If you were President...

ETC2NA

Forever Hunting
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
3
Link

While I'm at it, here's what I wrote:

Returning the schools to the local governments would be a great start. I am not against a Federal measurement of progress and supplemental funding, but to increase or deny funds in response to test scores is not the answer. By putting the schools on that kind of system, it forces administrators and teachers to teach the test, rather than the subjects. It is a subtle difference, but its very much like giving children answers to memorize rather than problems to solve. The result will be people that can perform very well in a situation where they can simply regurgitate the memorized response, but which will be unable to solve problems on their own. A nationally standardized test should be used only to allow the communities to measure their schools and students standing. This would allow them to put more pressure on the local governement, if the community thinks it is needed, to fix the problems.
The real measure of a school district's performance, will come through the end product and whether or not its students are able to compete for college scholarships. Federal funding is not the answer. Washington DC is the perfect example. I believe it was a recent Foxnews story that reported that district had the highest per student Federal funding and the lowest student/teacher ratio and still they had an enormous dropout/failure rate.
The bottom line is parent involvement. If the parent does not care enough to impose discipline or reward for behavior, then the school can do little about fixing a behavioral problem. However, even the most involved parent with the most motivated child cannot apply enough pressure on a national level to fix problems in their local school. If Administrators can throw up their hands and honestly say they cannot affect the educational content because the Federally funded subjects A, B, and D are all that are tested for, subject C is out of the question because they have no time or money to spend on it. Only a locally controlled school system can respond to a concerned community in a manner timely and effectively enough to meet their needs.
 



Coues

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2002
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
3
I would get the government out of schooling all together. Make all schools "private".

You want your kid to go to a school that stresses math and science or art or tech, then it's your choice. I am sure that if the school was run by private organizations there would be far less waste and more accountabilty of funds than the curent gov't run schools, where the "spend it now or lose it forever mentality rules.

Plus, if the school you choose is not cutting it, you can move them. You will quicky learn which schools are up to par because the crappy ones will be out of business.
 

MULEY51

Forever Hunting
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
4,595
Reaction score
24
1. Get the Feds out
2. Local control ONLY
3. Remove all the illegals. Not only would this save an ENORMOUS amount of money, but class sizes would be more manageable and teachers could teach in English only.

Coues...I don't think everyone could afford the cost of totally "private" schools.

 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MULEY51 @ Aug 7 2006, 11:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Coues...I don't think everyone could afford the cost of totally "private" schools.

[/b]
There are "private" schools operating out of voucher system (paid for by public funds). This is an old information, but I read, it was actually cheaper per student than public school.
 

ETC2NA

Forever Hunting
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
3
There may be some of the type of schools you are talking about Beast. But, one of the virtues of free public schools is that no one is denied the opportunity to get an education. I don't think I've seen a private school I could afford to send my kids to, that is any better than the public ed they are getting. I've said it before, #1 factor in a child's education in his/her parents interest in it, not the money thrown at it.
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ETC2NA @ Aug 8 2006, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
There may be some of the type of schools you are talking about Beast. But, one of the virtues of free public schools is that no one is denied the opportunity to get an education. I don't think I've seen a private school I could afford to send my kids to, that is any better than the public ed they are getting. I've said it before, #1 factor in a child's education in his/her parents interest in it, not the money thrown at it.[/b]
You are living in a wrong state. Well, we should not really expect much from a state that elect a Bush for governor and the Secretary don't know how to count. Don't you think that's the reason why they call it Floriduh.
(No offense meant, this is an old tired joke anyway. I just can't help it. The devil made me to do it
).

Yup, agree with you 100% that the parent is the biggest factor. There was a published article in LA Times here about a side-by-side comparison in performance (math and reading comprehension) between a Catholic parochial school and a public one in a basically the same area. The difference is quite significant.

The voucher system is one argument used to in fact proposed make cheaper and better public education.
 

ETC2NA

Forever Hunting
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
3
Again, we are in agreement Beast. I believe the Catholic school probably got much higher marks, however the difference is not public v. private, it is discipline and parental interest v. the public daycare most parents treat public school as. The catholic school parents were interested enough in the childs welfare to put him/her in a private school, therefore they are probably very interested in his/her attitude and grades; and those schools traditionally have good disciplinarians running them. Put the two together and you get motivated children.

Just keep them away from the priests... sorry couldn't help it.
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ETC2NA @ Aug 8 2006, 07:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Again, we are in agreement Beast. I believe the Catholic school probably got much higher marks, however the difference is not public v. private, it is discipline and parental interest v. the public daycare most parents treat public school as. The catholic school parents were interested enough in the childs welfare to put him/her in a private school, therefore they are probably very interested in his/her attitude and grades; and those schools traditionally have good disciplinarians running them. Put the two together and you get motivated children.

Just keep them away from the priests... sorry couldn't help it.
[/b]
ETC2NA - Excellent inference! And, if you are Catholic, you may want to add that Catholics are inherently intelligent (LOL).

You said "money is not the issue"? There is an interesting correlation here in Kalifornia. The middle class districts have a generally better schools -- and better performance. At the risk of being called racist and elitist, there is also some correlation in the students' ethnic mix. Level of education of parents were also correlated (may also be inferred by your theory or the role-model effect).
 

ETC2NA

Forever Hunting
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
You said "money is not the issue"? There is an interesting correlation here in Kalifornia. The middle class districts have a generally better schools -- and better performance.[/b]
I humbly submit that is again a function of parental interest. If you will allow me some broad generalizations I'll explain:
1) I believe there are very few (some, but few) hardworking poor folk anymore, and that laziness and dependency have become so ingrained in the lower class as to permanently bind MOST (not all) of them in place.
2) Wealth is very often earned by driven individuals that often must substitute $$$ for involvement in there child's lives. This plus growing up wealthy produces a type of apathy (why should I try, Daddy has made enough to keep us rich forever) in many of the children so "blessed." That attitude gets passed on when they are too busy at the country club to pay attention to the next gen.
3) I finally humbly submit that we in the middle (think I qualify... barely) know what it is like to have just enough and maybe at times a little more. But we are not so far from the poor to forget that we are but a little laziness or bad financial decisions from joining (or rejoining) them. If that is not motivation enough, we can also see the golden ring that some of us may yet grasp. With this in mind the middle push their children and stay involved more than the others.

(I would also propose that there are many in the middle that could be in the upper, but their family values dictate that they choose the family over the money. It is these same values that result in the achievement of their children... but that is another discussion entirely.)

Oh and I am originally from Ca (Sanger in fact), but I go where Uncle Sam sends me. Right now that's Florida.
 


Top Bottom