mandating birth control is not in any way, shape or form an idea on how to fix our public school system.
quite frankly, it is one of the worst ideas i have ever heard.
Way to come up with some good ideas.
Yes it would. I read a few weeks back, I think in here, where one school had over 800 girls pregos, One freaken school. When I have time I will get some stats for you on how many of these girls and boys drop out and/or don't got to college.
Way to come up with some good ideas.
let's not waste each others time here. you have no interest in this matter. your only interest is in posting irrelevent hyperbole with the sole intent of stirring the pot. nonsenical crap like creating a system of forced birth control is not relevant to the subject at hand.
That is funny. I'm 100 percent for MAKING kids on birth control until the age of 18. I know it won't happen because people are ing stupid. They make way too many excuses about doing the right thing. You think this is a bad idea. That is your business. Please don't sit there and tell me what I am interested in. I'm laughing at you because you think putting a teen on birth control wouldn't help. That is denial, son.
i'm saying it is absloutely implausible and completely unethical. ergo, it is irrelevant. i could care less if you want to be a member of the lunatic fringe, pops.
Last edited by rjv; 12-01-2009 at 11:54 AM.
ergo, it is irrelevent.
Mr Spock, I gots to run mother er but you are right on one thing. This is a waste of time for me. It's not unethical for teens to be on birth control. And asshole, when the pass this healthcare bill and tax payers are paying for abortions, I bet you will slowly come to my side of the fence. You will be fighting it but eventually you will say "That Jack Sommerset was right, I rather pay for mandated birth control instead of the killing baby business"
it is possible that i could suffer some severe head trauma, irreverisibly damage my frontal lobe, lose control of all rational thought and then agree with you on something. highly unlikely, but possible nonetheless.
Mr Spock, I gots to run mother er but you are right on one thing. This is a waste of time for me. It's not unethical for teens to be on birth control. And asshole, when the pass this healthcare bill and tax payers are paying for abortions, I bet you will slowly come to my side of the fence. You will be fighting it but eventually you will say "That Jack Sommerset was right, I rather pay for mandated birth control instead of the killing baby business"
some good comments so far.
my son is in middle school, 6th grade. He has in a "magnet school" program, where you have the normal academic classes (but at a pre-AP level) as well as additional classes/electives for practical stuff, such as web design, 3-D modeling, photoshop, multimedia, rocketry, robotics (ok the last two not really practical).
He likes it way better than his previous normal public school program, which was quote "dumb & boring". He hated it back when he was in 3rd - 5th grade in normal public school classes and he was being "undertought".
He wants to continue in the program thru 8th grade. I'm worried about after that, and he goes to a normal high school (Madison High School) - I hope he doesn't regress.
actually, robotics could be quite practical. i do like the concept of magnet schools very much though. health careers, for instance, is a great one.
you know, back before this school year started, I had never heard of "magnet" schools. Until my son came home one day all excited about a presentation he saw at his 5th grade school about magnet school programs...actually, robotics could be quite practical. i do like the concept of magnet schools very much though. health careers, for instance, is a great one.
I'm glad he is in it. He is much more interested than usual in school (although not in math & english, lol). He chose robotics as an elective, and he chose some computer tech class for his regular tech class (he says he's doing stuff like photoshop, animation master, and some other computer stuff). I think the web design classes aren't offered until 7th or 8th grade.
The parent problem is indeed a biggie. I'm not sure it's the biggie, but my 10 years in teaching reinforces what you've stated.
Exactly, baseline bum nailed it. All students are not equal. Not all are destined for college...indeed for some, college would be an unmitigated disaster.
Great stuff.
The "No Child Left Behind" lunacy of the Bush administration made this even worse with it's renewed emphasis on standardized testing and the actions connected to the results of same.
Awhile back, there was basically a two-tier approach to public ed.....College Prep or Vocational Ed. Now, there's room for arguement on the criteria for each, but at least there's an acknowledgement that not all will attend college and their educational needs are different.
Agreed. I will say in middle school I think it's a good idea to see what you can do in terms of exposing students to both sides of that coin. But by the time the kids get to high school they need to be put on one track or the other.
I doubt that incremental change will get the job done. What's needed is radical, drastic change plus a hard-nosed reappraisal of the whole idea of universal public education. In the USA, it is a dismal failure.
As it currently stands, our public schools are little more than minimum security detention facilities. Kids don't hate school just because the kids and their parents suck. They also hate it because school is like a prison and is not conducive to learning.
Academic and vocational tracks: primary education for everyone makes sense, but universal secondary level academics does not.
Hard admissions exams for high school and college make sense and preselect for excellence; whereas standardized testing functions mainly as a CYA for administrators, identifying which students need to be "dropped out" and requiring teachers to gear their classes to the mediocre middle.
Advancement should be based on demonstrated mastery of curriculum, rather than being age based. Some students can do it faster than others; let them. Some take a little bit longer; so long as the student is not excessively atrasado, that is no problem either.
Requirements for teachers ought to be very, very high, and their ap ude for teaching should be carefully evaluated. In order to attract highly qualified, highly motivated teachers, their pay should be correspondingly high. This money can come from what we currently give to our largely unnecessary, overpaid school administrators.
Giving kids the summer off is a bad idea. School them year round. It'll make the process shorter, and teachers won't have to spend half the fall reviewing what was taught in the spring.
agreed.
agreedAs it currently stands, our public schools are little more than minimum security detention facilities. Kids don't hate school just because the kids and their parents suck. They also hate it because school is like a prison and is not conducive to learning.
slippery slope here. for one, who sets the admission standards? the schools, the districts, the state or the federal government ? secondly, who funds the schools? what parents will pay property taxes for a school their own children are denied admission to. If there are no property taxes where does the money come from?Academic and vocational tracks: primary education for everyone makes sense, but universal secondary level academics does not.
Hard admissions exams for high school and college make sense and preselect for excellence; whereas standardized testing functions mainly as a CYA for administrators, identifying which students need to be "dropped out" and requiring teachers to gear their classes to the mediocre middle.
as to the standarized tests and admission exams? who designs them? what are the basis of the testing?
what about emotional quotients ?Advancement should be based on demonstrated mastery of curriculum, rather than being age based. Some students can do it faster than others; let them. Some take a little bit longer; so long as the student is not excessively atrasado, that is no problem either.
that is nowhere near the amount of money need to really attract top notch talent to the teaching profession.Requirements for teachers ought to be very, very high, and their ap ude for teaching should be carefully evaluated. In order to attract highly qualified, highly motivated teachers, their pay should be correspondingly high. This money can come from what we currently give to our largely unnecessary, overpaid school administrators.
this also requires more money but not a bad idea. getting parents on board may prove difficult.Giving kids the summer off is a bad idea. School them year round. It'll make the process shorter, and teachers won't have to spend half the fall reviewing what was taught in the spring.
The schools themselves.
A very good question. I think that Federal power is too remote from the scene of education to do much good, but not too remote not to do harm. It's better left to the individual states IMO, plus whatever private money will endow.
Society as a whole reaps the benefit of education, but individual children may not qualify for secondary level academics. Them's the breaks. Study hard and retake the test if at first you don't succeed. If your kid can't pass after a number of tries, maybe advanced schooling isn't for him/her. Educational ap ude and attainment aren't equalitarian; why should opportunity be? (beyond primary schooling, which I think ought to be, if not universally available, as close to it as possible)
The parents' own purse. Why should education be free?
I'm against standardized tests. Pretty much period.
Entrance exams can be as they once were historically: designed by individual ins utions, appropriate for themselves.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. What's an EQ?
According to one source I've read, about one hundred years ago, administrators were 5% of school employment; now they are about 50%. It seems commonsensical that if education were stressed over administration there'd be more money for teachers. Enough to atract highly professional teachers? Hard to say.
What makes you so sure it wouldn' be?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, rjv. But I am curious why you seem so certain about this.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-01-2009 at 02:13 PM.
This is all my opinion:
Are we saying that all the school systems are broke? I believe the lower the avg income of the school, the worse the problem. This isn't the case in 100% of the time but big enough that they are somehow connected.
Firstly, get rid of social promotion of any kind. Then I think we should do vouchers of some kind. In practically every situation, when kids, decided with the parents, go to a school of their choice and not location they produce better grades. Making schools smaller and more dividing. A school for K-3; 4-6; 7-9; and HS.
I also like the magnet schools idea. I agree that teaching a trade would be very beneficial. I read somewhere about kids that drop out get any job. They(kids) feel that having a job makes them feel more adult. That is why they will get a bad job and keep it so they feel successful. A good idea can be to give land tax cuts to parents who do not use the buses. Our HS and Comm College are very watered down and are more focused on promotion/graduation rates than a set standard. I also disagree with the teaching for a test that I have seen my family have to go through these past 5 years. Although I think it was a great revealer to our country's education system. There are some really good ideas from NCLB.
In regards to advancing our middle and high schools I think there should be different goals. Firstly, following the lead of the main character from "Lean on me", we should get rid of the bad apples. Going by degree of offense. have from SRC; Alternative, and then the Juvie school. I have known kids who went through the Bexar Co. school (all year round, uniforms, etc) and they got a better education with less gang problems. From there create more GT type classes. Categorize kids by grades. With the higher of the categories getting more scholarships. The fact is a HS diploma is worth about the amount it cost to pay for a GED. Kids know that so creating an incentive to, while young and stupid, stay in the race. I think then we focus, as a nation, on ways of advancing the top 40%(arbitrary number). With the teachers, we need to pay them better. I believe the problem with the teacher's union is they would be ok if the worst teacher got paid the same as the best. I think we need to help the good teachers stay in. I don't have the answer how to because the Principle would be the one hiring and firing and does not have an incentive to find the real good teachers from the bad ones.
Finally I feel that more basics needs to be taught in the early years. These teachers are in charge of these kids futures. Kids start to develop life long habits before 2nd grade.
okay but clearly there will be different standards. i wonder if this would mean that there would be parents who would then be trying to send their kids to other schools. that is, cross boundaries in order to get around one schools tougher criteria.
inevitably, states will start borrowing from the feds. opening themselves and the schools up to the plethora of civil suits aimed at the unjust or biased admission standards.A very good question. I think that Federal power is too remote from the scene of education to do much good, but not too remote not to do harm. It's better left to the individual states IMO, plus whatever private money will endow.
philsophically, this is where we are probably as diametrically opposed as we can be. there is a strong chance hear that those more inclined to have the necessary environment needed to succeed will do so and those in less favorable environs will continue to fail, resulting in an ever widening gap between the haves and have nots.Society as a whole reaps the benefit of education, but individual children may not qualify for secondary level academics. Them's the breaks. Study hard and retake the test if at first you don't succeed. If your kid can't pass after a number of tries, maybe advanced schooling isn't for him/her. Educational ap ude and attainment aren't equalitarian; why should opportunity be? (beyond primary schooling, which I think ought to be, if not universally available, as close to it as possible)
The parents' own purse. Why should education be free?
as am i but for that same reason i am not all that sure i could come to trust entrance exams.I'm against standardized tests. Pretty much period.
Entrance exams can be as they once were historically: designed by individual ins utions, appropriate for themselves.
actually, i meant to indicate an EI or emotional intelligence quotient.I'm not sure what you're talking about. What's an EQ?
Emotional Intelligence (EI) describes the ability, capacity, skill or, in the case of the trait EI model, a self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups
schools will still have administrative costs so there would still be funds needed to run them. also, those who feel they are worth a lot as far as salaries go would expect more than a mere 20% increase in salary. for instance a science teacher in the NISD makes about 45,000 per year and I do not think that a salary of 54,000 would get the best of the best to opt out of the private sector in order to teach.According to one source I've read, about one hundred years ago, administrators were 5% of school employment; now they are about 50%. It seems commonsensical that if education were stressed over administration there'd be more money for teachers. Enough to atract highly professional teachers? Hard to say.
What makes you so sure it wouldn' be?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, rjv. But I am curious why you think you're right.
another thing is what becomes of special ed programs? athletics? after care programs? band? the arts ?
Sure. The trade off is that your kid's diploma might not be as prestigious. But I see no problem with schools having a variety of standards. Not every community is the same, so why should the schools be? As for there being better and worse schools, this has ever been the case. As a parent, it falls to you to do your homework on the quality of schools, and determine which ones might suit your kid best.
If the states really want to fix education (and I am not sure at all that they do), this is the one thing they cannot do.
To be completely clear, I have zero problem with social inequality. In my mind, the problem is that a lot of people don't have enough, and this is the worthy cause, not inequality per se. I suppose that inequality of wealth might in practice be so extreme that it is the proximate cause of scarcity, but this isn't irresistably true, nor is it demonstrably true for us that I have seen.
(As elsewhere above, I welcome your counterpoint here, rjv. I'm not wedded to my own opinion just because it is mine.)
Caveat emptor. It's more a matter of the value or prestige of the individual ins ution: if it is worth getting in, then it is worth braving the exam, however flawed it might be.
I agree that this is important in the context of education, but the emotional development and behavioral modification of children belong in the bailiwick of parents IMO. I am not sanguine that schools can accomplish it, or trustful that, if they can, that the modification will necessarily be conducive to learning or to the child. As currently constructed, schools are mainly designed promote passivity and compliance rather than emotional and behavioral maturity. If a child lacks the emotional maturity or behavioral self-discipline school requires, I scarcely see why it should fall to the schools to provide it, if in fact they can.
Perhaps you can give an example that shows what you mean. EI and education do not seem a natural fit to me, and I am skeptical that environment is a reliable predictor of ap ude. Even if it were, I don't really see how schools can be expected to remedy social inequality, if the student lacks the ap ude or ability (or the EI) to do the work.
Those who can't cut it in the educational mainstream should have their own schools.
All fine extracurriculars. Desirable, yes. Necessary, no.
For those with special ap ude or motivation toward the fine arts, magnet schools already exist. I see no reason why this shouldn't continue to be the case.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-01-2009 at 03:15 PM.
will there be transportation available?
in an economy like the one we have today i could not imagine how they could avoid it.If the states really want to fix education (and I am not sure at all that they do), this is the one thing they cannot do.
well a very charitable father and jesuit training, not to mention my own personal beliefs have led me to feel deeply committed to the empowerment of the disenfranchised and there is no better point of origin than with children and education. but i have seen more than a fair share of very bright kids in very bad scenarios to know that they would be the first of the lot thrown to the pyres in a plan that depends on a stong support system from home.To be completely clear, I have zero problem with social inequality. In my mind, the problem is that a lot of people don't have enough, and this is the worthy cause, not inequality per se. I suppose that inequality of wealth might in practice be so extreme that it is the proximate cause of scarcity, but this isn't irresistably true, nor is it demonstrably true for us that I have seen.
i was really more making the point of IE as it came to the notion of graduating kids at increments when they master a set of skills. they may be cognitively ready to be in another setting but not necessarily ready to be surrounded by older children.Perhaps you can give an example that shows what you mean. EI and education do not seem a natural fit to me, and I am skeptical that environment is a reliable predictor of ap ude. Even if it were, I don't really see how schools can be expected to remedy social inequality, if the student lacks the ap ude or ability (or the EI) to do the work.
i was actually referring to those with learning disabilities. if you are as well, i'd have to say i could never be that nihilistic. but perhaps we are not thinking of the same thing.Those who can't cut it in the educational mainstream should have their own schools.
i'll have to disagree here. nothing helped me in math more than music. it is such an abstract and creative form of learing that i believe when introduced from an early age on can greatly improve the cognitive status of children. the notion of technology trumps all seems a bit outdated to me. i mean, the logical postivist experiment failed, no ?All fine extracurriculars. Desirable, yes. Necessary, no.
bands and music also exist at a level in public schools as well. and at a large level. taking away extracurricular activities puts a lot of kids out on the streets and kids with time on their hands is not always a good thing. football and track did wonders for keeping me as they kept me focused on physical fitness, training, setting goals and learning discipline. all exemplary traits that have a huge impact on one'e entire life.For those with special ap ude or motivation toward the fine arts, magnet schools already exist. I see no reason why this shouldn't continue to be the case.
it almost seems as if we are no longer talking about "fixing our public schools here" but rather creating a very idealistic and not very pragmatic paradigm to the test. one that is on the border of really being more of a private school system.
Last edited by rjv; 12-01-2009 at 03:59 PM.
I agree so far with:
*more vocational schooling/training - too many kids have no business being in book curriculum class, wasting my wife's time while she's trying to teach Spanish to the kids who want to be there
*scrap no child left behind - I don't know why I was surprised nobody really thought this through when they implented it
*entrance exam to high school - If we were to move 9th grade down to middle school level, then I think a middle school level education at this point is enough to function out in the real world.
If you can't get past the entrance exam, then go to a vocational school. , if you don't want to go to school, then go to work....... Just stop wasting others' time in a classroom.
I don't agree with driver's license for diploma.
Neither is related in any way to the other and if a person can be a productive member of society without a high school diploma, then that person should not be punished by not allowing him/her to drive a vehicle.......especially if he/she has the means to buy one and are smart enough to drive one.
As for special ed classes, if a kid qualifies as special ed, then I don't see why those type of classes wouldn't continue on as they currently do.
Students are responsible for their own attendance, parents presumably would help. If the community thinks it needful to provide, well and fine. If not, tough luck.
Well and fine. Social melioration is well suited to religious missions; to public schools, not so well IMO.
I'm fine with whatever level of support the schools themselves think it appropriate to provide, I just don't think they ought to be required to do so. Support given to the student at school will vary from place to place, just as it does now.
I can see that. But I can't really see how that's determinable with any great accuracy beforehand. Your own remedy puts a lot of trust in theraputic/bureaucratic helpers; IMO it's more to the point to give children as much responsibility for themselves and their work as they can carry.
The words "Special Ed", all by itself, did not disclose this particular meaning to me. I'll say right off the bat that I don't know anything about learning diabilities, so I'll be glad to learn from anybody at all who does.
Ok. That's your view.
Not sure what you're talking about here. Smells like a strawman.
I can buy that. These things aren't stricly related to education, but they might be helpful.
I believe I started out by saying the whole idea of universal, free edeucation needs to be re-evaluated, so that shouldn't surprise you much. One effective fix for the public school system might be to abolish it.
It's entirely possible, in some places, probable, that public schools are beyond "fixing".
there would have to be public transport. it is a big part of todays attendance. a lack of transportation for the schools would be an extreme hardship on parents. as for the tough luck on kids who are otherwise smart but just not fortunate enough to have a ride... no way i can ever agree with "tough luck" as the answer.
well, again.. defined in completely different terms, that is as this new paradigm of "public" schools it most definitely would not. but even non-religious viewpoints support this. the categorical imperative comes to mind here.]Well and fine. Social melioration is well suited to religious missions; to public schools, not so well IMO.
i can only assume here is that if a kid has a dad in jail and a drunk for a mom well.. "good luck kid but that's life".I'm fine with whatever level of support the schools themselves think it appropriate to provide, I just don't think they ought to be required to do so. Support given to the student at school will vary from place to place, just as it does now.
I can see that. But I can't really see how that's determinable with any great accuracy beforehand. Your own remedy puts a lot of trust in theraputic/bureaucratic helpers; IMO it's more to the point to give children as much responsibility for themselves and their work as they can carry.
surely you have heard of dyslexia, hearing impaired, handicapped kids, kids with neurological deficits....The words "Special Ed", all by itself, did not disclose this particular meaning to me. I'll say right off the bat that I don't know anything about learning diabilities, so I'll be glad to learn from anybody at all who does.
not really. there is quite a bit of research to support this. for instance, the mozart effect. the part of the cortex, which contains the repertoire of spatial-temporal firing patterns, can be excited by music and is utilized in higher brain functions such as spatial-temporal thinking in mathematics.Ok. That's your view.
my point was that it seems as if we are in a time where many advocate science and technology as the primary aspects of pedagogy and dismiss the arts and music as almost metaphysical constructs. i actually think the latter can be quite analytical and empirical. can you imagine using cubism to demontrate the possibilty of multiple dimensions in space to kids?Not sure what you're talking about here. Smells like a strawman.
education is also experience.I can buy that. These things aren't stricly related to education, but they might be helpful.
indeed.I believe I started out by saying the whole idea of universal, free edeucation needs to be re-evaluated, so that shouldn't surprise you much. One effective fix for the public school system might be to abolish it.
My point is, communities should be freer than they are now to prioritize expenses.
Transportation to and from school at this point is expected, and probably would be demanded by the public in any new scheme of education. But it might not be universally required, and where it is not, communities -- IMHO -- should be free to determine whether they need it or not.
The categorical imperative mandates social melioration specifically in schools? Care to flesh that out? It isn't intuitive to me.
It would depend on the moral qualities of the community. Presumably, many communities would take various hardships into account; others might not. That's life. It ain't always fair.
Sure. I still know next to nothing about them.
Still, it seems unrealistic to mandate accomodation for the whole spectrum of developmental/learning disabilities in all schools if the point is to have the best schools possible. It seems to me hasty to rule out alternative educational venues for at least some of these students.
Seems plausible. If it works, it ain't stupid.
I think the arts and music have their place in education. To what extent should be determined, I think, by the schools themselves and the communities they serve, rather than by scientific or bureaucratic diktat.
Sure.
Fair enough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
