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

[CADsortaGUY]

NYC panel approves mayor's education plan

"Opponents of the plan have pointed out that such a move would mean overall test scores for fourth-graders likely will improve dramatically next year."

Well no sh!t sherlock. If kids actually have to pass 3rd grade to get into 4th grade - don't you think that means more 4th graders would have 4th grade knowledge?

Now sure there was a bunch of political BS that went on behind the scenes(or not so behind the scenes) but he is right - social promotion needs to end. That way of thinking is dead - it showed it didn't work. These kids need to actually PASS in order to move on to the next grade level.

Mayor Bloomberg's Education Reform

Good read - provides a bit of background for this "vote".

CkG

 

[NonSequiter]

These kids need to actually PASS in order to move on to the next grade level.

That's the whole point of why it's being so vehemently opposed by the teaching establishment. They know they'll be held accountable to a standard they can't fudge their way out of, and so will be revealed as the complete incompetents they really are. I'm sure there are plenty of individual teachers out there that are fine, but the system as a whole is a broken, discredited, and cover-your-ass playing royal organizational clusterfuck. The whole enterprise of public education needs to be burned to the ground, plowed under with salt, and started again from scratch.

And before any of the whiner chorus starts singing the hymnal about "not enough money," it's not about the funding levels. It's about the organizational culture and you know it.

 

[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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

Wrong.
I don't hate teachers. I want kids to actually have to learn. There is plenty of blame to go around but the solution is NOT to just pass the buck and send the kids up the system without them knowing what they should at that grade level.
So a few lazy teachers only teach the test - the kids will have to actually LEARN what they are supposed to for that grade level in order to pass - no? REAL life isn't about just attending - it's about producing. These kids are being failed by the system - they need to be taught what is appropriate for their grade level and if they don't learn it - they don't move on until they do.

Let me ask you this. What makes you think that if a 3rd grader can't read and such at a 3rd grade level - they will suddenly be able to learn 4th grade level things that depend on 3rd grade knowledge? If a kid can't read in 3rd grade - are they suddenly able to read in 4th?

This should be an easy decision - I don't know why people oppose actually making kids PASS the grade. It only makes sense.

CkG

 

[NonSequiter]

I wonder why Republicans hate teachers so much? Didn't the Secretary of Education call them terrorists?

I'm not a Republican, so you're asking the wrong person.

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.

If they're a public employee, their job performance is my business. Maybe you have taxpayer money to waste paying incompetence, but i don't. As a taxpayer, you're the boss of public servants. And as boss, I don't want to do their jobs, I want to hire and keep someone who knows their head from their ass so they can do that job and I can do MY job. That's why they're teachers, and I'm a taxpayer. If we were all teachers, there wouldn't be any taxpayers.

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.

The tests measure math and reading comprehension. Actual marketable skills for retards, or do you as a hiring decision maker prefer to hire the illiterate?

 

[charrison]

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.

My father was a high school teacher for 30 years. He got much grief from the admin for failing students. I am sure there are plenty of schools with similar administations who only look for good grades, even if the students are not performing..

 

[Tab]

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

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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

:beer:

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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.

Wrong.
I don't hate teachers. I want kids to actually have to learn. There is plenty of blame to go around but the solution is NOT to just pass the buck and send the kids up the system without them knowing what they should at that grade level.
So a few lazy teachers only teach the test - the kids will have to actually LEARN what they are supposed to for that grade level in order to pass - no? REAL life isn't about just attending - it's about producing. These kids are being failed by the system - they need to be taught what is appropriate for their grade level and if they don't learn it - they don't move on until they do.

Let me ask you this. What makes you think that if a 3rd grader can't read and such at a 3rd grade level - they will suddenly be able to learn 4th grade level things that depend on 3rd grade knowledge? If a kid can't read in 3rd grade - are they suddenly able to read in 4th?

This should be an easy decision - I don't know why people oppose actually making kids PASS the grade. It only makes sense.

CkG

Why does it matter. They gotta let kids excell at the level that they can excell, not push everyone to the same standard. Not everyone is going to be a scientist, and I don't see why it matters if some future grocery bagger reads at 3rd grade or 4th grade level. It's the teachers' job to teach. It's the student's job to learn, and it's the parent's job to make their kids study. You get kids who have bad family situations, and they don't study or do HW, and then the teacher is supposed to take classtime to do stuff they should be doing at home, while the kids who actually study sit there bored out of their minds? It's not the teacher's job to be your mom, your shrink, your HW study buddy, etc during class time.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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.

Wrong.
I don't hate teachers. I want kids to actually have to learn. There is plenty of blame to go around but the solution is NOT to just pass the buck and send the kids up the system without them knowing what they should at that grade level.
So a few lazy teachers only teach the test - the kids will have to actually LEARN what they are supposed to for that grade level in order to pass - no? REAL life isn't about just attending - it's about producing. These kids are being failed by the system - they need to be taught what is appropriate for their grade level and if they don't learn it - they don't move on until they do.

Let me ask you this. What makes you think that if a 3rd grader can't read and such at a 3rd grade level - they will suddenly be able to learn 4th grade level things that depend on 3rd grade knowledge? If a kid can't read in 3rd grade - are they suddenly able to read in 4th?

This should be an easy decision - I don't know why people oppose actually making kids PASS the grade. It only makes sense.

CkG

Why does it matter. They gotta let kids excell at the level that they can excell, not push everyone to the same standard. Not everyone is going to be a scientist, and I don't see why it matters if some future grocery bagger reads at 3rd grade or 4th grade level. It's the teachers' job to teach. It's the student's job to learn, and it's the parent's job to make their kids study. You get kids who have bad family situations, and they don't study or do HW, and then the teacher is supposed to take classtime to do stuff they should be doing at home, while the kids who actually study sit there bored out of their minds? It's not the teacher's job to be your mom, your shrink, your HW study buddy, etc during class time.

But it is the job of the school to make sure everyone that wants to learn can learn, without being held back by those that dont care. Social promotion does not serve the slower kids very well.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

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.

My father was a high school teacher for 30 years. He got much grief from the admin for failing students. I am sure there are plenty of schools with similar administations who only look for good grades, even if the students are not performing..

I am all for giving honest grades. But you know how this BS works, you fail a kid, and then your school loses tax money, or the kid's parents are at your throat filing complaints and so on. It's only gonna work if people care if they are held back a grade. Some of these kids don't care about sh!t.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why does it matter. They gotta let kids excell at the level that they can excell, not push everyone to the same standard. Not everyone is going to be a scientist, and I don't see why it matters if some future grocery bagger reads at 3rd grade or 4th grade level. It's the teachers' job to teach. It's the student's job to learn, and it's the parent's job to make their kids study. You get kids who have bad family situations, and they don't study or do HW, and then the teacher is supposed to take classtime to do stuff they should be doing at home, while the kids who actually study sit there bored out of their minds? It's not the teacher's job to be your mom, your shrink, your HW study buddy, etc during class time.

Yes - kids have to excel at the level that they can excel. If they can't pass 3rd grade - they do not go to 4th - they stay in 3rd grade. It really is that simple SuperTool.
Regardless of their "situation" just letting them go on to the next grade without learning does nothing except hurt that child. Now not only are they behind because they didn't learn the things from the previous grade - they don't have the knowledge needed to learn the next grade's teaching.
Your attitude is exactly what is wrong with our education system. Kids go to school to learn - not anything else. If they don't learn they don't go to the next grade.

CkG

 

[NonSequiter]

Why does it matter. They gotta let kids excell at the level that they can excell, not push everyone to the same standard. Not everyone is going to be a scientist, and I don't see why it matters if some future grocery bagger reads at 3rd grade or 4th grade level.

So your position is that the stupid don't deserve an education? That we shouldn't bother to try to help those less fortunate to improve their lot, as it's simply condescending to them to ask them to try? Thank you, i've heard enough.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why does it matter. They gotta let kids excell at the level that they can excell, not push everyone to the same standard. Not everyone is going to be a scientist, and I don't see why it matters if some future grocery bagger reads at 3rd grade or 4th grade level. It's the teachers' job to teach. It's the student's job to learn, and it's the parent's job to make their kids study. You get kids who have bad family situations, and they don't study or do HW, and then the teacher is supposed to take classtime to do stuff they should be doing at home, while the kids who actually study sit there bored out of their minds? It's not the teacher's job to be your mom, your shrink, your HW study buddy, etc during class time.

Yes - kids have to excel at the level that they can excel. If they can't pass 3rd grade - they do not go to 4th - they stay in 3rd grade. It really is that simple SuperTool.
Regardless of their "situation" just letting them go on to the next grade without learning does nothing except hurt that child. Now not only are they behind because they didn't learn the things from the previous grade - they don't have the knowledge needed to learn the next grade's teaching.
Your attitude is exactly what is wrong with our education system. Kids go to school to learn - not anything else. If they don't learn they don't go to the next grade.

CkG

That works fine if you hold back a couple kids here and there, but if you keep holding 20% of the kids back, then your incoming 3rd grade class will have to sit there with a sizeable chunk of older retards. So they have a bigger class, and maybe will get bullied by bigger kids, because those retards didn't want to learn last year.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Q36ExplosiveSpaceModulator

Why does it matter. They gotta let kids excell at the level that they can excell, not push everyone to the same standard. Not everyone is going to be a scientist, and I don't see why it matters if some future grocery bagger reads at 3rd grade or 4th grade level.

So your position is that the stupid don't deserve an education? That we shouldn't bother to try to help those less fortunate to improve their lot, as it's simply condescending to them to ask them to try? Thank you, i've heard enough.

I've heard enough too. Go back to 3rd grade. Everyone deserves an education. They don't deserve knowledge unless they work for it. Some people are just lazy and don't want to learn, and their parents don't give a damn, so why should the teachers? The teacher should present the material, and grade work. The rest is the student's and the parent's job.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

That works fine if you hold back a couple kids here and there, but if you keep holding 20% of the kids back, then your incoming 3rd grade class will have to sit there with a sizeable chunk of older retards. So they have a bigger class, and maybe will get bullied by bigger kids, because those retards didn't want to learn last year.

You have to start somewhere. The excuses get old after a while though. Kids aren't dumb - they will pay attention and learn if they know there are consequences for dicking off all year. Sure there will be trouble makers but they already exist in the system. I think people are making a bigger deal than necessary about the issues of holding kids back - especially when weighed with the issues of just passing them without learning. Remember back? to highschool or even middle shool. Who were the bullies? The kids who were behind in school and weren't probably very smart. Heck - we had a couple kids in our class who couldn't read as Freshmen. Now that is sad. Now don't you think if these kids would have been forced to learn before advancing they might not have to rely on being a bully when they are older? Hmm....

We need to improve education - everyone is pointing fingers at each other - and the kids still lose. When is the focus of education going to be back on the kids and about actually teaching them? School isn't about "feelings" it's about learning and knowledge. It's not a social club. If the kids don't/won't learn - then they shouldn't get passed to the next grade.

CkG

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Not everyone is going to be a scientist, and I don't see why it matters if some future grocery bagger reads at 3rd grade or 4th grade level.

honestly, on a personal moral level, hearing this from the 'loving' liberals is just disgusting.

I wonder why Republicans hate teachers so much?

i love teachers, I'm going to be a teacher, i want more teachers... oddly we don't pay teachers enough though; how do we know this? their aren't enough teachers! if we paid them enough then we could be more selective about who teaches...

so how do we get better teachers? just pay all teachers more? no, then you can't pick-and-choose as they unions will terrorize our children by 'standing behind' the bad teachers.

We should solve the market problem of a lack of teachers w/ the market solution of allowing competition in the school environment? a voucher program would bring our kids into the kind of focused teaching of higher quality that we see in other country's and make sure that we have all the highly-qualified teachers we need.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Q36ExplosiveSpaceModulator

Why does it matter. They gotta let kids excell at the level that they can excell, not push everyone to the same standard. Not everyone is going to be a scientist, and I don't see why it matters if some future grocery bagger reads at 3rd grade or 4th grade level.

So your position is that the stupid don't deserve an education? That we shouldn't bother to try to help those less fortunate to improve their lot, as it's simply condescending to them to ask them to try? Thank you, i've heard enough.

I've heard enough too. Go back to 3rd grade. Everyone deserves an education. They don't deserve knowledge unless they work for it. Some people are just lazy and don't want to learn, and their parents don't give a damn, so why should the teachers? The teacher should present the material, and grade work. The rest is the student's and the parent's job.

But those that dont give a damn, should be holding back those that do. teachers with students that want to learn to handle larger classes size, leaving the trouble students with better student/teacher ratios. At the very least we need to make sure those that dont give damn leave high school with training that will get them a job...

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: Q36ExplosiveSpaceModulator

If they're a public employee, their job performance is my business. Maybe you have taxpayer money to waste paying incompetence, but i don't. As a taxpayer, you're the boss of public servants. And as boss, I don't want to do their jobs, I want to hire and keep someone who knows their head from their ass so they can do that job and I can do MY job. That's why they're teachers, and I'm a taxpayer. If we were all teachers, there wouldn't be any taxpayers.

If you agree that every person who owns 1 share in your company gets to come in and treat you like a jerk because they're "your boss," then at least you're not a hypocrit for having that attitude toward teachers, but I still disagree with you.

My opinion of social promotion is that it's more complex than a blanket statement of "Yea" or "Nea." There are cases where someone, with appropriate tutoring from parents or a professional, will truly be better off in the next higher grade; there are cases where people are slack and abuse the system cause they're lazy, and holding them back is doing them a service. Leave it up to the locals, and the more local the better. It's not a perfect solution, but the fact is that while the low pay doesn't draw in a huge crowd of people toward teaching, it does grant the bonus that only people who really want the job take the schooling necessary to earn it, and have the dedication to keep it. I've met few teachers in my time in a public elementary, middle, and two public high schools who weren't dedicated and really trying to do what is best for the students. The same goes for administrators. I'd trust their discretion over some Senator (or in this case Mayor) binding the decision on something to critically important to individual students.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Leave it up to the locals, and the more local the better.

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.

 

[oreagan]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Leave it up to the locals, and the more local the better.

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.

If there were no public schools competing, and the vouchers were worth a significant amount per child, and there were guaranteed to be multiple, legitimate, secular options for schooling in each town, then I really would like to see how well market forces work. It's not as if capitalism is all good, however; free market schools means teachers in it for the money, administrators cutting corners whereever possible, and some other unsavory results on top of monetary incentive for better teaching. I'd like to see the experiment, but I certainly don't want it nationwide at the beginning.

 

[43st]

Aren't public schools socialist in nature? I mean when we mention health care for all citizens conservatives freak out... yet public education is ok??? Shouldn't the people with money be the only ones who can afford education and health care?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: oreagan

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Leave it up to the locals, and the more local the better.

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.

If there were no public schools competing, and the vouchers were worth a significant amount per child, and there were guaranteed to be multiple, legitimate, secular options for schooling in each town, then I really would like to see how well market forces work. It's not as if capitalism is all good, however; free market schools means teachers in it for the money, administrators cutting corners whereever possible, and some other unsavory results on top of monetary incentive for better teaching. I'd like to see the experiment, but I certainly don't want it nationwide at the beginning.

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

 

[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?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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