Finally! Bloomberg's education plan to end social promotion.

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I wonder why Republicans hate teachers so much? Didn't the Secretary of Education call them terrorists?
You are upset teachers are incompetent, well, if you think you can do better for that pay, go and become a teacher and stop your whining.
I went to a public inner city high school, and I graduated from it in 3 years with 36 AP credits, which is 1 year worth of college, so I skipped a grade in both HS and university.
Of course you rightwingers would preffer that the teachers spend their time teaching every last lazy retard to pass a test than to teach those who want to learn actual marketable skills.

i see a test as a measure of what a student has learned. dumping down the standards only do them harm. it's the liberal "feel good about yourself even though you're a dumba$$ and you can succeed without passing" thing.

 

[Red Dawn]

Back when I was in school they didn't need these tests. Either you passed the course by knowing the material or you didn't advance a grade. Of course that was back in the 60's when we weren't worried about the kids self esteem as a child, instead we concentrated on their future self esteem as an adult being able to read.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Back when I was in school they didn't need these tests. Either you passed the course by knowing the material or you didn't advance a grade. Of course that was back in the 60's when we weren't worried about the kids self esteem as a child, instead we concentrated on their future self esteem as an adult being able to read.

Exactly. Curiculums were tough at one time. You were quized and tested throughout the year and if you didn't PASS those tests - you didn't PASS the class. Since that sort of thing has gone by the wayside - a standardized test is needed. I'd be more than happy to see the standardized tests go away - but it would take real quizing and testing throughout the year showing that a kid actually learned something. Unfortunately though - we've gotten to a point were standardized testing is necessary so we stop failing our kids on the education front.

CkG

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tabb

The whole enterprise of public education needs to be burned to the ground, plowed under with salt, and started again from scratch.

ditto

I'd first recommend removing all sports from schools. I fail to see how they offer any academic value. In the office we have the school view taken from a airplane. I'd say atleast a solid 1/3 is maybe dedicated to academics....Maybe

I agree with you there. If kids want to play sports, let some private organization make a childrens sports fountation and they can pay extra for it. When there isn't enough money for paper you don't buy new uniforms for the basketball team.

One of the reasons the educational system is so messed up I think is because its so underfunded. People who are smart enough to be a good teacher don't become teachers because they're ALSO smart enough to realize that they can't make much money doing it.

Then the few ones who are idealistic enough to stick it out anyway get crap from all of us because they aren't able to turn sh|t into gold. Bush's 'no child left behind' thing didn't do jack. He basically screamed in their ears 'work harder' and didn't give them much more funding. What's that suppose to fix?

Under Bush - Education spending is up 65 percent.

Care to keep saying Bush isn't funding Education?

CkG

Instituting a costly and difficult to implement new program and then half assing it on the necessary funding isn't funding education. Its david and goliath, except you just gave david a rubberband when he needed a slingshot. Of course spending is up, it has to be to even attempt to accomplish these lofty new goals.

It seems like some of the people described in this article, don't see it as an 'increase in funding'
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001831790_dean08.html

Or this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/05/elec04.prez.bush.no.child.ap/

Utah republicans don't even like the sound of it. They need the federal funding to do these programs, otherwise they're going to have to increase state taxes to try to do it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...e&node=&contentId=A52720-2004Feb18¬Found=true

So the answer to the problem according to bush is to force state governments to squeeze more money out of their citizens to meet a federally institued requirement. Some tax cuts there. Its not a bad idea he has, but he has to follow through with it, not just pass the buck along to state governements.

So yeah, I am going to keep saying Bush underfunds education.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Teachers would have to fight for every penny, the School Corporations would be "maximizing profits" out the ying/yang.

they would also have competition in the market, making it so that the short supply of teachers got as much as they are worth. Odd as it sounds, the best way to maximize profits is to have a product that people want.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Back when I was in school they didn't need these tests. Either you passed the course by knowing the material or you didn't advance a grade. Of course that was back in the 60's when we weren't worried about the kids self esteem as a child, instead we concentrated on their future self esteem as an adult being able to read.

Exactly. Curiculums were tough at one time. You were quized and tested throughout the year and if you didn't PASS those tests - you didn't PASS the class. Since that sort of thing has gone by the wayside - a standardized test is needed. I'd be more than happy to see the standardized tests go away - but it would take real quizing and testing throughout the year showing that a kid actually learned something. Unfortunately though - we've gotten to a point were standardized testing is necessary so we stop failing our kids on the education front.

CkG

you just don't get it!

these kids have to worry about aids, and people being bigoted against homosexuals, and people trying to pray at school, and being confused and assaulted with the pledge of allegiance, and the ten commandments; they have to worry about pollution, deforestation, out sourcing, and people trying to take their reproductive freedom away!

you can't expect the same level of work that you did back then when things where simple, and we didn't have to worry about these things; these kids are way to stressed now adays, push them any harder and they might kill themselves!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tabb

The whole enterprise of public education needs to be burned to the ground, plowed under with salt, and started again from scratch.

ditto

I'd first recommend removing all sports from schools. I fail to see how they offer any academic value. In the office we have the school view taken from a airplane. I'd say atleast a solid 1/3 is maybe dedicated to academics....Maybe

I agree with you there. If kids want to play sports, let some private organization make a childrens sports fountation and they can pay extra for it. When there isn't enough money for paper you don't buy new uniforms for the basketball team.

One of the reasons the educational system is so messed up I think is because its so underfunded. People who are smart enough to be a good teacher don't become teachers because they're ALSO smart enough to realize that they can't make much money doing it.

Then the few ones who are idealistic enough to stick it out anyway get crap from all of us because they aren't able to turn sh|t into gold. Bush's 'no child left behind' thing didn't do jack. He basically screamed in their ears 'work harder' and didn't give them much more funding. What's that suppose to fix?

Under Bush - Education spending is up 65 percent.

Care to keep saying Bush isn't funding Education?

CkG

Instituting a costly and difficult to implement new program and then half assing it on the necessary funding isn't funding education. Its david and goliath, except you just gave david a rubberband when he needed a slingshot. Of course spending is up, it has to be to even attempt to accomplish these lofty new goals.

It seems like some of the people describing this article, don't see it as an 'increase in funding'
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001831790_dean08.html

Or this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/05/elec04.prez.bush.no.child.ap/

Utah republicans don't even like the sound of it. They need the federal funding to do these programs, otherwise they're going to have to increase state taxes to try to do it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52720-2004Feb18¬Found=true

So the answer to the problem according to bush is to force state governments to squeeze more money out of their citizens to meet a federally institued requirement. Some tax cuts there. Its not a bad idea he has, but he has to follow through with it, not just pass the buck along to state governements.

So yeah, I am going to keep saying Bush underfunds education.

OK - so when in your opinion would education be "funded"? Was it funded under Clinton? Bush 1? Reagan? Increasing Education spending by 65% is quite a bit and yet you want more? When is "more" enough? When YOU decide? Or when people stop complaining about funding? Have you ever heard a group of people that suckles from the gov't say they are getting enough funding? Cripse I swear people don't actually THINK about things - they just go off on rants about "not enough money".

What will this "more money" do that the other 65% INCREASE didn't? Do you realize that we spend an outrageous amount of money on every kid in school? I wonder where that ~5k? per kid goes? It sure doesn't go to the teachers, it must not go to school supplies because everyone always says there isn't enough, it must not go to new buildings because every other year there is a new school referendum to spend millions on school improvements or building. Where does this 5K go? Why does it take $5k per year to teach one kid?

Classroom of 25 kids. 125K. teacher? 35K? So where is the 90K per classroom going?

Anyway the point was about the mischaracterization that Bush hasn't funded education. He has increased it's funding 65%!!!

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
you just don't get it!

these kids have to worry about aids, and people being bigoted against homosexuals, and people trying to pray at school, and being confused and assaulted with the pledge of allegiance, and the ten commandments; they have to worry about pollution, deforestation, out sourcing, and people trying to take their reproductive freedom away!

you can't expect the same level of work that you did back then when things where simple, and we didn't have to worry about these things; these kids are way to stressed now adays, push them any harder and they might kill themselves!

:beer:



CkG

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
you just don't get it!

these kids have to worry about aids, and people being bigoted against homosexuals, and people trying to pray at school, and being confused and assaulted with the pledge of allegiance, and the ten commandments; they have to worry about pollution, deforestation, out sourcing, and people trying to take their reproductive freedom away!

you can't expect the same level of work that you did back then when things where simple, and we didn't have to worry about these things; these kids are way to stressed now adays, push them any harder and they might kill themselves!

:beer:



CkG

don't thank me, thank the truth!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

.

 

[GoPackGo]

I know of many kids I grew up with who kept getting passed along even though they had learning problems...where it fails them is after the school system is done with them and they can't get into college or have no business going in the first place.

We need to realize that not everyone is smart enough to go to college.

If you say college needs to be eased to accomodate them then you destroy the college education...I have seen where that is done in today's colleges and it sucks....you go to class and the teachers no longer are challenging the students....more and more open book tests and take home quizzes...what the heck is that?

And if the college pushes them along through like they were in high school...they will have huge debt from student loans that they can't afford to pay back..maybe even default.

We could throw 10 times the amount of money at education and still end up with dumb kids...then who's fault is it? Bush...certainly not...its the schools...the teachers...the parents...and the city.

The best education is till done through books, lectures, homework and challenge. much of this is no longer done.

In my high school chemistry class, our teacher told us to take our books and keep them in the locker the whole year...we never used them. We learned more about chemistry through lecture and lab then what we could read in a book....it was great....but it was hard...one had to listen and take good notes or you failed...I still consider him one of my best and favorite teachers.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Tabb

The whole enterprise of public education needs to be burned to the ground, plowed under with salt, and started again from scratch.

ditto

I'd first recommend removing all sports from schools. I fail to see how they offer any academic value. In the office we have the school view taken from a airplane. I'd say atleast a solid 1/3 is maybe dedicated to academics....Maybe

I agree with you there. If kids want to play sports, let some private organization make a childrens sports fountation and they can pay extra for it. When there isn't enough money for paper you don't buy new uniforms for the basketball team.

One of the reasons the educational system is so messed up I think is because its so underfunded. People who are smart enough to be a good teacher don't become teachers because they're ALSO smart enough to realize that they can't make much money doing it.

Then the few ones who are idealistic enough to stick it out anyway get crap from all of us because they aren't able to turn sh|t into gold. Bush's 'no child left behind' thing didn't do jack. He basically screamed in their ears 'work harder' and didn't give them much more funding. What's that suppose to fix?

Under Bush - Education spending is up 65 percent.

Care to keep saying Bush isn't funding Education?

CkG

Instituting a costly and difficult to implement new program and then half assing it on the necessary funding isn't funding education. Its david and goliath, except you just gave david a rubberband when he needed a slingshot. Of course spending is up, it has to be to even attempt to accomplish these lofty new goals.

It seems like some of the people describing this article, don't see it as an 'increase in funding'
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001831790_dean08.html

Or this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/05/elec04.prez.bush.no.child.ap/

Utah republicans don't even like the sound of it. They need the federal funding to do these programs, otherwise they're going to have to increase state taxes to try to do it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52720-2004Feb18¬Found=true

So the answer to the problem according to bush is to force state governments to squeeze more money out of their citizens to meet a federally institued requirement. Some tax cuts there. Its not a bad idea he has, but he has to follow through with it, not just pass the buck along to state governements.

So yeah, I am going to keep saying Bush underfunds education.

OK - so when in your opinion would education be "funded"? Was it funded under Clinton? Bush 1? Reagan? Increasing Education spending by 65% is quite a bit and yet you want more? When is "more" enough? When YOU decide? Or when people stop complaining about funding? Have you ever heard a group of people that suckles from the gov't say they are getting enough funding? Cripse I swear people don't actually THINK about things - they just go off on rants about "not enough money".

What will this "more money" do that the other 65% INCREASE didn't? Do you realize that we spend an outrageous amount of money on every kid in school? I wonder where that ~5k? per kid goes? It sure doesn't go to the teachers, it must not go to school supplies because everyone always says there isn't enough, it must not go to new buildings because every other year there is a new school referendum to spend millions on school improvements or building. Where does this 5K go? Why does it take $5k per year to teach one kid?

Classroom of 25 kids. 125K. teacher? 35K? So where is the 90K per classroom going?

Anyway the point was about the mischaracterization that Bush hasn't funded education. He has increased it's funding 65%!!!

CkG

I commend you for your ability to sidestep the issue and spit out the number 65. Yes, I saw it was increased...but he also placed a greater burden on them at the same time that wiped out the benefits of the 65%. Of course I'm just repeating myself now.

And when did I say it was ever properly funded? I think the biggest problem is misappropriation of the funds.

 

[Zebo]

I blame the parents. They put too much pressure on the teachers and admins to pass thier dumb ass kids and not any on the kids because there is tons of money both state and federal waiting for HS grads to attend state colleges. My dad was just the opposite..If I ever got a U (unsat in elm school) not only would ass whipping commence I'd be grounded the whole quarter until I got all P's and E's (pass and excellent) the next.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Tabb

The whole enterprise of public education needs to be burned to the ground, plowed under with salt, and started again from scratch.

ditto

I'd first recommend removing all sports from schools. I fail to see how they offer any academic value. In the office we have the school view taken from a airplane. I'd say atleast a solid 1/3 is maybe dedicated to academics....Maybe

You just confimed youself a total geek with no social life

Sports are an integral part of education. They teach disapline, compitition, sacrifice, and healthy habits among many other things. Honestly I leaned more from my wrestling coach than any teacher thoughout school he taught me how to drive too.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

teach disapline, compitition, sacrifice, and healthy habits among many other things.

to speak from a purely progressive standpoint: you've got no right to push your 'morals' on others!

IMHO:

sports like foot ball should be nixed, sports like basket ball and voly-ball are fine;

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

teach disapline, compitition, sacrifice, and healthy habits among many other things.

to speak from a purely progressive standpoint: you've got no right to push your 'morals' on others!

IMHO:

sports like foot ball should be nixed, sports like basket ball and voly-ball are fine;

Sports is voluntary last time I checked. What you mean you have no right to push "morals" on others...happens everyday, otherwise I would simply break down your door, kill you, rape your women, and subjagate your children like all good vikings. Seriously, the fact the whole "progressive" agenda stems from a moral outlook on life never occured to you? And that progressives are also viing for moral supremecy of thier ideals? Best summed up as do unto others, preserving the enviroment for future and current enjoyment, and to each his own socially. Similarly with conservatives thier moral outlook is one of tradition, safty, conformity and to each his own financially.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I would simply break down your door, rape your women, and eat your children like all good vikings.

hey, it's not MY woman, she's her own person and I'll appreciate you treating her as such.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I commend you for your ability to sidestep the issue and spit out the number 65. Yes, I saw it was increased...but he also placed a greater burden on them at the same time that wiped out the benefits of the 65%. Of course I'm just repeating myself now.

And when did I say it was ever properly funded? I think the biggest problem is misappropriation of the funds.

No, it is you who don't seem to understand the issue. Your "need more money" argument is trash. I fail to see how you can spin a 65% increase into not equalling some "burden" you think was placed on education.

So out with it. What ate up that NEW 65%? Please explain it away - I really want to see why you think that increase didn't meet the "burden".

If you can't follow the issue and point to it's conclusion then it seems to be your issue with sidestepping - not mine.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Why should we have to pay for someone's third grade education twice? They had their chance to learn, if they didn't they need to redo it on their own time, with private tutoring.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why should we have to pay for someone's third grade education twice? They had their chance to learn, if they didn't they need to redo it on their own time, with private tutoring.

So you are basically proposing throwing poor performers out of school? That is what social promotion amounts to, as once they get behind, they never catch up.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I commend you for your ability to sidestep the issue and spit out the number 65. Yes, I saw it was increased...but he also placed a greater burden on them at the same time that wiped out the benefits of the 65%. Of course I'm just repeating myself now.

And when did I say it was ever properly funded? I think the biggest problem is misappropriation of the funds.

No, it is you who don't seem to understand the issue. Your "need more money" argument is trash. I fail to see how you can spin a 65% increase into not equalling some "burden" you think was placed on education.

So out with it. What ate up that NEW 65%? Please explain it away - I really want to see why you think that increase didn't meet the "burden".

If you can't follow the issue and point to it's conclusion then it seems to be your issue with sidestepping - not mine.

CkG

I don't really see much point in arguing with you, since you're just going to force me to repeat myself over and over again. Read the articles. They say what the problem is, not me. I'm not on the front line of education, I just hear their complaints from what I read.

Schools never have enough money. I don't think the solution is impose greater requirements on them, straining their budgets isn't going to help them. I think they should be forced to streamline. Cut athletics altogether. These are schools not Gyms.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I blame the parents. They put too much pressure on the teachers and admins to pass thier dumb ass kids and not any on the kids because there is tons of money both state and federal waiting for HS grads to attend state colleges. My dad was just the opposite..If I ever got a U (unsat in elm school) not only would ass whipping commence I'd be grounded the whole quarter until I got all P's and E's (pass and excellent) the next.

Agreed. This is a huge problem that I witnessed while I was in high school. People just couldn't accept that maybe they had a dumb kid. They'd scream at the teacher about the bad grades until the teacher finally would just say 'fvck it' and pass them along. It just isn't worth their effort to fight it.

My parents would just whoop my ass if I got bad grades. If I tried to blame it on the teacher they told me 'Well its to bad she's a b|tch, but you still have to get good grades so you better try harder.' Its an important lesson, Mommy and Daddy aren't going to be their to bail you out when your boss fires you. But so many people just side with their Kid...Johny couldn't possibly be lazy. Heh.

 

[oreagan]

Atheletics bring in more money than they expend in a lot of schools and simultaneously offer some gifted students a free ride to college. I know people who never would have even gone to college without a sport scholarship, now they're at some of the best schools in the nation for free.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

that's why here in Texas the school district and it's elections are independent of the city. But allowing competition in the market would do a lot better job of bettering the schools, making them more responsive to the local level, educating the children, and making sure teachers get a fair wage.

Let me quess . . . the Houston Miracle?

Proposal such as Bloomberg's last about a year . . . that's how long it takes to realize that having 30% of your students in summer school drains the coffers like a Bush in the White House. NYC absolutely needs education reform but social promotion is merely a blemish compared to the ghastly features of many districts.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PingSpike
I commend you for your ability to sidestep the issue and spit out the number 65. Yes, I saw it was increased...but he also placed a greater burden on them at the same time that wiped out the benefits of the 65%. Of course I'm just repeating myself now.

And when did I say it was ever properly funded? I think the biggest problem is misappropriation of the funds.

No, it is you who don't seem to understand the issue. Your "need more money" argument is trash. I fail to see how you can spin a 65% increase into not equalling some "burden" you think was placed on education.

So out with it. What ate up that NEW 65%? Please explain it away - I really want to see why you think that increase didn't meet the "burden".

If you can't follow the issue and point to it's conclusion then it seems to be your issue with sidestepping - not mine.

CkG

I don't really see much point in arguing with you, since you're just going to force me to repeat myself over and over again. Read the articles. They say what the problem is, not me. I'm not on the front line of education, I just hear their complaints from what I read.

Schools never have enough money. I don't think the solution is impose greater requirements on them, straining their budgets isn't going to help them. I think they should be forced to streamline. Cut athletics altogether. These are schools not Gyms.

That's what I thought - you have no argument. You just like to claim they are overburdened by the Feds and underfunded by the Feds. How about taking time to educate yourself about this before making such claims?

Yes - Athletics should be taken out of the school system - they should be community based. But that really is a minute part of a school's budget. Except of course the extra land and building(s) it takes. But just to run these programs and such is a small part of the overall budget.
The bureaucracy in Education is Astronomical. Like I've asked - where is the majority of that ~$5k/ per student going? Why does it take that much to educate each kid? Should it?
Anyway - like I said before - the problem with education isn't money- there is plenty of blame to go around but step one is to make sure our kids aren't getting overlooked by the system. Social promotion does just that - it overlooks the kids.

CkG