Education...
- Thread starter *bratcat*
- Start date
Gday bratcat,
He is well and truely fucking the US up. Take a look at the US its slowly going down the toilet. To much of being spent of weapons of destruction, that money should be put into healthcare and edcucation. Make peace not War begins at home. Us society is slowy breaking down.
What happened to the old values?
Peter
He is well and truely fucking the US up. Take a look at the US its slowly going down the toilet. To much of being spent of weapons of destruction, that money should be put into healthcare and edcucation. Make peace not War begins at home. Us society is slowy breaking down.
What happened to the old values?
Peter
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Is this coincidental? Or is this a continuation fo the Bizarre Lit Day?*bratcat* said:
As you well know, I think he's a moving, grooving catastrophe in almost any regard imaginable. Badly intentioned, poorly informed, malevolent, and extremely dangerous. His education policies are a Trojan Horse for weakening the public school system. Testing sounds like a good idea. It would be fabulous to hold educators accountable. But in a nation whose schools are funded with profound inequality by local tax bases, Bush and his pals would punish the schools that fare consistently badly on tests. They'll be replaced with charter schools. I think it might make more sense to fund and staff the schools before they race to pull the plug on them. Poor peoples' schools have MORE problems than rich peoples' schools, and need more help and attention - not some illiterate preppie looking to pull the plug on them to curry favor with his religious pals.
GuyJD
"Simply.....the best"
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2000
- Posts
- 4,898
THINK BACK INTO THE PAST A LITTLE
I think it's funny. Throughout most of history, the media often made fun of our vice presidents. Everytime Dan Quale opened his mouth, he was criticized and made fun of. Gerald Ford was labelled as the "clumpsy vice president". And when he was vice president, George Bush was considered a whimp. Now that his son has taken over the job, the media labels him the "DUNCE". Considering he ran a business into the ground and played a major part in the junk bond scams. It looks as if he scammed the country again with the presidential election just so that he can prove that he can.
Duo said:Gday bratcat,
He is well and truely fucking the US up. Take a look at the US its slowly going down the toilet. To much of being spent of weapons of destruction, that money should be put into healthcare and edcucation. Make peace not War begins at home. Us society is slowy breaking down.
What happened to the old values?
Peter
I think it's funny. Throughout most of history, the media often made fun of our vice presidents. Everytime Dan Quale opened his mouth, he was criticized and made fun of. Gerald Ford was labelled as the "clumpsy vice president". And when he was vice president, George Bush was considered a whimp. Now that his son has taken over the job, the media labels him the "DUNCE". Considering he ran a business into the ground and played a major part in the junk bond scams. It looks as if he scammed the country again with the presidential election just so that he can prove that he can.
Typical Canadian, always wanting to come start shit with the people of the U.S. (couldn't resist *bratcat*)
Don't care for the man myself, though I was told not to say anything at all, if I didn't have anything NICE to say about someone.
Don't care for the man myself, though I was told not to say anything at all, if I didn't have anything NICE to say about someone.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
ok, Brat - I'll try....
I don't have kids, so this is slightly academic (hehe). A few years ago, testing schoolchilden to gauge the performances of their schools became rhe hot new thing. Punish the bad schools became the battle cry. Clinton ws as guilty of this as anyone, I seem to recall. The contradiction is that US public schools are generally funded by local taxes, so wealthy communities have lavishly funded schools, and poor ones have crap. State aid, where I live, actually goes more to the suburbs per student than to NYC, where dwell many immigrant children, who need remedial English, among many other things.
So testing is generally going to identify schools that any idiot could guess would be weak. FLASH: Alabama schools suck! And that doesn't even ask what the testing standards will be. The fact is that teachers aren't paid all that much because no one thinks it's worth it, and class sizes are too large, which hinders kids from learning. Do people want to fix these problems? No - they want to find villains to punish while they look concerned, and this is an area where both liberals and conservatives suck because parents tend not to want to pay for real improvements, or equalize the tax discrepancies.
The upshot will be that minority schools in poor neighborhoods are all going to flunk these tests. Bush's solution would be so-called charter schools, privately run, often religious, which would get tax-backed vouchers to teach kids whose schools have "failed" them. The only likely economic gain is that teachers' unions will be busted as non-union teachers replace the public school brand (I was taught by nuns who beat me for telling them that Arkansas did not rhyme with Kansas, so I'm skeptical). There's a minority public district in Long Island, NY that was recently seized by the state because the local board couldn't improve its record. But the state doesn't really want it. There's no money in the local tax base to improve it. No one wants to spend state money to fix it. So now they'll merely stop complaining about it, as the embarrassment will be theirs. The kids won't learn any more than they did before. Because no one really cares, except maybe the local parents and the local kids, both powerless.
Bush will play this issue the way he plays everything else - for politics, not for genuine solutions. Sit back and watch him ooze compassion. I'll be holding my stomach and hoping that nothing changes, even though the present system is dreadful.
I don't have kids, so this is slightly academic (hehe). A few years ago, testing schoolchilden to gauge the performances of their schools became rhe hot new thing. Punish the bad schools became the battle cry. Clinton ws as guilty of this as anyone, I seem to recall. The contradiction is that US public schools are generally funded by local taxes, so wealthy communities have lavishly funded schools, and poor ones have crap. State aid, where I live, actually goes more to the suburbs per student than to NYC, where dwell many immigrant children, who need remedial English, among many other things.
So testing is generally going to identify schools that any idiot could guess would be weak. FLASH: Alabama schools suck! And that doesn't even ask what the testing standards will be. The fact is that teachers aren't paid all that much because no one thinks it's worth it, and class sizes are too large, which hinders kids from learning. Do people want to fix these problems? No - they want to find villains to punish while they look concerned, and this is an area where both liberals and conservatives suck because parents tend not to want to pay for real improvements, or equalize the tax discrepancies.
The upshot will be that minority schools in poor neighborhoods are all going to flunk these tests. Bush's solution would be so-called charter schools, privately run, often religious, which would get tax-backed vouchers to teach kids whose schools have "failed" them. The only likely economic gain is that teachers' unions will be busted as non-union teachers replace the public school brand (I was taught by nuns who beat me for telling them that Arkansas did not rhyme with Kansas, so I'm skeptical). There's a minority public district in Long Island, NY that was recently seized by the state because the local board couldn't improve its record. But the state doesn't really want it. There's no money in the local tax base to improve it. No one wants to spend state money to fix it. So now they'll merely stop complaining about it, as the embarrassment will be theirs. The kids won't learn any more than they did before. Because no one really cares, except maybe the local parents and the local kids, both powerless.
Bush will play this issue the way he plays everything else - for politics, not for genuine solutions. Sit back and watch him ooze compassion. I'll be holding my stomach and hoping that nothing changes, even though the present system is dreadful.
HARDKOREBJ
sweet southern guy
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2000
- Posts
- 2,599
education
most schools suck.they are some good teacher out there that care.
most schools suck.they are some good teacher out there that care.
plasticman33
Tight Jeans
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 32,694
G.W. is a consumate politician, as is the rest of the family. All politicians are, at heart, used car salesmen. The IQ level of the American electorate, is at the same level as people who purchase used cars. Enough said?
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Re: so you are saying
Perhaps silence is your answer. The fact is that parents in wealthy towns in the NYC suburbs (I'm sure you've heard of Scarsdale) are boycotting the tests because the schools now spend too much time preparing the kids to do well on the tests, as opposed to teaching them course material. The academic program gets distorted by the testing, and the test results, of course, influence property values, since parents want to move to towns with the best schools. It's a typical American fuss with no one actually improving anything.*bratcat* said:
plasticman33
Tight Jeans
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2001
- Posts
- 32,694
12
livin_simple
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2000
- Posts
- 149
Our society rewards those things it values:
We value athletics, lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, car dealers.....
The list goes on and on.
It is a general fact that the most talented people end up where they can provide themselves and their family a better income and more of the 'stuff' that income allows them to have.
Teachers and education are not valued in our society. That is a general fact.
There was recently a program instituted in a rather rich school district in the Kansas City Kansas area that was trying to recruit people from other backgrounds to become teachers. Not the emergency certification program. This was intended to recruit subject matter experts to become educators. It would pay a stipend to people for a year while they took education classes, they would then be obligated to work in the district for a specified length of time.
The program appealed very strongly to me. I've got a love of teaching and happen to really enjoy (and be good at) math, physics, computers.....all that fun stuff. I thought this program would be a good way to let me head in a new career direction and - with the stipend, be able to meet my financial commitments during the transition period.
Then I checked deeper and found the salary schedule for teachers. I would have to work at least five years to make a gross income that equaled what I currently pay just in taxes! At the end of a long and satisfying 35 year career, I would be making about half of my current income. I simply cannot afford to enter the field of education.
We value athletics, lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, car dealers.....
The list goes on and on.
It is a general fact that the most talented people end up where they can provide themselves and their family a better income and more of the 'stuff' that income allows them to have.
Teachers and education are not valued in our society. That is a general fact.
There was recently a program instituted in a rather rich school district in the Kansas City Kansas area that was trying to recruit people from other backgrounds to become teachers. Not the emergency certification program. This was intended to recruit subject matter experts to become educators. It would pay a stipend to people for a year while they took education classes, they would then be obligated to work in the district for a specified length of time.
The program appealed very strongly to me. I've got a love of teaching and happen to really enjoy (and be good at) math, physics, computers.....all that fun stuff. I thought this program would be a good way to let me head in a new career direction and - with the stipend, be able to meet my financial commitments during the transition period.
Then I checked deeper and found the salary schedule for teachers. I would have to work at least five years to make a gross income that equaled what I currently pay just in taxes! At the end of a long and satisfying 35 year career, I would be making about half of my current income. I simply cannot afford to enter the field of education.
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
Shadowsource, you really need to read some research based articles about education and then you will see that much of what you said is simply wrong. I'll be happy to e-mail you articles that show that reducing class size alone doesn't make a significant difference in education. State and federal dollars are spent EQUALLY per student. The local school board supplements are where the discrepancy in funding happens.
The educational testing in the Bush plan is based on the TAAS model that was implemented in Texas. The tests are not norm-referenced tests like those used widely now. They will be criterion referenced tests. Meaning, the First grade test will only cover material that is taught in first grade. Schools will be given extra support if they are failing and as a last resort, students will be able to transfer to other schools.
Charter schools are a totally different concept. Charter schools are funded by local school boards, but are managed by PARENTS. Parents in an area can apply for a charter to run their school. There are certain assurances that must be met, but the management, hiring, etc. is done by the parents not the School Board.
When the issue was first brought up on the board, I did some research on the testing in Texas. As a teacher, a testing program similar to TAAS would be a welcome change.
The educational testing in the Bush plan is based on the TAAS model that was implemented in Texas. The tests are not norm-referenced tests like those used widely now. They will be criterion referenced tests. Meaning, the First grade test will only cover material that is taught in first grade. Schools will be given extra support if they are failing and as a last resort, students will be able to transfer to other schools.
Charter schools are a totally different concept. Charter schools are funded by local school boards, but are managed by PARENTS. Parents in an area can apply for a charter to run their school. There are certain assurances that must be met, but the management, hiring, etc. is done by the parents not the School Board.
When the issue was first brought up on the board, I did some research on the testing in Texas. As a teacher, a testing program similar to TAAS would be a welcome change.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Ok -
As for Bush's tests, I believe some of Jeb Bush's educational reforms in Florida crept into my analysis. I do follow these things, though. My position mainly is that the separate funding levels - with kids who have all the advantages also receiving more money, rquipment, higher paid teaches, etc. - is an absurd basis from which to judge test results. Iwish all of this had less to do with real estate values and more with literacy and critical thinking.
I hope these tests at least don't cause any harm. The existing tests have already led to cheating scandals - among teachers and principals. And I hope you're right, Morninggirl. I don't doubt that it's important to you.
But you DO agree that local funding is a bit of a problem, no? And in the case of my own fabulously goofy state (NY), the state aid is geared so that rural and suburban students receive a higher per-capita allotment than do students in my weird city. The same is true for transit. It has to do with the GOP running most everythng outside NYC, and everone tending to their fiefdoms.morninggirl5 said:
As for Bush's tests, I believe some of Jeb Bush's educational reforms in Florida crept into my analysis. I do follow these things, though. My position mainly is that the separate funding levels - with kids who have all the advantages also receiving more money, rquipment, higher paid teaches, etc. - is an absurd basis from which to judge test results. Iwish all of this had less to do with real estate values and more with literacy and critical thinking.
I hope these tests at least don't cause any harm. The existing tests have already led to cheating scandals - among teachers and principals. And I hope you're right, Morninggirl. I don't doubt that it's important to you.
BlondGirl
Aim for the Bullseye ; )
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2000
- Posts
- 2,092
<<<"
Because no one really cares, except maybe the local parents and the local kids, both powerless.
">>>
In every state in the union, there are educational choices. No parent is powerless when it comes to his/her child's education. Personal involvement seems to be the biggest fact that people wish to ignore.
And as far as the TAAS tests go, I download one every year for my kid to take. He typically does really well except on the stuff that he has never been exposed to--and then he has a good chance of getting the right answer.
The only thing a multiple choice test shows is how good the person is at taking multiple choice tests--actual knowledge is less of a factor.
I do think that accountability is important, but not by taking tests--I think that having more kids graduate and be employeed or accepted into college would be a true test.
What good is an "education" if the only thing you do with your "education time" is to party or be social?
(As far as Dub, I was pissed at his statement that local power must be supreme but then turned around and talked about federal funding--seems the private schools do a pretty good job without the federal funding leash.)
Because no one really cares, except maybe the local parents and the local kids, both powerless.
">>>
In every state in the union, there are educational choices. No parent is powerless when it comes to his/her child's education. Personal involvement seems to be the biggest fact that people wish to ignore.
And as far as the TAAS tests go, I download one every year for my kid to take. He typically does really well except on the stuff that he has never been exposed to--and then he has a good chance of getting the right answer.
The only thing a multiple choice test shows is how good the person is at taking multiple choice tests--actual knowledge is less of a factor.
I do think that accountability is important, but not by taking tests--I think that having more kids graduate and be employeed or accepted into college would be a true test.
What good is an "education" if the only thing you do with your "education time" is to party or be social?
(As far as Dub, I was pissed at his statement that local power must be supreme but then turned around and talked about federal funding--seems the private schools do a pretty good job without the federal funding leash.)
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
The current tests that are bandied about in the media are norm referenced tests. A score of 75 doesn't mean the student answered 75% of the questions correctly, it means that the student did better than 74% of the rest of the students taking the same test.
The tests Bush is proposing will be a test of the curriculum, a score of 75 will mean the student answered 75% of the items correctly.
This is VERY important to me. If my continued employment and salary is going to be based on test scores, then I want the test to reflect the curriculum I have taught in my classroom. The proposed tests will do that. They should also eliminate much of the bias that has existed in the tests.
You are correct that on the current tests, poor and minority students are at a disadvantage. While funding may be a small part of the equation, the scores more often reflect the experiences of the students. You only have to look at scores in one school district to understand this. My school has had very low scores and we serve students who live in poverty. Schools in our district with children from homes of high socio-economic levels score much higher on the standardized tests. The tests themselves are the problem and until you have a fair, non-biased test to make comparisons with, you can't make any real judgements about the teachers, funding inequities, or class sizes.
The tests Bush is proposing will be a test of the curriculum, a score of 75 will mean the student answered 75% of the items correctly.
This is VERY important to me. If my continued employment and salary is going to be based on test scores, then I want the test to reflect the curriculum I have taught in my classroom. The proposed tests will do that. They should also eliminate much of the bias that has existed in the tests.
You are correct that on the current tests, poor and minority students are at a disadvantage. While funding may be a small part of the equation, the scores more often reflect the experiences of the students. You only have to look at scores in one school district to understand this. My school has had very low scores and we serve students who live in poverty. Schools in our district with children from homes of high socio-economic levels score much higher on the standardized tests. The tests themselves are the problem and until you have a fair, non-biased test to make comparisons with, you can't make any real judgements about the teachers, funding inequities, or class sizes.
BlondGirl
Aim for the Bullseye ; )
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2000
- Posts
- 2,092
Oh yeah--I forgot to add--I always give my kid the test for kids who are 2 - 3 years older than him.
The only reasons I give these tests to him are so that he has the experience in bubble filling (a necessary skill in our society) and so that he has a clue about what the other kids are griping about.
The only reasons I give these tests to him are so that he has the experience in bubble filling (a necessary skill in our society) and so that he has a clue about what the other kids are griping about.
BlondGirl
Aim for the Bullseye ; )
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2000
- Posts
- 2,092
I have often wondered what would happen if a local, public funded school said fuck-you to the federal funds. How much money would be saved on not having to meet the silly hoop-jumping criteria that exists simply to satisfy the bureaucrats that don't even bother to interract with their own children on a regular basis. (This is my opinion based on the "rules" that are required--obviously wierd and non-practical in too many cases.)
Has any school district in the US elected to abandon the federal leash by saying no to the money?
What are the posibilities with this?
Has any school district in the US elected to abandon the federal leash by saying no to the money?
What are the posibilities with this?
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
BlondGirl said:
Without federal moneys, most public schools would be in serious troubles. Private schools do not have federal funds, but they also don't serve the full populations that public schools are mandated to serve. You won't find a class for children who are autistic, severely emotionally disturbed, profoundly intellectually disabled or speech/language impaired in a private school. Costs for serving one special ed child is easily four to five times that of one student in a regular education class.
Bush has said he will increase the reimbursement for special ed The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) included a provision that he federal government would pay 40% of the costs for each special ed student. The highest level of federal funding for special ed has been around 25% for mildly disabled students and much less for the rest.
Bush also said his plan would give local school boards more control over how they spend the money. Currently, most federal funds come earmarked for specific programs and can only be used in one manner. With more local control, the schools can decide how they want to spend the money to help address the needs of the students in their particular school.
One example of this that is already in place is Title I. Title I funds are federal funds for students who need remedial help in Reading or Math. During the 70's and 80's, students who qualified for the help were pulled out of the regular classroom and went to the Title I teacher for part of the day. Now schools can use this model or they can be a "school-wide Title I" school. In the "school-wide" model, the Title I money is used to hire more teachers and reduce class sizes OR to hire teachers specifically for reading and math OR for programs such as Reading Recovery. Each school board makes the determination for what the school needs.
