| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obvious to you perhaps. Obvious to all those blathering about how regulations are crippling business? Maybe not. They certainly don't seem to be making any real distinction in the rhetoric.
Fair enough. I concede to the fact that I don't view the world through the same eyes as many of you. My concerns about crippling business mostly lies more with small business which doesn't seem to get to play on an even field with the giant mega-corporations. This will happen by default because they don't have the same capitol but I believe that it's tilted way more because of the government playing favorites.
Removing the government from the equation will lead to even more problems as monopolies develop.
What do you mean by welfare? Just the SNAP program (food stamps, essentially) which is all that's really left of traditional welfare. Or the other benefits that poor and/or unemployed people can get: MEdicare, unemployment insurance, etc.
I don't mind assistance to get someone back on their feet. I don't believe that this should be available as a lifestyle. Growing up, we rented to a family (who were friends of ours) that totally mooched off the system. The spent [most of] their entire lives on welfare and often worked under the table to double up on income. I don't find this acceptable. When you hear common, everyday terms such "welfare warrior" and "funemployment", you know there's a problem with abuse.
What you're missing here is that these guys were working under the table. That's not a problem with welfare per se, that's a problem with these particular individuals who are scamming. I wouldn't even particularly call it scamming as they are working, technically. I work with people who are on welfare and cannot work due to disabilities(usually psychological, sometimes physical) and they are not living high on the hog in any way shape or form. I would rather see welfare be reworked than completely eliminated- it is drastically in need of being repaired.
What do you mean by welfare? Just the SNAP program (food stamps, essentially) which is all that's really left of traditional welfare. Or the other benefits that poor and/or unemployed people can get: MEdicare, unemployment insurance, etc.
Because frankly if that's your attitude I don't think you've ever been on welfare or known anyone who has. From what Because frankly if that's your attitude I don't think you've ever been on welfare or known anyone who has. From what I've seen it's miserable. You can eat and, if you're lucky, stay off the streets, but that's about it. And it's degrading. You have to beg for every scrap of assistance and prove over and over that you actually are in need, that you're not trying some kind of scam to get that $20. It's not some easy vacation where you just laze around because life is so great there's no point in working. ...
The problem is mostly due to the implementation of some of these programs. There's no reason besides pride to leave welfare to get a minimum-wage job when you are going to be taking a pay cut in doing so. No one should be allowed to free-load off the system and then receive better medical coverage than working citizens. I'm starting to sound like a broken record but I also find this unacceptable. I believe that giving money to people for doing nothing is a horribly bad solution to a problem.
Give these people jobs. There are parks that need cleaned, neighborhoods that could be watched for crime, public buildings that could use painted or cleaned, woodworking, sellable crafts and art, administrative work, educational assistance, computer skills etc. Everyone has skills and talents. We can make America a nicer, safer, cleaner place while giving pride to people who might normally feel degraded by not contributing.
The problem with this is that we already have people who work in these fields, and make a living doing so. Would you put them out of work because you feel what they do for a living isn't worth the amount of money they make? This is often the problem I encounter/have with people that have issues with welfare- there's always some field of business that will suffer because someone feels that what they are doing can be done by essentially unskilled labor for less.
Quick synopses of my life:
My mother was on welfare briefly after Reagan broke the air traffic controller's union which also had a profound effect on the grocery store unions. She lost a good paying job that she worked at for many years which made us about as poor as you could possibly be. We didn't stay on it long as she had too much pride. I grew up my entire life with a single mother making minimum wage. She also had too much pride to have child support raised on my father. We didn't live any better or worse than our welfare friends I mentioned earlier mostly due to child support or medical coverage for my older brother and I from my father.
A month before my 18th birthday, my mom had fallen in love and decided to move halfway across the country and get married. I decided to let her go and start living my life on my own. I spent my entire senior year of highschool on my own while working full time. I even had my own apartment before winter was through. I had no government assistance to fall back as I wasn't my own legal guardian until after graduation.
I decided that I needed to go to college to have a shot at living comfortably. No problem, right? I've been poor my entire life, I'll get a free ride. The government has got my back. Nope. My mom happened to marry someone who makes good money ... money that I all of a sudden have to claim as parental income even though I had only met the guy literally a few times in my life and couldn't even consider asking him or expecting financial assistance from him. Because of this, I received virtually no financial assistance for school and had to take loans that didn't even cover enough to pay for all of my tuition let alone books and lab fees.
Am I bitter about all of this? Maybe a little. But you know what? This made me the person that I am today. I worked hard, made mostly good choices and got slightly ahead [financially] in life. Thankfully, I even managed to keep my job when the economic crisis ravaged my area. I was only one of two people in my department who was spared out 15 employees. Everyone else wasn't so lucky and ended up jobless. I sort of feel that our irresponsible government played a huge hand in allowing such a crisis to happen and hit us as hard as it did. Maybe I'm wrong on this but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting.
Now before you say, "Cool story, bro", please note that I'm sharing this with you and everyone else here to give a baseline for why I feel the way I do. I succeeded possibly because I didn't really feel that I had a choice (especially when I accrued tens of thousands worth of student loan debt). I wasn't given anything. I wasn't even really offered anything. I feel that this made me a better person than I might have been. I'm proud of my accomplishments. I also freely admit that I lack a lot of sympathy for those who choose not to walk the same path and instead expect government hand-outs with no intention of ever working or putting in the effort to advance their income level enough to sustain themselves or their family. I hope this doesn't make me a douche.
My only question is, what of those who didn't succeed/make it/survive? Should they have failed/not made it/died because they weren't you or lived life the way you did? Sometimes you can make all the right decisions and still end up on the wrong side of life. A lot of times you can make the wrong decisions and end up on the right side of life. I'm not begrudging you your life, as we've all had struggles, and they do indeed make us the people we are. But just because your struggles made you who you are and my struggles made me who I am does not make you or I a better person than the other. If you want to turn a cold shoulder to those who haven't had the good fortune to be or think like you, that's your decision. All I can do is encourage you to change your mind and show some compassion.
You've been told how it isn't, and that doesn't mean anything to you. Cause you want it to be hypocrisy.Or because, again, you didn't address the argument and instead need to make insulting people with your mind reading powers your entire argument.
Newt Gingrich repeatedly says (and still says) over and over that we need moral leaders... and then isn't one. Democrats argue for ideas. You might not LIKE those ideas, but they're far less dependent on the person making them than the republicans alleged pushes for moral, christian character.
Democrats argue for ideas like "We are the 99%"? "You're just a racist"? "No human being is illegal"? "We've got to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"? Sarah Palin made the arguemnt that expanded government bureaucracy in medical care would lead to means testing and denial of services based on their expense, and intervention of government between a patient and doctor. And the return argument was "Death panels? Hahahahahahahah!" And yet, the government now refers to seniors as 'units' and has downplayed the importance of early warning for three prominent kinds of cancer. 40 years: early detection is the key to victory. Last two years: "Maybe hospice should eb a bigger part of the solution." "Maybe the best advice is a pain pill." "It doesn't always make sense to spend so much money in the last few years of life." That is the quality of ideas you're defending?
As regard addressing the argument, the argument was that I held Clinton and Gingirch to higher standards for infidelity. And I said very clearly, more than once, that I do not. COnservative ire towards Clinton was based on the dirty politics he played, the big government ideas he favored, and the fact that while accused of rape by multiple women, he committed perjury and manipulated the legal process to escape judgment. Those are the things we judged him for. I can't remember seeing ayone ever say "Gingrich cheated on his wife, but he's a conservative so it's okay with me." And you can't, either.
And Clinton's legal troubles didn't get unfairly uncovered during a witch hunt, the nation knew about them before he was elected, the media largely ignored them, and spin, demogoguery and personal narrative won over character and ideas. It wasn't the first time.
Monopolies? You mean like a growing federal presence that makes unfunded mandates about education and seeks ever increasing control?
We all know about those terrifying private education monopolies of the late 19th century and early 1900s. Back then, no one ever learned anything!
Sensei, I'm REALLY gonna need some sources here. Otherwise this is nothing but rhetoric. Also, source me the Sarah Palin quote- I have never heard her so eloquent in my life.
Also, I never said you said it was okay for Gingrich to cheat on his wife or anything, just that your argument implied that it was.
You've been told how it isn't, and that doesn't mean anything to you. Cause you want it to be hypocrisy.Or because, again, you didn't address the argument and instead need to make insulting people with your mind reading powers your entire argument.
Newt Gingrich repeatedly says (and still says) over and over that we need moral leaders... and then isn't one. Democrats argue for ideas. You might not LIKE those ideas, but they're far less dependent on the person making them than the republicans alleged pushes for moral, christian character.
Democrats argue for ideas like "We are the 99%"? "You're just a racist"? "No human being is illegal"? "We've got to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it"? Sarah Palin made the arguemnt that expanded government bureaucracy in medical care would lead to means testing and denial of services based on their expense, and intervention of government between a patient and doctor. And the return argument was "Death panels? Hahahahahahahah!" And yet, the government now refers to seniors as 'units' and has downplayed the importance of early warning for three prominent kinds of cancer. 40 years: early detection is the key to victory. Last two years: "Maybe hospice should eb a bigger part of the solution." "Maybe the best advice is a pain pill." "It doesn't always make sense to spend so much money in the last few years of life." That is the quality of ideas you're defending?
As regard addressing the argument, the argument was that I held Clinton and Gingirch to higher standards for infidelity. And I said very clearly, more than once, that I do not. COnservative ire towards Clinton was based on the dirty politics he played, the big government ideas he favored, and the fact that while accused of rape by multiple women, he committed perjury and manipulated the legal process to escape judgment. Those are the things we judged him for. I can't remember seeing ayone ever say "Gingrich cheated on his wife, but he's a conservative...
Monopolies? You mean like a growing federal presence that makes unfunded mandates about education and seeks ever increasing control?
We all know about those terrifying private education monopolies of the late 19th century and early 1900s. Back then, no one ever learned anything!
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Are you talking about what I said about monopolies and mixing it with education?
That is the quality of ideas you're defending?
AHEM...Democrats argue for ideas. You might not LIKE those ideas, but they're far less dependent on the person making them than the republicans alleged pushes for moral, christian character.
What I'm attacking is the idea that we keep listening to politicians claims of superior morality as a reason to elect them. Its both irrelevant and a forlorn hope.
By all means, call the ideas bad. I don't like Obamacare. I think its unconstitutional. However what kind of person Obama is has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Republicans constantly appeal to their allegedly superior christian and family morals and values as a reason why they should be elected, so when they fail to live up to those values it undermines their own argument.
If a democrat is arguing for socialized medicine and then found doing lines of coke off a hookers belly well... one really has a nothing to do with another. (unless of course the congressional healthcare plan is THAT good.. in which case i need to start running for office...)
Conservative ire towards Clinton was based on the dirty politics he played
So they hate redundancies? What was particularly dirty about his politics?
the big government ideas he favored
gasp! A democrat favoring big government! And the people voted him in to power! Quick! Undermine the democratic process before his ideas get put into place!
he committed perjury and manipulated the legal process to escape judgment.
Yes he did. Which makes him a bad person. It doesn't make his ideas bad. His ideas being bad makes his ideas bad.
demogoguery and personal narrative won over character and ideas. It wasn't the first time.
Clinton lied about sex under oath. Gingrich cheated on his wife as she was dying of cancer. Character winning was never a remote possibility because it was never in the mix to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Celebrity Death Match: Newt Vs. Obama!S*%~, that little girl survived the aliens, she'll have no problem taking on Obama's goofball ass.
:P
Get away from him, you b#~~&! Power suit Michelle Obama for the win!
Lol. Love that movie, one of my all time favorites.
I keep picking up chatter about Newt's comment he worries about
a possible EMP attack on America.
Our economy is very dependent on electronics, and it is "not good" to
have our way of life vulnerable to a single type of weapon system.
Yes this is highly improbable (thank goodness!) But the frequency
of their occurrence is not a good reason to ignore them. Like a
nuclear attack just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we
can ignore its possibility -- and we don't want absorb a few of these
events, just so we can start saying ok now it is important.
Furthermore, EMP attacks are too costly to not have clear understanding
of what America's vulnerability is to them. We as a nation should
understand how to avoid being vulnerable and how to defend against
such an attack.
Our economy is very dependent on electronics, and it is "not good" to
have our way of life vulnerable to a single type of weapon system.
.
Just how does one defend against EMP attacks?
An EMP Attack could be more damaging than...
Life After An EMP Attack: No Power, No Food, No Transportation, No Banking And No Internet
.
Is it really that big of a deal? How big of an area can one of those get? Even if you EMP a large city people can simply move away from the affected area.
I can't believe he left out biologic attacks. World of the walking dead here we come.
Is it really that big of a deal? How big of an area can one of those get? Even if you EMP a large city people can simply move away from the affected area.
I can't believe he left out biologic attacks. World of the walking dead here we come.
Removing the government from the equation will lead to even more problems as monopolies develop.
The government's job is to regulate people and business so that people aren't harmed and businesses play fair. You're not removing government, you're relinquishing their absolute control only allowing them to set the rules that everyone has to play by.
What you're missing here is that these guys were working under the table. That's not a problem with welfare per se, that's a problem with these particular individuals who are scamming. I wouldn't even particularly call it scamming as they are working, technically. I work with people who are on welfare and cannot work due to disabilities(usually psychological, sometimes physical) and they are not living high on the hog in any way shape or form. I would rather see welfare be reworked than completely eliminated- it is drastically in need of being repaired.
I don't mind assistance to get someone back on their feet. Thanks for bringing up Disability. I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate cases where someone might be too psychologically impaired to work but it seems like anyone who can get a shrink to say they're slightly off can get a disability check. It's often times not even the poor who pull this one.
The problem with this is that we already have people who work in these fields, and make a living doing so. Would you put them out of work because you feel what they do for a living isn't worth the amount of money they make? This is often the problem I encounter/have with people that have issues with welfare- there's always some field of business that will suffer because someone feels that what they are doing can be done by essentially unskilled labor for less.
People who work in the fields I mentioned could all do their jobs better if they had extra hands to help them out. I envision this as more of a part-time job as an assistant in many cases.
My only question is, what of those who didn't succeed/make it/survive? Should they have failed/not made it/died because they weren't you or lived life the way you did?
The only thing unique about me was that I didn't have all of the advantages that I should have qualified for. The poor can usually get a free ride through college or some other kind of skilled trade training. People who don't want to take these advantages can go out and find work just like everyone else even if it's flipping burgers.
... But just because your struggles made you who you are and my struggles made me who I am does not make you or I a better person than the other.
I totally agree.
If you want to turn a cold shoulder to those who haven't had the good fortune to be or think like you, that's your decision. All I can do is encourage you to change your mind and show some compassion.
I'll consider it. To be honest, America is wealthy enough that a anyone, even those who don't want to work, could easily given the essentials to survive if our great wealth were spent more wisely. Socialism isn't an inherently bad system, it's just not the American way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so I may have been wrong about the ratio of teachers to admins, turns out it was teachers to all non-teachers (but only about half are bus drivers and cafeteria workers and stuff). 1:14 for admins to teachers, 1:4 for community info people, counsellors, librarians and other related types to teachers, 1:1 all non-teachers to teachers.
Still doesn't change the fact that we spend more money than three countries on education, and still only rank 15th (and that's a generous averaging of various results) in output. There is some kind of disconnect there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The government's job is to regulate people and business so that people aren't harmed and businesses play fair. You're not removing government, you're relinquishing their absolute control only allowing them to set the rules that everyone has to play by.
There are those who regularly complain that even this is too much, trusting in the free market to regulate itself.
What you're missing here is that these guys were working under the table. That's not a problem with welfare per se, that's a problem with these particular individuals who are scamming. I wouldn't even particularly call it scamming as they are working, technically. I work with people who are on welfare and cannot work due to disabilities(usually psychological, sometimes physical) and they are not living high on the hog in any way shape or form. I would rather see welfare be reworked than completely eliminated- it is drastically in need of being repaired.
I don't mind assistance to get someone back on their feet. Thanks for bringing up Disability. I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate cases where someone might be too psychologically impaired to work but it seems like anyone who can get a shrink to say they're slightly off can get a disability check. It's often times not even the poor who pull this one.
I don't mean to insult you, but after working in the field for almost a decade, I have seen MAYBE one person who falls into the stereotype that you mention here. Even then, that person has problems along a different axis(II, not I). I see where you and many others are coming from, but my lengthy experience just does not back up the assertion in any way, shape, or form.
The problem with this is that we already have people who work in these fields, and make a living doing so. Would you put them out of work because you feel what they do for a living isn't worth the amount of money they make? This is often the problem I encounter/have with people that have issues with welfare- there's always some field of business that will suffer because someone feels that what they are doing can be done by essentially unskilled labor for less.fields I mentioned could all do their jobs better if they had extra hands to help them out. I envision this as more of a part-time job as an assistant in many cases.
Unfortunately, it's not going to work. Especially with businesses regulated so sparingly as you put forth- you'll put an entire generation of people out of work as businesses discover they can hire someone to do their job for a pittance.
My only question is, what of those who didn't succeed/make it/survive? Should they have failed/not made it/died because they weren't you or lived life the way you did?
The only thing unique about me was that I didn't have all of the advantages that I should have qualified for. The poor can usually get a free ride through college or some other kind of skilled trade training. People who don't want to take these advantages can go out and find work just like everyone else even if it's flipping burgers.
I've heard about this "free ride" for many, many years, and I have yet to encounter anyone who got one. When I was in college, I got financial aid, but that was hardly free as I had to pay the difference. Mom had some money socked away for me for school, but that didn't last the whole 5 years(changed majors)- I had to charge a semester after financial aid dried up, and even before then I had to pay the balance for whatever financial aid didn't cover. And that's not even getting into books, which were not available at the school library, btw, and I was forced into getting the newer versions by professors at almost every turn. My friends in college were in the exact same boat. I'm thinking this "free ride" is something that exists only in the minds of those who dislike anyone poorer than they are.
If you want to turn a cold shoulder to those who haven't had the good fortune to be or think like you, that's your decision. All I can do is encourage you to change your mind and show some compassion.
I'll consider it. To be honest, America is wealthy enough that a anyone, even those who don't want to work, could easily given the essentials to survive if our great wealth were spent more wisely. Socialism isn't an inherently bad system, it's just not the American way.
Agreed on socialism, but I think the real problem here is that people have different ideas on what constitutes survival.
There are those who regularly complain that even this is too much, trusting in the free market to regulate itself.
In many ways it does but our country has seen what happens in a completely unregulated market. You have to have some rules to protect the people and smaller, more innovative companies.
I don't mean to insult you, but after working in the field for almost a decade, I have seen MAYBE one person who falls into the stereotype that you mention here. Even then, that person has problems along a different axis(II, not I). I see where you and many others are coming from, but my lengthy experience just does not back up the assertion in any way, shape, or form.
You may be right. The area I live in is likely not representative of most.
Unfortunately, it's not going to work. Especially with businesses regulated so sparingly as you put forth-you'll put an entire generation of people out of work as businesses discover they can hire someone to do their job for a pittance.
I'm not talking about illegals here where you can hire people to do the same job for much less. We're giving people money to not work. If they have to work for that small amount of money, they will put in the effort to acquire a higher paying job. A better economy with less government interference would also create better opportunities making this even less something to be desired.
I've heard about this "free ride" for many, many years, and I have yet to encounter anyone who got one. When I was in college, I got financial aid, but that was hardly free as I had to pay the difference. Mom had some money socked away for me for school, but that didn't last the whole 5 years(changed majors)-I had to charge a semester after financial aid dried up, and even before then I had to pay the balance for whatever financial aid didn't cover. And that's not even getting into books, which were not available at the school library, btw, and I was forced into getting the newer versions by professors at almost every turn. My friends in college were in the exact same boat. I'm thinking this "free ride" is something that exists only in the minds of those who dislike anyone poorer than they are.
I have two close friends are not paying for schooling. Maybe the free ride isn't as free as you'd like it to be I had to go through the exact same things as you're describing except now I have to also pay back tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt. I'm lucky too. Tuition has more than doubled since I got out.
Agreed on socialism, but I think the real problem here is that people have different ideas on what constitutes survival.
I survived just fine working at a pizza shop for over 7 years during and after high school completely on my own with no government assistance. It wasn't a glorious life but I managed pay rent, eat, cloth myself, put gas in my car, repair my car, cover schooling that exceeded my loan payments and pay for medical expenses without any kind of coverage. I even had a computer, satellite tv and a refurbished Playstation. I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard for people to survive even with a low paying job. I don't feel sorry for people who spend $30/day at the bar and/or $10 on cigarettes and cry foul when they don't have any money. I feel even less for people who just plain refuse to work and expect others or the government to give them a place to live, cable tv, a cell phone, internet, food, clothes and/or medical insurance for free. I know this may seem cold but I see this as enabling. People will get by if they are forced to and they'll have much more incentive to advance their financial situation.
]Unfortunately, it's not going to work. Especially with businesses regulated so sparingly as you put forth-you'll put an entire generation of people out of work as businesses discover they can hire someone to do their job for a pittance.
I'm not talking about illegals here where you can hire people to do the same job for much less. We're giving people money to not work. If they have to work for that small amount of money, they will put in the effort to acquire a higher paying job. A better economy with less government interference would also create better opportunities making this even less something to be desired.
I'm thinking that all that would happen is that as soon as one group of people on welfare went out, a new group of people on welfare would replace them. Eventually you would have an entirely new caste of workers that would indeed replace the original.
I've heard about this "free ride" for many, many years, and I have yet to encounter anyone who got one. When I was in college, I got financial aid, but that was hardly free as I had to pay the balance for whatever financial aid didn't cover. And that's not even getting into books, which were not available at the school library, btw, and I was forced into getting the newer versions by professors at almost every turn. My friends in college were in the exact same boat. I'm thinking this "free ride" is something that exists only in the minds of those who dislike anyone poorer than they are.
I have two close friends are not paying for schooling. Maybe the free ride isn't as free as you'd like it to be I had to go through the exact same things as you're describing except now I have to also pay back tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt. I'm lucky too. Tuition has more than doubled since I got out.
What are they paying for? Are you sure they're not paying for anything? If it's a COMPLETE "free ride", I'd like to talk to them. I'm not sure its as free as you are making it out to be. I still stand by my earlier assertion that there really is no such things as a free ride. If it ever existed, it was not during my time in school.
Agreed on socialism, but I think the real problem here is that people have different ideas on what constitutes survival.
I survived just fine working at a pizza shop for over 7 years during and after high school completely on my own with no government assistance. It wasn't a glorious life but I managed pay rent, eat, cloth myself, put gas in my car, repair my car, cover schooling that exceeded my loan payments and pay for medical expenses without any kind of coverage. I even had a computer, satellite tv and a refurbished Playstation. I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard for people to survive even with a low paying job. I don't feel sorry for people who spend $30/day at the bar and/or $10 on cigarettes and cry foul when they don't have any money. I feel even less for people who just plain refuse to work and expect others or the government to give them a place to live, cable tv, a cell phone, internet, food, clothes and/or medical insurance for free. I know this may seem cold but I see this as enabling. People will get by if they are forced to and they'll have much more incentive to advance their financial situation.
That's quite an amazing story. I'm interested in what your medical expenses were, how much you were paying for rent(though not food and clothes- I know what we eat like in college. Except for when I was doing martial arts, I was in the shape of my life!!!), if you are willing to share.
|
|
Almost 50% of the population doesn't even vote probably because they've already thrown in the towel. The percentage has mostly been going down over time. They've been told that if you don't support the Democrat or Republicans, you might as well not bother. The idea is growing though. There's reason that Ron Paul has so much support from the people these days and it's because of these ideals.People may not have very compelling options, but they're also lazy. Most Americans, regrettably, are not very politically active. Giving them more parties will not necessarily avert human immobility. I support the alteration of elections to foster more political organisations, but the oft-centrist, oft-uninformed views of my compatriots will be little altered by such a desirable change.
Give these people jobs. There are parks that need cleaned, neighborhoods that could be watched for crime, public buildings that could use painted or cleaned, woodworking, sellable crafts and art, administrative work, educational assistance, computer skills etc. Everyone has skills and talents. We can make America a nicer, safer, cleaner place while giving pride to people who might normally feel degraded by not contributing.Now you're getting somewhere! Jobs for all! Join the revolution!
It can be argued that the government backed public schools have an headstart here, as multiple teaching companies would mean multiple bureaucracies, plus one to ensure that education money would be properly distributed between them (the same way that with your zillion different HMO, your healthcare waste a lot of money in redtape). A more centralized system has its advantages in terms of scale.Unfortunately, around hearabouts we don't have much in the way of centeralized education. The comparisons between private and public actually work because each school district is almost as autonomous as a business.
I know this may fall contrary to popular opinion. There's been a big push to go the opposite direction then what I've proposed where special needs children are mixed right in with rest but I fear that this is mostly to appease parents who are in denial more than to give the best quality education to our children.
. . . the F*~#?
They're mixed in because the US population is so spread out that any special needs school would have to be a boarding school (excluding of course heavily urbanised areas). It's a regrettable situation, but for most families integration is preferable to the other (main) options: home-school and relocation.
Man, I don't even know if this thread is still going, but I'm too annoyed to hold on to this until after I finish reading. There are way too many negative comments about parents of special-needs children nowadays. Accusations of self-delusion are not new, but still annoying. Any family with such a child is going to have a shitload of tribulations, and they don't need snide offhand comments.
Jumping into the education debate waaaay late, I would require having some questions answered before accepting the $6,000/student data.
I don't have any children, so education is something I rarely think about, but back when I did I read a lot of Jonathan Kozol. Starting in 1965 with Death at an Early Age, he has spent a lot of time studying the disparities in education between public schools in wealthy districts vs. schools in poor districts.
So, for example, in 1991 in Savage Inequalities he found that $3,000/student was spent in Camden, NJ while $15,000/student was spent in Great Neck, Long Island. Guess which school had better-performing students?
An average of $6,000/student in this very variegated nation appears to me to be exactly what Mark Twain was moaning about when he talked about "lies, damned lies and statistics."
But, like I said, I haven't paid close attention to this subject in almost two decades.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In full disclosure, my mother works for the local school district as part of the library administration. She's not a member of the NEA, though, and I picket her car in the driveway a lot and call her a scab.
"Picket lines mean don't cross, mom! You f#+&ing piece of shiznit!"
Anyway, I would also like to give Citizen A Man in Black props for the "make Croesus blush" remark. Ancient Greek hee hee!
Anklebiter, do not harass your mother.
Is it an evil act to harass goblin mothers?
Freehold: I am really confused. I say I don't overlook Gingirch's infidelity, in three statements whe I explicitly say: it's not okay, and ire towards Clinton was about his perjury and policies, and not over his infidelity. You say "I know you don't justify it, but what you wrote sounds like you do." But the only way we know each other is here, and the only conversation on the subject we've shared is this thread. So...I don't treat infidelity lightly or with hypocrisy, and nothing I've said says anything differently. I don't get the disconnect.
I have my problems with the NEA (actually, I think they're evil), but they are not the only problem. Socializing education is terrible. And I think we should penetrate that myth that education never happened until the government got ahold of it. We still moved society to invent the ligthbulb, the car, etc. No one says we don't have higher literacy or test score performance - and those are important things. But then how much better are we off? How many people would become literate by virtue of the invention of computers, the internet, etc, all of which was started by students of a much better system, with far less socialization and far less federal involvement.
I'm not even arguing for the end of public education, though I think there are elements in public education that must be eliminated. I am just saying the federal bureaucracy is hurting education and the economy, and not helping it.
As far as the statisitcs on money and performance, it's no secret that more money and lower peformance go hand in hand. Some of that is certainly demographical, with cash being thrown into poor school with all kinds of initiatives that don't actually educate. This is why we say remove some of the government involvement, at least at the federal level, and let common sense prevail on how the money is spent locally. We don't need new programs that feed poor kids dinner. We need better education so poor kids can get jobs that end generational poverty. And we need to teach more science than teaching "your ethnic group has famous scientists, too!". My kids hated science class because of all that nonsense, and learned no science. We pulled them out of that school moved to do it, and now my oldest tutors chemistry and the middle one is in a pre-engineering program. Same students, same parental involvement, different school and different approach, and less money per student. It's not just anecdotal. Charter school intentionally placed in low-income neighborhoods have fewer resources but better results in many markets. Approach matters more than cash.
When we hear conservatives say that education is trashed purposefully, and social programs are racist in that they intentionally engineer generational poverty, we might not agree, but there's enough evidence there for a good debate, and (collectively) we ought to let it challenge us.
As far as the statisitcs on money and performance, it's no secret that more money and lower peformance go hand in hand. Some of that is certainly demographical, with cash being thrown into poor school with all kinds of initiatives that don't actually educate.
Or it could be the simple fact that we don't have startrek teleporters yet.
Look, education in the inner city is more expensive. You have to pay the teachers more because living there costs more. 35,000 a year in Rural Idaho will get you a ranch house with a nice start on the actual ranch. In new york city 35,000 a year will get you a niceish cardboard box and a heating grate if you're frugal.
Corporations hate paying so much for education, and the religious base is upset that they can't use peer pressure to convert kids to christianity in the public schools anymore and that an integral, well evidenced part of biology is being taught: so both sides of the republican party are in agreement.
Oh, well, as long as what we're really talking about is the secret agenda of evil Christians and mean Republicans who don't actuallt care about education, let's jsut bring on the blame and stereotypes and bypass all the research and observable evidence that might illustrate how an increasing number of schools are failing, or on how the longer an American student is in public education, the worse he or she is when compared to other nations.
Every election cycle, every lottery debate, every budget, the story is the same: money is the solution and if we don't throw more money into education, we don't care about kids ro the future. THen the schools get the money and the education goes canal water, and the solution is: more money!
The solution is accountability. Teachers who can't teach should be fired. It works that way in every other profession. A principle who can't manage education and discipline should be fired. A littany of excuses for the failure of our educational system has not helped us. A new program for throwing cash into a furnace in an effort to look like we care more about education without doing any more educating than last year has not helped us. Growing education bureaucracy to the point where there's a school staff member of some kind for every two kids in a school system has not helped anyone.
@FHDM: I get that different systems might have to pay more than others based on local dynamics. But the information about what an average school teacher makes is an average cross country. And, again, it's only for 9 months in most systems. I am also concerned that some of the education that teachers pay for is unnecessary. I am sure we all have friends who went through an education program and complained about the requirement to take courses for types of education they aren't interested in. Indiana State had a period where their education students had to write an essay about their first sexual experience in order to relate to kids they'd one day be teaching. It didn't matter who they intended to teach alter, every one had to open up about it. Clearly, no value to the educating process, and maybe time better spent working to pay for school or gettnig ahead on meaningful studies. I wonder how we got here without all those teachers in the 20s, 30s, and 40s having to have minors in early childhood psychology?
Finaly, private and charter school teachers on average make less money but educate their kids better, and this includes inner city areas as well. If we paid the best teachers the best money, the best teachers would be paid well and others would have a model for success to look up to.
The system is the problem. We can fix that with block granting the money (or cutting taxes) and eliminating the USDoE. The states and locals get the same money, we stop spending on the bureaucracy, and some of the damage this governemnt does to our economy would be mitigated.
AMiB, I can promise you that I won't address you with hostility or name-calling. Would that you could do the same.
Poor neighborhood school get the most money. I have lived in three different states and it's always been true.
In the same paragraph where I told the story about my kids, I also pointed out it isn't just anecdotal. I am aware of the difference between statistics and experience. But in this case one bears out the other.
I don't know where you feel compelled to assess my level of understanding about education, but until you know me better you're hardly qualified, sir. I get nutrition. I get that we increasingly babysit kids with expensive programs under the banner of "It will help them learn more." and then our kids go and perform poorly on standardized testing, which is then used as evidence that we aren't spending enough money on education. Again, one has to ask how we got here without the expensive nutrition programs and free lunches and bronze statues and big-screen announcement tvs that line the hallway.
Again, when the argument is always the same, and the results are always the same, at some point we have to listen to someone else. In no walk of life does it work for you to keep going to your boss or wife or whatever to get more money without a change in results. At some point, they will call bs on your excuses and demand something better.
A quick word on the offensive tactic of whining when someone doesn't provide a link for every statement:
No one, including the people who pitch self-righteous fits about it, does that. This conversation has several long pages of posts, with a tiny fraction of those providing links to some other source. Numerous other threads are the same. Hundreds of posts, maybe half a dozen links, a full dozen rarely. Not that submitted evidence isn't desirable, but then how often do people take opposing evidence seriously?
We used to be able to have friendly conversation and disagree without calling each other names like 'Super Keen'. We also used to think for ourselves. Since the internet allows people to go find a study that says whatwever they want it to, I am fond of analyzing the evidence other people provide, and of sticking with the argument, not berating someone for not proving themselves well enough.
Same goes for the champion of the classic logical fallicy. One can make a special plea, but then that doesn't mean the special plea isn't accurate. Some things are more complicated than emre logic precisely because there are flawed people involved. You could say 'it takes money to do things', therefore, more money equals more productivity, but that isn't always true. More moeny frequently means graft,laziness or mismanagement. Therefore how those dollars are spent and the actual end result is an important part fo the conversation.
So, just so everyone knows, civility should reign. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a nimrod that doesn't understand anything about teh subject matter. And having kids, knowing teachers, and keeping up with current events more than qualifies me or anyone else to remain in the conversation and share opinions. I might sometimes ask for a source when something interests me or catches me off guard. I can promise you I'll never call someone a name in a post or self-righteously point out how they haven't provided a link that I wouldn't accept as evidence anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, well, as long as what we're really talking about is the secret agenda of evil Christians and mean Republicans who don't actuallt care about education
Not evil. Just easily wound up in a tizzy and convinced to vote against your own interests.
let's jsut bring on the blame and stereotypes and bypass all the research and observable evidence that might illustrate how an increasing number of schools are failing, or on how the longer an American student is in public education, the worse he or she is when compared to other nations.
I think that's a curriculum problem and a separation problem. We're not allowed to say "ok, this kid is smart, lets get them in advanced classes early and keep them there and "Ooookay Little johny is still eating paste in the 8th grade. I think he needs to be in his own classes. Keeping them in the same classes just slows everyone down.
Charter schools get better by getting the best students (or at least the ones who's parents care enough to sign their names) This has a two fold effect: 1) You get better kids who oddly enough, do better and 2) the teachers have to spend less time pulling spitballs off of the back of their heads, handling detention slips and breaking up knife fights.
Is there any chance you would answer the point about the schools in the cities being more expensive to run?
Here's a tip. When someone accuses all Republicans of being evil, they are trolling. Ignore them.
Well, It might be shorthand but I'm not trolling.
What I mean by my implications that republicans are evil is that a significant chunk of the republican party hierarchy is controlled by corporate interests. Those corporate interests don't want to pay for anything that isn't a subsidy to themselves. They either elect politicians who share their political views , or help politicans who genuinely believe in a lack of regulation from the government get elected. The end result is the same: people trying to get rid of the department of education.
Usually the two halves of the republican party (religious and financial) are at odds or don't care. This time they have common goals but for different reasons.
Democratic corporate control gets a bit watered down by by groups like environmentalists.
They're in charge of child irradiation, not child education
Think of the money we'll save on lighting!
I'm thinking that all that would happen is that as soon as one group of people on welfare went out, a new group of people on welfare would replace them. Eventually you would have an entirely new caste of workers that would indeed replace the original.
All I'm saying is welfare is a poor solution for a problem. We have a bad tendency to patch a problem by throwing tax-payer money at instead finding a good solution and making a real change that fixes it. Yes, it's essential for those going through rough times, temporary unemployment and disabilities that actually prevent someone from working. I feel that there is a better solution out there somewhere for other cases.
What are they paying for? Are you sure they're not paying for anything? If it's a COMPLETE "free ride", I'd like to talk to them. I'm not sure its as free as you are making it out to be. I still stand by my earlier assertion that there really is no such things as a free ride. If it ever existed, it was not during my time in school.
Their initial degree did come from a community college but I know for a fact that one of them is going for their bachelor's at University of Phoenix Online. He's probably paying a decent amount out of pocket now. From what I've heard, that school is pretty expensive. Still, I managed to get loans that covered most of my education. It would surprise me if you couldn't supplement financial aid with a moderate amount of student loans to essentially owe nothing out of pocket up front.
Of course, with tuition skyrocketing over the last 10-12 years as it has, the free-ride that once was probably is no longer.
That's quite an amazing story. I'm interested in what your medical expenses were, how much you were paying for rent(though not food and clothes- I know what we eat like in college. Except for when I was doing martial arts, I was in the shape of my life!!!), if you are willing to share.
Medical expenses were mostly non-existent since I didn't go to the doctor unless I had to. I broke my hand once. That cost me about $450. Dentist runs about $70-$80 for a cleaning around here; probably close to the same for simple tooth filling. A car accident racked up a nice bill but it wasn't my fault so the other person's insurance covered it eventually. I don't know if this is universal but doctors around here change maybe half what they would normally charge if you don't have insurance.
When I was still in highschool, I found a sweet deal on an efficiency for $250/month with all utilities paid. I moved out after getting broken into and ended up getting a few other places over the years that typically fell in the range of $350-$550 usually but not always plus electric. These were all crap-hole, one-bedroom apartments but they put a roof over my head. I know most people don't really want to move to the ghetto but you gotta do what you gotta do.
You also didn't have kids. Yes, that was a good move on your part, but it really does change the picture.
Yes, this helped a lot.
Most welfare is aimed at families (usually single moms) with children these days. It's easy to say don't have kids if you can't afford them, but people do stupid things and situations change. Shall we punish them and their children for the next 10+ years or shall we divert some of the money going to 100' yachts and champagne to keeping them from the streets?
That's a good philosophical question. Most people have aren't completely alone, though. There was a time before government welfare where families had to stick closer together and take care of each other more than is required today. One could argue that this shouldn't be required any longer (as it is today) and one could argue that people were better off and had stronger motivation to contribute under these harsher situations. I see merit in both arguments.
You say, "people will get by if they are forced to". Some will. Some won't. Especially when the economy is bad. Many people, even working, are living paycheck to paycheck (and they're not all spending it at the bar).
I understand this greatly. I lived it. I don't understand the "Some won't" part though. You have to burn a ton of bridges to end up homeless in this country. I have had some of the most irresponsible friends growing up and they all got by.
Should there be nothing when the job closes, if they can't find another one right away?
I've stated multiple times that I support temporary situations of welfare and unemployment. I just oppose it as a lifestyle. It is possible that they've tightened up enough to prevent this but I have my doubts. I could be wrong though.
People may not have very compelling options, but they're also lazy. Most Americans, regrettably, are not very politically active. Giving them more parties will not necessarily avert human immobility. I support the alteration of elections to foster more political organisations, but the oft-centrist, oft-uninformed views of my compatriots will be little altered by such a desirable change.
True, not everyone will vote even if they have something to vote for but you have to admit (okay, I guess you don't *have* to) that the two parties that we have to choose from are largely similar. I don't see a whole heck of a lot separating the two and most of it is nit-picky.
... the F*&@?
They're mixed in because the US population is so spread out that any special needs school would have to be a boarding school (excluding of course heavily urbanised areas). It's a regrettable situation, but for most families integration is preferable to the other (main) options: home-school and relocation.
Government run education has consolidated into large school for entire cities, often entire counties. A privately run education system could easily consist of a small specialized school that only has a couple/few teachers and a handful of students. I believe that home-school, integration and relocation would be accompanied by a fourth choice (specialization) under such a system. I'm not saying integration is always a bad idea. I believe that parents should have more options and not be pressured into it because of lack of options.
Man, I don't even know if this thread is still going, but I'm too annoyed to hold on to this until after I finish reading. There are way too many negative comments about parents of special-needs children nowadays. Accusations of self-delusion are not new, but still annoying. Any family with such a child is going to have a s!*&load of tribulations, and they don't need snide offhand comments.
YES you guys I just told off someone on the internet. I am soo f&&%in cool. By the way, Steven T. Helt/Ancient Sensei: You are the conservative I have always believed in. Thank you for validating what I began to think was impossible!
I'm not insulting ALL parents of special needs children, just the ones who aren't making the best decisions for their child. It more typical for parents whose special needs children are in elementary and early middle school to fall into this category. Usually by late middle school/early high school, they've come to the understanding that their child isn't going to develop as much as they hoped they would. It's tragic but it doesn't mean that it isn't true. This information comes from people who work in this industry.
Charter schools get better by getting the best students (or at least the ones who's parents care enough to sign their names) This has a two fold effect: 1) You get better kids who oddly enough, do better and 2) the teachers have to spend less time pulling spitballs off of the back of their heads, handling detention slips and breaking up knife fights.
Exactly. Charter schools get to cherry-pick students, keeping the ones that perform and shipping the ones who don't back to the regular schools. Hard to imagine why their performance is, on average, better.
Is it really that big of a deal? How big of an area can one of those get? Even if you EMP a large city people can simply move away from the affected area.
I can't believe he left out biologic attacks. World of the walking dead here we come.
Realizing of course that by the time an EMP has been deploy of such size to be such a worry that a nuclear warhead has also been deployed to created said EMP pulse means we will probably be focusing on fallout first and electronics second.
Also that second image leaves much to be desired in the area of everything. I mean we have more to worry about from solar flares than man made EMP devices right now (again such devices also go by the name of nuclear warheads so there are other issues that might be a bit more pertinent in the case one goes off).
Charter schools get better by getting the best students (or at least the ones who's parents care enough to sign their names) This has a two fold effect: 1) You get better kids who oddly enough, do better and 2) the teachers have to spend less time pulling spitballs off of the back of their heads, handling detention slips and breaking up knife fights.Exactly. Charter schools get to cherry-pick students, keeping the ones that perform and shipping the ones who don't back to the regular schools. Hard to imagine why their performance is, on average, better.
Also not all charter schools actually do better and there is no standard charter school. Many times the cases that are compared are cherry picked to pit two schools with different student demographics but similar geographic areas that honestly have nothing else in common but the fact they are in the same state. Even once we get pass this problem there's also the issue of several studies finding that charter schools do not in fact fare better.
Since there isn't a standard for the classification generalizations about the supposed standard can't be made. Unless charter schools want to lay down a systematic homogenous approach in how and why they do things they are nothing more than so much more chaff being shot into the air.
And lets not even get started talking about all the charter schools that have been caught falsifying and cheating on their tests.
After that lets get back to the method of 'standardized' testing being used in schools currently.
In order to actually be a standardized test you must limit the variables, which means you need:
1. Same subjects.
2. Same conditions.
3. Same methods.
4. One variable that can be controlled.
5. Repeated tests with each possible variable covered.
Without this you don't actually have a standardized test. What we currently have is different students who were taught by various teachers each year being taught by different teachers each year, and all tested according to how the students from the year before did.
Nothing remains standard here. If I had a class with Eistein, Tesla, Newton and Steven Hawkings one year I might as well give up next year -- I have no chance that my students next year will improve or show as much ability as the students I had this year. Not only that but every student I teach is going to have been taught by different teachers last year -- I don't even have a common starting place to begin being 'standardized'. What's more everybody wants to poke their nose in my class room each year and redefine from year to year (sometimes from week to week) what my goals are supposed to be, what methods I'm supposed to use, and how I'll get paid for doing it.
Standardized testing my <censor>.
In order to actually be a standardized test you must limit the variables, which means you need:
1. Same subjects.
2. Same conditions.
3. Same methods.
4. One variable that can be controlled.
5. Repeated tests with each possible variable covered.Sociology is too hard. Let's just give up.
It is actually possible to perform useful statistical analysis on data despite all of these factors. You just can't expect it to be useful for some of the things people are demanding of it, like the insane standardized-testing-to-evaluate-teacher-performance or standardized-testing-to-punish-underperforming-schools and other crackpot nonsense like that.
Standardized testing does actually serve a useful purpose. It is useful to be able to analyze how schools and students based on different factors. Now, NCLB is standardized testing gone horribly, criminally wrong, but to say, "NCLB is stupid, let's get rid of standardized testing!" is just as crazy as "NCLB is big government gone wrong, let's abolish the USED!" and for the same reason.
Please note I've not complained of the basic concepts, ideas or possibilities of sociology -- only the gross and (in my opinion) criminally negligent misuse of the entire idea of standardized testing (and in a more round about way, of the scientific method).
Sociology is hard -- which means if we are going to use it we should do it right, which is my more far reaching point. I'm opening mocking what is currently in place because it is a lie, and a viscous unwholesome one that is inflicting more harm than good. That doesn't mean I feel the same way about the ability to do this correctly, or that I feel it shouldn't be done.
Now I will fully agree that when used correctly the current idea of a standardized test can exert positive influence and help find places that could have better practices.
However for the current misuse and misrepresentation of 'standardized testing' my argument stands.
I'm a young, lucky adult, so medical expenses are no issue! Anyone else? F you, got mine!
He asked me about my medical expenses while I was younger. Like most young people, they didn't amount to much. If you want affordable health insurance, I'm not the person to talk to (although I do have a solution for it). It's our politicians that are failing to deliver this and the PPACA (Obamacare) looks like an enormous failure from my perspective.
Try four digits. Poor people without insurance get their teeth pulled.
Okay, it doesn't cost $1000 to get your teeth cleaned. And if $80/year to keep your teeth healthy is unaffordable than you're not spending your money wisely enough, IMO.
I lived in an area where rent is insanely cheap, and since I live alone and have no conditions or circumstances that require that I live in a particular area and also have the mobility to choose where I live, I live in a place where I can afford!
That doesn't describe you? F you, got mine!
So the American people are supposed to take care of people who live in places that they can't afford? We're supposed to take care of people who live beyond their means? And there is no rule that says you have to live alone. There are these things called girlfriends/boyfriends/roommates that can share rent with you.
I have never talked to a poor or homeless person in my entire f!*!ing life.
Are these your words or are you trying to put words in my mouth. If it's the latter, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I actually think welfare queens exist. (PROTIP: They don't.)
I guess the area that I grew up in and still currently live is totally different than where you live. And like I said, maybe they've straightened all of this out over the years. If they have, cool. I'm glad. There's nothing more that we really need to do here then.
Of course, I do have a friend who works part-time but still gets a minimal amount of food stamps (his words, not mine. I thought they called them something different now-a-days) and has an Obama phone (we really should give credit where credit is due and called them Dubya phones). There is nothing physically stopping him from working full time and making it on his own without government assistance which he doesn't actually even need (his words, not mine). So, excuse me for being skeptical about people who are actually trying to take advantage of the system.
It could, but it won't for most people, because most people can't afford to pay half of the salary of a professional (plus costs for overhead for a business) to get their kid educated.
They would if the $4000-$6000 per student spent in this country were allocated to whatever school you, as a parent, chose to send your child to. Special needs children are probably allocated more making even smaller schools more feasible.
Most people would end up getting their kids educated in large centralized schools. Do you know why public schools are organized with lots of kids in a central location? Because it's efficient.
If parents want to save money on their children's education than that's their choice. There's nothing wrong with that. The point is, though, they have a choice.
If the vast majority of people got their kids educated in private schools, the vast majority of people would get their kids educated in private schools that largely resembled those public schools: large, centrally-located schools with hundreds (sometimes a few thousand) students. Because it's efficient.
Probably. And your point is?
Not that the US doesn't have a privately-run education system in parallel and all. That totally does exist. So what new option were you wanting to add again?
At the moment, if you want to send your kid to a private school, you have to pay twice. You have to pay for them to go to a public school, since that's where your tax money goes to, and then you have to pay again for them to go the private school of your choice.
There's a thing call school vouchers that allows you to use the money that the state would normally allocate for public schools to be used for a private school. I really like this. Unfortunately, you only qualify for this if you live in a district that has a poor rating. I believe that everyone should be allowed to use state allocated taxes to send their child to the school that they believe would provide them with the most suitable education. I don't see why this is such an unreasonable request.
But you're going to insult some of 'em!
I apologize. I'm not the most politically correct person in the world.
Dude, you've got some seriously effed up ideas
about special education, and they seem to be based in listening to teachers grumble about how they hate how parents don't really get how special education works and what they're trying to do. You've gone way over too far, though; isolating kids in special ed (especial autistic kids, holy crap, man) is not a good idea, partially because many of them don't need an IEP for half of their day, and partially because many of them will respond much better to a regular school environment rather than a sequestered one.
All I proposed was a method that would give parents more choices. One of those choices would be to give special needs children an education that may cater more closely to their needs. It's ALL about choosing where your money goes instead of having the government choose for you and having to pay double if you don't agree with them. If you, as a parent of a special needs child, want to integrate him or her than that is *your* choice. I don't really see why anyone would have a problem with that?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I will fully agree that when used correctly the current idea of a standardized test can exert positive influence and help find places that could have better practices.But you're dumping on standardized testing in the context of charter schools, not NCLB. If you're going to complain specifically about NCLB's (idiotic) programs, then be specific, because they aren't the only programs of standardized testing.
No I was dumping on standardized testing in general, please note the transition: "After that"
However I could have been clearer that I was dumping on standardized testing in general (on after having dumped in a way on charter schools).
Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about: We already know what we need and it doesn't matter if the school is private, public, charter or something else entirely -- we need dedicated teachers with good materials in a safe environment and small(er) pools of students that are paid well for a job well done, while being left alone to actually do their work instead of having everyone and the village idiot getting in their way and telling them how to do their job that they've actually trained extensively for.
Currently nothing in the education sector really provides that consistently.
I don't really see why anyone would have a problem with that?
I do. My mother works in the special needs fields. She is often told by parents of said students as well as other teachers (though not the other special needs teachers in her school system) and occasionally councilors, principles and the like that, "well there is only so much you can expect out of them." or "Besides their special needs, it's not like they can do it (it being the standard work everyone else is doing) anyways -- if they could they wouldn't be in your class."
It's hogwash -- they can do the work. In fact they consistently do the work in this specific school system. The vast majority of the special needs teachers in the system consistently work with and tell the students they can do it and the test scores from this section of that school system continue to prove they are correct.
IF these professionals were to just let the parents make the choices these children and future adults would suffer a grave injustice.
Just because they are special needs doesn't mean they cannot or will not do the work. It might mean they need some extra help in learning it, but this is not the same as being unable to learn.
Finally why should the parents get to make all the decisions for a future citizen? Why should they get the choice of royally screwing these people up who's only crime was being born to defective parents (and they are defective -- if they were their children wouldn't have had defective genes).
"Cater to their needs?"
How does giving them less help them make up for starting out behind? It's like saying, "Oh hey Timmy you were born without legs so we are going to start you fifty feet behind everyone since you know, you can't win anyways."
It goes completely against free market principles too. Everyone gets a fair playing field so competition can breed better results and cheaper products right? How does giving him a worse playing field go with that?
|
|
Oh, well, as long as what we're really talking about is the secret agenda of evil Christians and mean Republicans who don't actuallt care about education, let's jsut bring on the blame and stereotypes and bypass all the research and observable evidence that might illustrate how an increasing number of schools are failing, or on how the longer an American student is in public education, the worse he or she is when compared to other nations.
Every election cycle, every lottery debate, every budget, the story is the same: money is the solution and if we don't throw more money into education, we don't care about kids ro the future. THen the schools get the money and the education goes canal water, and the solution is: more money!
The solution is accountability. Teachers who can't teach should be fired. It works that way in every other profession. A principle who can't manage education and discipline should be fired. A littany of excuses for the failure of our educational system has not helped us. A new program for throwing cash into a furnace in an effort to look like we care more about education without doing any more educating than last year has not helped us. Growing education bureaucracy to the point where there's a school staff member of some kind for every two kids in a school system has not helped anyone.
It doesn't matter who you plug in as teachers at this point because the public school system has become a human storage facility that lives and breathes standardized testing. The problem isn't that too much money is being thrown at the schools; the problem is that money is being spent on the creation of a politically correct dystopia where kids are as likely to read 10th Century Chinese poetry as they are Melville or Thoreau. Diaper-wearing "mentally challenged" children are being taught alongside other kids, in the same classrooms, dragging down the curve. Children attack teachers and get a pat on the head and a couple of days off from school.
The school system is not a fiscal failure; it is a moral failure.
The school system is not a fiscal failure; it is a moral failure.
I disagree -- it's a failure of management. Allowing the village idiots to tell what should be highly skilled and talented people where, when and how to do their job is always going to end in failure, regardless of the morals or money involved.
Saw too many businesses sink from the exact same problem. Some idiot decides that since he is the manager he best get down there and tell everyone else what to do and how to do it instead of letting the people actually do their jobs as they know how and simply keeping problems out of the way.
|
|
The school system is not a fiscal failure; it is a moral failure.I disagree -- it's a failure of management. Allowing the village idiots to tell what should be highly skilled and talented people where, when and how to do their job is always going to end in failure, regardless of the morals or money involved.
Saw too many businesses sink from the exact same problem. Some idiot decides that since he is the manager he best get down there and tell everyone else what to do and how to do it instead of letting the people actually do their jobs as they know how and simply keeping problems out of the way.
True, the village idiots tend to rise through the ranks of school administrators, but I think the fact that we've given over the schools to bureaucrats whose main worries are statistics and not hurting anyone's feelings -- students and parents -- is a failure of purpose and vision, which is a moral failure. Somewhere along the way we forgot how to teach and enforce cultural standards.
And I hate to sound reactionary -- when I don't sound like rabid right-winger, I chime in as a bleeding-heart liberal.