childhood. My parents gave up better paying jobs in order to make sure that they were always there for us… mostly because they were smart enough to realize that in our neighborhood, it’s really easy for a child to hang out with the wrong group of people and end up dead.

who says they're not taking responsibility? tehy can teach them all tehy wnat at home, when they are all home together at the end of the day and on weekends, but that doesn't excuse the fact that public schools - and remember, EVERY CHILD IS REQUIRED TO ATTEND SCHOOL - are working against parents best efforts by being ineffective, unsafe, inhospitable, recess-less, unstimulating cesspools. IT'S NOT OKAY.
What parents teach at home shouldn’t be how to do math or speak french. What they should teach their children is to put the burden of your life on yourself, not on other people. Not to care what other children think and do what you know is right. To look to the future and sacrifice a little fun now for it. No argument about public schools being bad. I came from a public school in the nonprosperous side of town. Do you know what made the school really bad? It was the students. IMO increasing teacher’s salaries (which I do think we should do) isn’t going to attract the best and brightest when students are pretty much allowed to beat the crap out of a teacher whenever they get into the mood. In my junior high and high school, I knew two teachers who got beaten up by their students (one of whom landed in the hospital) and about some twenty odd instances where a teacher was threatened in class. None of those incidents (including the beatings) involved a student getting kicked out of school. I agree with the people who say that throwing money at the schools won’t fix the problems. I do think that pumping money in will help the situation and them taking money out of the schools is going to make it worse… but the simple fact is if they want to make these schools better… the most effective way is to deal with the bad students (bad=mean, not dumb). Give teachers some actual power.

yeah, those lazy 7-year-olds, hungry (because a kid should eat about every 2-3 hours) dehydrated since they can't get a drink any time they need, and unable to go to the bathroom when they want to, are really milking that lame excuse for all it's worth.
Actually, I wasn’t even thinking of school for that young an age. I’m thinking more along the lines of junior high and high school because to be honest, I don’t even remember my elementary school years. However, I know students from foreign countries who come here and basically annihilated us in the class… so I question whether we are pushing our younger students as far as would be optimal.

kids' attention spans are short. they do less and less well as the day wears on. want scientific proof? i'll produce it. why should it be okay to make it be so damned hard for kids to learn? it wouldn't take much money to make schools MUCH better places.
Really… kid’s attention spans are short? people’s ability to learn decreases over the course of the day as they wear down? No duh!!! Of course you get tired and your studying becomes less efficient. I would like to argue though that you are going to learn a lot more studying at 50% efficiency than goofing off at 100% efficiency. As for it not taking much more money to make schools much better places, I completely agree. I think our society’s mentality for fixing problems is to not look at what the problems are and just throw money at the situation. The main problem with our educational system is the lack of communication between parents and teachers. The view that our children deserve to get a good education (which I agree with) and so we should whine about it till we get it without us having to put in the effort (which I don’t agree with). I’m not saying that you are this way… I am saying however, that that is the predominant view in the neighborhood that I grew up in. Heck, the seven of us (our of 400+) who actually went to four year universities were pushed very very hard by our parents who spent a significant part of every single day preaching to us about the importance of education.

and tell me which countries have longer school days? european schools have shorter ones. even eastern european ones. and all the mid-eastern ones i can think of. and african. and australian. i suppose asian HIGH SCHOOLS have longer days. but the grade schools? i don't know how long their school days are, but i know they incorporate exercise, music, art, etc into the day... things that are dying quickly in a lot of american schools, especially for the younger kids.
Actually, I was thinking about high schools. I’ll look up information on elementary schools. If you do have any links, I’d be interested in giving them a once over.

where the hell do you think you are getting this from? NOBODY here is advocating an attitude of "my kid's messed up and it's not my fault, it's because of the schools!" public schools are degenerating. we want them better. is it not reasonable to expect that a place we are required to send our children do at least as well as a romanian orphanage? that's all anyone is asking... they keep the cockroaches off em, sure, but i'd like to see a little bit better.
I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t put more effort and money into schools. I’m a very big proponent of increasing funding into education. However, at least form my personal experience, there are a lot of people who use the “my kid’s messed up and it’s not my fault, it’s because of the schools” excuse. However, that isn’t the point. I was refering to the where she posted that it’s not the parent’s job to teach their children academic information. My response was that IMO she was looking at the problem wrong. One thing that I think a lot of parents make a mistake in is that they don’t get their children to buy into the extreme importance of an education. For example, my parents preached to me the importance of an education several times a conversation, bribed me to do well, punished me severely when I did badly, and took their time picking up topics to learn for themselves to motivate me to study (I was one of those kids who only followed leaders who led by example). That was all I was getting at. I was in no way saying that I think our educational system is perfect. Heck, IMO the only thing more pathetic than our educational system are our justice system and our marriage system.

Nija

11-11-2003, 06:49 PM

sorry, but i just had to post something short to break up the essay's that people are writing.

here's to resting your eyes :cheers:

BTW, good arguements all-a-round :)

Merlin

11-11-2003, 07:00 PM

:stupid: Short posts can be good.

ray

11-11-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Merlin
:stupid: Short posts can be good.
but longer is better.....Mojo is a dirty slut? :bigmouth: :rolleyes: :D

molecularfire

11-11-2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Merlin
:stupid: Short posts can be good.
:stupid: Sorry, didn't realize how long it was going to be till after I posted it.

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by molecularfire
snip

and i'm saying that even when parents give their kids all necessary components like respect, ambition, a desire to work hard and succeed... schools are getting so bad that that may not be enough.

(that's the only point of mine you may have missed.)

molecularfire

11-11-2003, 07:29 PM

I didn't miss that point... I just disagree with it. I do think a lot of schools are crappy. However, I also think the main things that life throws at you to get you to fail are excuses. My high school sucked. To make up for that, I took classes at a local JC. By the time I got to college, I had enough units to shave a year off of college and was ahead of the richer kids and their pathetic AP credits that I kicked their butts on the curve. Should I have had to... no. But, I was not going to use the fact that my school was crappy to excuse my failure.

I promised myself long ago,
never to walk in anyone's shadow.
If I should fall, if I succeed.
I have no one to blame it on but me.

whitak24

11-11-2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by jase71
*snipped*
good points jase.

actually, as i was writing, similar thoughts were going through my head: that we need some way to make teaching prestigious. but i'm not sure if that is enough. here's why:

teaching takes a certain kind of caring; more than just the simple caring of "if i do a good enough job, i'll get a $10k bonus". completely unsatisified teachers who are just there for the prestige will do no better than unsatisified teachers who are there for the summers off.

but i guess you kind of addressed this with your point that we will never be able to find enough people who would teach simply for the love of teaching and because they want to do it.

i guess what i was trying to suggest is that to really improve the quality of teaching we need to improve the quality of the work environment so that more people love teaching and will do well because of that.

but in the meantime, i would agree that making teaching a top-notch profession along the lines of IT or law would be a good strategy to follow. i suppose you have to look at it this way: no amount of money, legislation, regulation or public service announcements is going to make parents and students ready to be an active part of contributing to the learning process. but pay and requirements for teachers is something we can change by fiat.....so i guess we can start there.

welfareloser

11-11-2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by molecularfire
I didn't miss that point... I just disagree with it.

i'll have to disagree back. some people simply don't know that their education sucks. some people don't have access to a junior college.

and i think i need to restate this again... just because you CAN overcome a crappy education doesn't make a crappy education acceptable. it's absolutely unacceptable. it's worth complaining about and trying to change. doing so is not making excuses.

brainsmile

11-11-2003, 10:48 PM

well it'd be nice to raise all levels of expectation at all schools

Jcranmer

11-12-2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by zenbooty
No flame, but I will say that of course hindsight is 20/20. But these people ARE having kids, have ALWAYS HAD kids, and WILL ALWAYS HAVE kids, just like all other strata of the population. The urge to procreate often overpowers abstract financial reasoning, especially amongst the career McDonalds employee set. And since we have to assume that they WILL have kids, and these kids WILL become a burden on society if not educated, it is up to our public education system to provide these kids some kind of real opportunity to learn.

Being a scold and saying, "You shouldn't have children!" may point to one solution to the problem, but it is not a realistic solution unless social engineering on a grand scale (bad thing) is what you're into.

Believe it or not I do agree with what you are saying 100%. The comment I made was in no way something that is ever going to happen. I just wish more people would be responsable for their actions and at least think things through fully before deciding to have children. I have known too many people in my life that can hardly afford to feed themselves, keep having kids every couple of years and then complain when the school system has an "in service" day or holiday, because their "free" (not really so free) babysitter (the school) isn't in service that day.

Jcranmer

11-12-2003, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by welfareloser

awful lot of people in this thread with tunnel vision... well MY parents did it, so everyone can! well, if they're not as good as me, they need to go away!

Aside from the other issues, I will say this. I have personal experence with this. My Mother, (a single mother) worked at McDonalds to support me since birth. She was one of those career McD's employees, they don't (Or at least didn't) make squat. We were very poor when I was growing up and things were not easy for either of us. Having this much of a personal experence with it is where some of my comments come from. People just need to think more about their finicial situation before having children.

welfareloser

11-12-2003, 07:10 AM

yes. it isn't cool to have kids you can't afford. and the free ride isn't what it used to be - once you are on welfare, more kids will not increase your benefits one bit. (at least, that's how it was in 2000, that may have changed.)

the tunnel vision remark was aimed at those who were clearly stating that anyone who couldn't overcome the difficulty was somehow lazy and unworthy, and most of all inferior to them, and that people who couldn't afford the best of everything shouldn't have kids.

guiseppewv

11-12-2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by molecularfire
I didn't miss that point... I just disagree with it. I do think a lot of schools are crappy. However, I also think the main things that life throws at you to get you to fail are excuses. My high school sucked. To make up for that, I took classes at a local JC. By the time I got to college, I had enough units to shave a year off of college and was ahead of the richer kids and their pathetic AP credits that I kicked their butts on the curve. Should I have had to... no. But, I was not going to use the fact that my school was crappy to excuse my failure.

I promised myself long ago,
never to walk in anyone's shadow.
If I should fall, if I succeed.
I have no one to blame it on but me.

I totally agree with the main point of your post: Take responsibility for yourself. Even if you don't have everything handed to you that doesn't mean that you can just give up.

I went to a private school, and no my family is not rich. Actually when I started going to private school (freshman year in HS) my family was barely scraping by. The one thing I really liked about private school was that if you needed disciplined you got it. It was nothing for them to suspend you from sports, give you work detail (equivalent of detention except with physical labor involved), or just give you a smack if you deserved it. And as far as the education I received I was head and shoulders above the competition when I got to college.

ray

11-12-2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Jcranmer

People just need to think more about their finicial situation before having children.

But, but. I thought public schools were supposed to take care of our children while we worked

I couldn't agree with you more. In short, many people don't plan for the future. Why are they having kids if they can barely support themselves on a financial level?

welfareloser

11-12-2003, 09:33 AM

dude, everyone agrees with that point. nobody here thinks it's okay for people to be having kids they can't afford (just in case you thought otherwise...)

ray

11-12-2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by welfareloser
dude, everyone agrees with that point. nobody here thinks it's okay for people to be having kids they can't afford (just in case you thought otherwise...)

All I'm saying is that there are many people out there that will blame society, the government and anybody else they can think of for their problems. People make excuses for their problems and never burden the responsibilities of life.

I'm not even referring to the educational system anymore. I'm talking on a much broader level. There were times when I never wanted to admit fault or responsibility, especially as a child. But as I grew older I realized that every decision I made was my choice and that if something went terribly wrong I couldn't blame it on someone else.

attgig

11-12-2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by welfareloser
a single person, no. poverty level for one person is $8980. every teacher makes more than that per year... but jsut barely. teh minimum starting salary for a teacher with a bachelor's degree is 10,000. for five years experience, it's 11,000. for 8 years, 11,600.

go an extra year, get a master's... that'll get you 11,000, 12,250, 13,000 and 13,750 at 0, 5, 8 and 13 years.

if the districts are really handing out minimums...that really sucks.
but i really find it hard to believe that schools would actually be able to hire ANYBODY with salaries like that.

http://www.alaska.com/akcom/trivia/trivcom/biz/story/2563621p-2613523c.html

Beginning teacher salaries for 2000-01
Alaska $36,293
California 33,121
New York 32,772
Nevada 29,413
U.S. average 28,986
Oregon 27,903
Washington 27,284
Colorado 26,479
Wyoming 24,651
Montana 21,728
North Dakota 20,675

http://www.theadvertiser.com/news/html/A0248961-FCAE-4CDB-99A9-95FF4836AB8C.shtml

California heads the list of pay, with teachers making an average of $53,870 a year. Connecticut, New York, Michigan and New Jersey are the top five states in average pay. South Dakota is at the bottom of the list with $31,295 in average teacher pay.

obviously, i came from a state where teacher pay is really good.
but the disparity between states don't bother me as much. However, what bugs me is that there needs to be less of a disparity between school districts inside the same state.
people working in the tough inner cities shouldn't be getting paid less than those working in the rich neighborhoods where local tax brings in enough money to pay teachers 50% or more.

also, someone mentioned that administrators are getting WAY overpaid. I agree. no doubt. Administrators got paid 6 figures easy in my old school district and what do they really do???
shrug.

Cantacuzene

11-12-2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by lilbigblue

All I'm saying is that there are many people out there that will blame society, the government and anybody else they can think of for their problems. People make excuses for their problems and never burden the responsibilities of life.

Actually, no one really does that. Conservatives keep saying that because it makes themselves feel better about themselves.

attgig

11-12-2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by lilbigblue
I'm not even referring to the educational system anymore. I'm talking on a much broader level. There were times when I never wanted to admit fault or responsibility, especially as a child. But as I grew older I realized that every decision I made was my choice and that if something went terribly wrong I couldn't blame it on someone else.

lebron james gets a hummer, figuring out that if his mom gets it through the bank somehow...he's cool with amatuer rules.

lebron james gets a few sets of throwback jerseys from the local store. oh! but i didn't realize that that would screw with my amatuer status!

bbrian

11-12-2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by lilbigblue

But as I grew older I realized that every decision I made was my choice and that if something went terribly wrong I couldn't blame it on someone else.

Right, every decision YOU make is YOUR choice, but in Florida kids are being TOLD they will not have school on Monday's anymore. For most parents it would be a major life changing event to take off work on Monday's to teach their children. I know my work would show me the door and tell me not to come back.

It would be a huge change for us. There are many things to consider when quitting work to take care of child.. would you have to move to afford house payments? what is the quality of neighborhood for the cheaper house? would that put you in a different school district? Is that district better/worse? etc etc.. everyone makes it sound SO easy to just stop working and pick up the slack where the government has just decided to quit. If a lot of parents did this it would be a further drain on the economy by the reduced expeditures from those households. That household would also contribute less to income tax for the state and fed government. There is a cascading affect to changes like this that government doesn't consider.

whitak24

11-12-2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by attgig
http://www.alaska.com/akcom/trivia/trivcom/biz/story/2563621p-2613523c.html

Beginning teacher salaries for 2000-01
Alaska $36,293

generally, alaska is a poor state to pull numbers from because cost of living is so incredibly high there. i mean, people make $8 or $9/hour working at mcdonald's up there.

generally, though, i think your point is right on that the gap between the highest-paid districts and the lowest-paid districts are what's more important

welfareloser

11-12-2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by attgig

if the districts are really handing out minimums...that really sucks.
but i really find it hard to believe that schools would actually be able to hire ANYBODY with salaries like that.

http://www.alaska.com/akcom/trivia/trivcom/biz/story/2563621p-2613523c.html

Beginning teacher salaries for 2000-01
Alaska $36,293
California 33,121
New York 32,772
Nevada 29,413
U.S. average 28,986
Oregon 27,903
Washington 27,284
Colorado 26,479
Wyoming 24,651
Montana 21,728
North Dakota 20,675

http://www.theadvertiser.com/news/html/A0248961-FCAE-4CDB-99A9-95FF4836AB8C.shtml

obviously, i came from a state where teacher pay is really good.
but the disparity between states don't bother me as much. However, what bugs me is that there needs to be less of a disparity between school districts inside the same state.
people working in the tough inner cities shouldn't be getting paid less than those working in the rich neighborhoods where local tax brings in enough money to pay teachers 50% or more.

also, someone mentioned that administrators are getting WAY overpaid. I agree. no doubt. Administrators got paid 6 figures easy in my old school district and what do they really do???
shrug.

plenty of places are handing out the minimum. my friend mindy taught science in ashton, IL last year... $10,000. she isn't a real teacher (she has BS in forestry.) they couldn't get a real teacher. they were lucky, tho... mindy worked her butt off and did a wonderful job for those kids.

the average sounds fine... half the teachers are making below average. teachers in rich districts in chicago, edwardsville, collinsville, carbondale, bloomington-normal, etc can make 40-60,000 to start... then there are places like alton, east st louis, and hundreds of small communities where the minimum is all they can offer, and nobody's taking them up on the offer.

did i mention that a certain president (yes, him personally) just singlehandedly destroyed the Teach for America program, which paid motivated college graduates a reasonable (but by no means extravagant) amount to teach in underserved areas?

as for administrators... our new governor is taking a WORLD of crap for his radical move... he simply made all mid-level administrative jobs DISAPPEAR. it's awesome! all these people making 60,000 - 120,000 (or more!) per year are no longer getting paid to do whatever the heck it was they did... and somehow, the schools aren't suffering... but man, did that get him on the teacher's union sh**list, because many of them aspired to someday getting one of those sweet sweet jobs in an airconditioned office all by themselves at twice the pay to make a few phone calls and shuffle a few papers...

welfareloser

11-12-2003, 02:01 PM

why, did you say something stupid? lemme go check, i'll be back w/ flamethrower if need be...

EDIT: bah, you're fine... too bad...

attgig

11-12-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by whitak24
generally, alaska is a poor state to pull numbers from because cost of living is so incredibly high there. i mean, people make $8 or $9/hour working at mcdonald's up there.

yeah...they gave pretty good statistics (easiest to find at least) from the 2000-2001 school season.

"Source: U.S. Department of Education "

attgig

11-12-2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by welfareloser
the average sounds fine... half the teachers are making below average. teachers in rich districts in chicago, edwardsville, collinsville, carbondale, bloomington-normal, etc can make 40-60,000 to start... then there are places like alton, east st louis, and hundreds of small communities where the minimum is all they can offer, and nobody's taking them up on the offer.

yup. agreed. that sucks. rural areas. inner cities. teachers aren't getting paid enough. I personally have more of a passion for the inner cities, where the average class sizes are larger (more kids being affected), and much crime exists. these kids need to be given more of an opportunity to succeed. they need the best teachers.

did i mention that a certain president (yes, him personally) just singlehandedly destroyed the Teach for America program, which paid motivated college graduates a reasonable (but by no means extravagant) amount to teach in underserved areas?

i don't know about singlehandedly:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,476274,00.html

Just before the summer recess, the Senate passed a $100 million appropriation to restore these cuts, but House majority leader Tom DeLay—who has made no secret of his desire to kill AmeriCorps—blocked the money. The President says he wants these funds restored, but he doesn't seem to have much control over the powerful DeLay.

I have a few friends who were involved with teach for america coming out of college. (they've now moved out of the inner cities and into other areas to teach). it does suck and they need funding to bring more people into teaching.

as for administrators... our new governor is taking a WORLD of crap for his radical move... he simply made all mid-level administrative jobs DISAPPEAR. it's awesome! all these people making 60,000 - 120,000 (or more!) per year are no longer getting paid to do whatever the heck it was they did... and somehow, the schools aren't suffering... but man, did that get him on the teacher's union sh**list, because many of them aspired to someday getting one of those sweet sweet jobs in an airconditioned office all by themselves at twice the pay to make a few phone calls and shuffle a few papers...

good for the governor. that's what we need. that's what other states need to do as well. And screw the teachers unions who oppose that. Teacher unions have to conceed these useless mid-level jobs that have no effect on the kids.

and YOSS you're fine. we all agree.

welfareloser

11-12-2003, 05:05 PM

don't trust a word time magazine says. any issue i know personally about, they distort. i can only assume that they do the same to things where i don't know any better.

bush is covering his butt. he was a big talker about americorps/tfa, and could have easily restored the money. he didn't. but since he didn't actually make the cut, he can pretend he's soooo sorry.

here's newsweek's more truthful account:

bah. they want me to pay to retrieve the full text of the artricle - that's crap, since i already pay for the paper copy. here's the part they let me see...

June 30, 2003 Newsweek
Lip Service vs. National Service

Jonathan Alter

When I heard last week that President Bush and Congress were slashing AmeriCorps by 80 percent, my first reaction was to feel suckered. After his 2002 State of the Union Message, I wrote a column praising the president for promising to expand the program (which he placed under USA Freedom Corps) by 50 percent and attacking critics who made light of Bush's commitment. I actually believed that community service was important to this man, and that he saw it as a patriotic response to 9-11.

http://archives.newsbank.com/ar-search/we/Archives?p_action=search&p_theme=NWEC&p_product=NWEC&p_perpage=20&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_base=americorps&p_maxdocs=200&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&xcal_ranksort=4&xcal_useweights=yes&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_field_YMD_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_YMD_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&%5B+Search+%5D.x=54&%5B+Search+%5D.y=14

if i thought it was worth $2.95, i'd get the full article, which was quite damning.

welfareloser

11-12-2003, 05:16 PM

from the democrats...

Bush Turns His Back on 'Service' Despite Critical Need and Widespread Support

Representative Miller dismayed by Bush’s failure to
make good on his ‘AmeriCorps’ pledge

Tuesday, July 8, 2003

NOTE: Last night, the Administration submitted a list of critical needs items it would like Congress to fund immediately related to the current fiscal year, not next year’s appropriations, such as disaster relief activities and wildfire suppression. However, the Administration did not include a request for emergency funding to plug the gap in the current year AmeriCorps budget caused by accounting errors.

WASHINGTON -- In response to the President Bush’s failure to request funds to stem the devastating cuts to the AmeriCorps program as part of a pending federal spending bill, the top Democrat on the House panel that oversees AmeriCorps issued the following statement today.

“President Bush has broken his pledge to support AmeriCorps. The President’s failure to request the additional funds necessary to restore the nearly 60 percent funding cut to AmeriCorps will be devastating. In California, AmeriCorps programs will suffer a 65 percent cut, eliminating more than 2,000 service members.

AmeriCorps is a first-rate program that has met the critical needs of our communities and our country. I am dismayed that the President would allow the accounting errors and mismanagement of the Corporation for National and Community Service executives, who oversee AmeriCorps, to penalize thousands of innocent Americans who wish to serve their country, and penalize the people who benefit from their good work.

“President Bush’s failure to make good on his pledge also underscores a troubling pattern by this Administration of telling the American public one thing and doing something completely different. In his 2004 budget request, President Bush called for increasing the number of AmeriCorps volunteers from 50,000 to 75,000. Yet, today, less than six months later, the President has essentially signed off on an anemic 28,000-member AmeriCorps program. That is a disgrace.

“I will continue to fight to restore funding to AmeriCorps and to hold the President accountable to his pledge.”

http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel7803.html

from http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/20/americorps/index_np.html

Bush's empty rhetoric on AmeriCorps
The president says he wants the program to expand. But his silence about GOP efforts to cut its funding speaks volumes.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Ben Fritz

June 20, 2003 | I finished my 10 months in the AmeriCorps' National Civilian Community Corps (AmeriCorps is made up of hundreds of smaller programs; mine involved teams of young people who traveled around a region of the country doing short-term service projects) truly believing in the program. And that's why, despite the talk of war and deficits and recession, I finished watching President Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech with a smile on my face. "Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities," he said. "We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers."

Despite the continuing opposition of some in his party -- a few of whom even laughably claimed AmeriCorps members are in it for the money! -- I really believed that Bush got it. As a former governor, he had seen AmeriCorps programs working at the ground level. And as president in the wake of the greatest national disaster in decades, he knew that a renewed sense of national unity, one that took American's patriotism beyond waving flags and shopping to stimulate the economy and actually put it into action, was needed. While he wanted to put the name of his own agency, USA Freedom Corps, over it, it seemed clear Bush believed in the ethic of service and the important role of government in fostering it.

A year and a half later, though, the headlines tell a very different story. "AmeriCorps Announces Major Cuts," the Washington Post reported Tuesday. Bush has been promising to increase AmeriCorps by 50 percent, but now it turns out that a dispute over accounting and cuts in funding may force the program to do the very opposite of what Bush promised: shrink by almost half. Already, the director of AmeriCorps has sent a memo detailing how she would have to cut support for state programs from about 16,000 positions to just 3,000.

ray

11-12-2003, 05:19 PM

Press release Feb 2003

http://www.nationalservice.org/news/pr/020303.html

Press release Oct 2003

http://www.nationalservice.org/news/pr/103003.html

The above press releases were taken directly from the Americorps/Corporation for National & Community Service website.

I don't see any press releases about the President slashing Americorps by 80%. I'm sure that would have been rather important news for Americorps. In fact, Bush did already sign the bill to provide over 900M in funding to the Corporation and over 400M to the Americorps program. It is Congress who is not forking the dough over, according to the 2nd article.

Merlin

11-12-2003, 06:16 PM

Wow I can't believe this thread is still going. Hopefully it will burn out soon.

TofuNinja

11-12-2003, 07:18 PM

Just to chime in.. I'll try my best to keep it from a 'word soap' :)

For all the faults that our education system has, and it does have a lot, the schools are not a business. Schools need to make the best products out of a mixture of ingredients. A business can pick and choose the parts that it uses, schools can not. It would be nice ot have classes full of welfarelosers, cantas, and lilbigblues. Students that are highly motivated and have the will and drive to succeeed, but the sad fact is that we don't. Our students are all different levels and types. We have ADD, ADHD, ELL, ESL, ELD, Special day, Gate, AP, IB, Honors, at risk, etc etc. And everyone expects that these kids will all get the same kind of education.

Teachers for the most part try their best. But sometimes that is just not good enough. Sad but true. It is hard to manage a class with 10 honor/AP/IB/Gate students all going on one level and 5 English language learners going at a slower level, and the rest of the class going at an average level. It is hard and teachers try their best.

Before you rip the teachers (and yes tehre are many bad ones but just as many or mroe good ones too), try teaching a class. You think it's easy? Walk in a teacher's shoes. It is not as easy as everyone (in general not anyone here :) ) thinks.

opps it's a bit long... oh well :)

BTW: I like this thread. very entertaining and it is good to see people's views on education. and I agree with Canta's original post. It is sad that Florida is cutting a day out of the week... only question is, how are the making up the hours? Is the school day longer? If not then they are wrong and will have their federal aide cut.