Atlanta schools cheating scandal

[bfdd]

They should be fired, but at the same time we may want to take away the incentive for teachers to correct their students. Some teachers are dealt a bad hand and it's ridiculous to penalize them for not turning duds into geniuses. This no child left behind stuff just seems like it's been a huge disaster.

no child left behind imo has done more damage to the country than the two wars.

 

[Darwin333]

A few years ago, I went and had lunch at a local Arby's. IIRC, I ordered a combo meal and it came out to something like $6.15. I handed the lady a $10 and she stared at the cash register for a moment. She finally called her manager over. He looked at the total, looked at my bill, and said "You owe him $3.85. Give him three $1 bills, three quarters, and a dime." The manager walked off to the back of the restaurant and she went back to fiddling around in the drawer. Finally, she literally grabbed a handful of change and shoved it across the counter at me. I am still shocked to this day.

Two weeks ago we went to a softball tournament my daughter was playing in. There was a lady sitting at a table by the entrance with a cash box (no register) collecting the $6 entrance fee. I was paying for my wife and I so the total was $12. I gave the lady a $20 and two $1s and she immiediately said "no, its only $12." I said yes, I know it is $12 and she then proceeded to argue with me that I gave her to much money. I say there simply dumbfounded and hoping that she would finally figure it out. It was hot and I didn't feel like standing there any longer so I let her off the hook way to easy and finally told her "please just hand my a 10 dollar bill".

The VERY NEXT DAY I was walking back to the truck to get some extension cords for the fans and I heard a guy arguing with the lady over the EXACT SAME THING! He gave her $22 for two tickets ($12 again) and she kept trying to give him $2 back because he gave her to much money. It didn't sound like he was nearly as nice about it as I was but finally her son (who looked to be about 7) told her "mom, he wants $10 back".


I watched a guy I worked with a few years back hand a cashier a $50 and after she rang it up gave her smaller bills and at least half the time he got way more change then owed. Why? Because they already entered the $50 into the register and had to calculate the new bills in their heads..... and couldn't. We are talking the most basic of math not advanced trig or calculus like others want to argue.

 

[werepossum]

Two weeks ago we went to a softball tournament my daughter was playing in. There was a lady sitting at a table by the entrance with a cash box (no register) collecting the $6 entrance fee. I was paying for my wife and I so the total was $12. I gave the lady a $20 and two $1s and she immiediately said "no, its only $12." I said yes, I know it is $12 and she then proceeded to argue with me that I gave her to much money. I say there simply dumbfounded and hoping that she would finally figure it out. It was hot and I didn't feel like standing there any longer so I let her off the hook way to easy and finally told her "please just hand my a 10 dollar bill".

The VERY NEXT DAY I was walking back to the truck to get some extension cords for the fans and I heard a guy arguing with the lady over the EXACT SAME THING! He gave her $22 for two tickets ($12 again) and she kept trying to give him $2 back because he gave her to much money. It didn't sound like he was nearly as nice about it as I was but finally her son (who looked to be about 7) told her "mom, he wants $10 back".


I watched a guy I worked with a few years back hand a cashier a $50 and after she rang it up gave her smaller bills and at least half the time he got way more change then owed. Why? Because they already entered the $50 into the register and had to calculate the new bills in their heads..... and couldn't. We are talking the most basic of math not advanced trig or calculus like others want to argue.

Hey, give her a break. She and her fellows elected a President.

 

[Rock Hydra]

FYI while unacceptable, the real reasons behind this happening start in the child's home.

I can see where you would come off saying this, but from what I can see, schools are in place to undermine parental values, and insert state values. I think this is why states go hardcore on home-schooling parents. They want your kids separated from you ~200 days out of the year for 7-8 plus hours a day. Obviously they can't break everyone, but ritalin, fluoride, vaccines, and TV flicker helps subdue children and make them suceptible to programming.

 

[werepossum]

I can see where you would come off saying this, but from what I can see, schools are in place to undermine parental values, and insert state values. I think this is why states go hardcore on home-schooling parents. They want your kids separated from you ~200 days out of the year for 7-8 plus hours a day. Obviously they can't break everyone, but ritalin, fluoride, vaccines, and TV flicker helps subdue children and make them selectable to programming.

QFT

 

[woolfe9999]

Quite true, and we need to be fixing parents as much as schools, teachers, and students. However, it's difficult to convince kids that real education is important is an entitlement society. If they are entitled to other people's money by the mere fact of existence, why should they expend the energy to excel? In our society, work has been devalued, along with achievement and education.

You have a tendency to put everything down to something vaguely "liberal" as being the cause. There's another theory here, and it points in the other direction: consumerism has made us and our kids shallow. Of the two theories, I favor mine, because honestly, unless you're talking about the kids of welfare parents, kids aren't thinking about government entitlements. They hardly know what they are. And parents who aren't receiving them are probably not terribly influenced in their parenting by the existence of said programs. The notion that the typical American parents don't teach their kid the importance of learning because they think it's OK if s/he is a failure because s/he can just get on welfare is absurd. It applies to a narrow percentage of the population, at best, and doesn't explain the rest.

It isn't only people actually on public assistance who aren't teaching their kids the value of learning. Heck, even upper middle class white people raise kids as spoiled brats. Even in the cases where they may drive them to get good grades it is never posed as learning for its own sake. Our kids end up shallow, with the attention span of gnats. And that's the "A" students.

- wolf

 

[Rock Hydra]

You have a tendency to put everything down to something vaguely "liberal" as being the cause. There's another theory here, and it points in the other direction: consumerism has made us and our kids shallow. Of the two theories, I favor mine, because honestly, unless you're talking about the kids of welfare parents, kids aren't thinking about government entitlements. They hardly know what they are. And parents who aren't receiving them are probably not terribly influenced in their parenting by the existence of said programs. The notion that the typical American parents don't teach their kid the importance of learning because they think it's OK if s/he is a failure because s/he can just get on welfare is absurd. It applies to a narrow percentage of the population, at best, and doesn't explain the rest.

It isn't only people actually on public assistance who aren't teaching their kids the value of learning. Heck, even upper middle class white people raise kids as spoiled brats. Even in the cases where they may drive them to get good grades it is never posed as learning for its own sake. Our kids end up shallow, with the attention span of gnats. And that's the "A" students.

- wolf

I feel bad for kids of the future. They are being born into a society where people are taught that people are just.... less useful (learned helplessness) in general by advent of machines doing the same thing as living beings. (not bashing tech, just some of the ideals behind it's existence) This is just part of the overall picture here but quite notable.

 

[werepossum]

You have a tendency to put everything down to something vaguely "liberal" as being the cause. There's another theory here, and it points in the other direction: consumerism has made us and our kids shallow. Of the two theories, I favor mine, because honestly, unless you're talking about the kids of welfare parents, kids aren't thinking about government entitlements. They hardly know what they are. And parents who aren't receiving them are probably not terribly influenced in their parenting by the existence of said programs. The notion that the typical American parents don't teach their kid the importance of learning because they think it's OK if s/he is a failure because s/he can just get on welfare is absurd. It applies to a narrow percentage of the population, at best, and doesn't explain the rest.

It isn't only people actually on public assistance who aren't teaching their kids the value of learning. Heck, even upper middle class white people raise kids as spoiled brats. Even in the cases where they may drive them to get good grades it is never posed as learning for its own sake. Our kids end up shallow, with the attention span of gnats. And that's the "A" students.

- wolf

My point was rather that the average parent feels his child is entitled to things than that they think it is okay if he is a failure. Once you adopt the idea that pay is not earned based on merit but rather that income is "distributed" according to arbitrary factors, your child is not a failure if he cannot get a good job regardless of his lack of useful education and work ethic. Rather, that's society's failure. I'd even argue that an appreciation of learning for its own sake is contributing to our problem. Now people who study sociology or philosophy or seventeenth century French poetry feel entitled to at least as much compensation as someone who studies engineering or law or chemistry, and rather more than someone who studies welding or sheet metal fabrication or plumbing.

You certainly have a point about the average parent (including upper middle class white people) raising shallow children. However, if this was because of consumerism, would those parents (and those children) not concentrate on education as a means of increasing their capacity for consumption? Should not these parents, consumed by consumerism, not all be pushing their children into law or medicine or chemical engineering, something to generate a good income, if consumerism is the driving force? Seems to me this theory breaks down with the parents' and the kids' apathy. But if it's valid, I see only three possible ways for government to address this. First, government could try to set a good example by, say, not spending above its means and not demanding ever more of our wealth. Good luck with that.

Second, government could encourage savings, either by restructuring tax law to reward saving, or by removing social services to punish consumerism. I like the former idea, but it goes directly against the progressive ideal of punishing the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful. "From each according to his means, to each according to his need." Would you really support government not taking its cut off the top to encourage saving and discourage consumerism? What about when the rich get even richer, since people who become wealthy tend to do so by spending proportionally less than the rest of us? The latter would be very rough on people who did everything right (at least to the best of their ability) and simply suffered from bad luck. It would also be very hard on children whose consumer-oriented parents are stupid or selfish.

Third, government could simply seize all wealth it deems excess, thereby preventing consumerism from being fulfilled. You could certainly argue that argue that a communist nation where government owns everything is significantly less consumeristic (to coin a word), but most people (Craig obviously excluded) wouldn't try to argue that it is happier or more productive. Denied the benefits of working past subsistence, most people simply don't work that hard. No consumerism, but also no progress and little protection against catastrophe.

I'm sure you think government could fight consumerism by taxing more heavily and spending on "the public good". I think though that most people, seeing government spending ever-increasing amounts, would not be convinced that it is bad for individuals to do the same. "It's bad for you to spend your salary, but it's good for me to spend it" isn't a meme that has enjoyed a lot of success in the world except when backed by force, or on populations long accustomed to its being backed by force.

 

[bpatters69]

I see and hear a lot of excuses as to why our students do not pass standard test that students from other countries can pass with ease. Why is that here is the State our first response is to blame the tests, blame the system, blame this or that. Guess what folks. You can make all the excuses you want but in the end our students will suffer from our inability to stand tough and to hold the educators, the students and most importantly the parents responsible for the atrocious system that is our public school system. It sickens me to watch 2/3 of my property taxes go to a system that sucks in every way.

Regardless of your feelings on No Child Left Behind, you have to be able to measure performance. The next step is to make changes based on what you found with your testing. This is a very basic and scientific approach. You can whine all you want about the test or the system, etc but without testing, how will you know what needs to be done?

You want to direct your anger at someone? Blame the parents who do not take an active interest in their child's education. Blame the unions which protect bad teachers and do not allow promotion based on merit and achievement. The Unions are particularly loathsome. My district was up for a grant from the Bill Gates foundation but they were eliminated from the funding because the Union did not want to “subject” the teachers to standard testing. Why? Because the Union was afraid that the public would learn how lame many of our teachers are. The result is that we lost millions in grant funding.

 

[alkemyst]

Thank you to No Child Left Behind.

bullshit campaign. Sorry, your kid just isn't good enough should be what anyone less than the best should expect to hear.

Personally I think the baby boomers were the last to keep it all together on that front (yet rape it on the backend).

Around here there was some controversy over quite a few FCAT tests with similar erasings and new answers scratched the same way.

 

[D-Man]

My take is if you do not like the law work to change it. Or we could just cheat whatever is easier. I agree it is tough for the teachers the $191,000 paid to a H.S Coach in my area proves it. Thank God he retired we now only have to pay him 75% of his $140,000 base salary for the rest of his life. Oh I forgot 3% increase every year. He really did not retire he went to another School District to teach whoops to coach. The teachers plight is a tough one I agree lets look at an administrator who for their last 3 years before retirement got 22% raises every year Pension Spiking anyone. The vast amounts of money given away by School Boards and for this administrator in my opinion was criminal BTW his salary was around $375,000 can you say retired millionaire in 3 years. If teachers are overwhelmed we need to look at the pay abuses in every State repair the outrageous ones and hire more teachers if that is really what we need. Or like I said we could just cheat

 

[Hacp]

The teachers, administrators and accomplices should never be allowed to work in education again. The administrators / ringleaders should face jail time, with accomplices fined / placed on probation. This is corruption, plane and simple and must be crushed.

Not going to happen with the unions protecting them.

 

[KK]

Not going to happen with the unions protecting them.

You must not be from these parts or know a teacher. There is a union(PAGE), but it doesn't have a say in anything. You will never see a strike go on down here like they happen up north. The only reason most teachers are in it is because of the insurance it provides for getting sued by little johnny's strung out mother.

 

[woolfe9999]

My point was rather that the average parent feels his child is entitled to things than that they think it is okay if he is a failure. Once you adopt the idea that pay is not earned based on merit but rather that income is "distributed" according to arbitrary factors, your child is not a failure if he cannot get a good job regardless of his lack of useful education and work ethic. Rather, that's society's failure. I'd even argue that an appreciation of learning for its own sake is contributing to our problem. Now people who study sociology or philosophy or seventeenth century French poetry feel entitled to at least as much compensation as someone who studies engineering or law or chemistry, and rather more than someone who studies welding or sheet metal fabrication or plumbing.

You certainly have a point about the average parent (including upper middle class white people) raising shallow children. However, if this was because of consumerism, would those parents (and those children) not concentrate on education as a means of increasing their capacity for consumption? Should not these parents, consumed by consumerism, not all be pushing their children into law or medicine or chemical engineering, something to generate a good income, if consumerism is the driving force? Seems to me this theory breaks down with the parents' and the kids' apathy. But if it's valid, I see only three possible ways for government to address this. First, government could try to set a good example by, say, not spending above its means and not demanding ever more of our wealth. Good luck with that.

Second, government could encourage savings, either by restructuring tax law to reward saving, or by removing social services to punish consumerism. I like the former idea, but it goes directly against the progressive ideal of punishing the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful. "From each according to his means, to each according to his need." Would you really support government not taking its cut off the top to encourage saving and discourage consumerism? What about when the rich get even richer, since people who become wealthy tend to do so by spending proportionally less than the rest of us? The latter would be very rough on people who did everything right (at least to the best of their ability) and simply suffered from bad luck. It would also be very hard on children whose consumer-oriented parents are stupid or selfish.

Third, government could simply seize all wealth it deems excess, thereby preventing consumerism from being fulfilled. You could certainly argue that argue that a communist nation where government owns everything is significantly less consumeristic (to coin a word), but most people (Craig obviously excluded) wouldn't try to argue that it is happier or more productive. Denied the benefits of working past subsistence, most people simply don't work that hard. No consumerism, but also no progress and little protection against catastrophe.

I'm sure you think government could fight consumerism by taxing more heavily and spending on "the public good". I think though that most people, seeing government spending ever-increasing amounts, would not be convinced that it is bad for individuals to do the same. "It's bad for you to spend your salary, but it's good for me to spend it" isn't a meme that has enjoyed a lot of success in the world except when backed by force, or on populations long accustomed to its being backed by force.

This is probably not the proper forum to discuss the impact of consumerism - American style - on our mass psychology. I'll just say, for now, that we do indeed have an "entitlement mentality" that pervades our culture, but it has very little to do with food stamps and AFDC. It's why, for example, when we run out of money, we borrow for things we want, not just things we need. We don't borrow for frills because of a government social program. Something is driving us to believe we are entitled to instant gratification. This drive for instant gratification starts at a very young age. It may cause some to excel with the objective of accumulating wealth, while others, too many these days, simply tune out. The reason so many tune out is because it is about instant gratification. That carries with it the inability to trade off short term gratification for long term gratification. Either way, it makes us all shallow, including the ones who "succeed."

I'll leave you with a question to frame the issue: what quality does a consumer culture value more? Looks or brains? Just ask any teenager. They'll tell you.

Oh, and there isn't anything the government can do about it. I don't know why you think I am arguing there is.

- wolf

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A solution is not to teach those who are guaranteed to ruin a persons career. I wonder how well that would sit.

This was a problem from the beginning where standards did not take into consideration the degree of difficulty working in complex situations.

Nothing surprising of course.

 

[werepossum]

This is probably not the proper forum to discuss the impact of consumerism - American style - on our mass psychology. I'll just say, for now, that we do indeed have an "entitlement mentality" that pervades our culture, but it has very little to do with food stamps and AFDC. It's why, for example, when we run out of money, we borrow for things we want, not just things we need. We don't borrow for frills because of a government social program. Something is driving us to believe we are entitled to instant gratification. This drive for instant gratification starts at a very young age. It may cause some to excel with the objective of accumulating wealth, while others, too many these days, simply tune out. The reason so many tune out is because it is about instant gratification. That carries with it the inability to trade off short term gratification for long term gratification. Either way, it makes us all shallow, including the ones who "succeed."

I'll leave you with a question to frame the issue: what quality does a consumer culture value more? Looks or brains? Just ask any teenager. They'll tell you.

Oh, and there isn't anything the government can do about it. I don't know why you think I am arguing there is.

- wolf

I agree with every bit of that. In our entitlement mentality society, the food stamps and AFDC crowd is probably the segment hurting us the least. And I'm very glad to see that you don't think there's a government solution.