Houston Miracle apparently smoke and mirrors - Bush model for No Child Left Behind was a Texas-sized fraud

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice shot, Charrison. First knowingly destroy the public school system, then bring in vouchers. Can't put the cart ahead of the horse, now can we?

And be sure that public school opponents are well funded, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48083-2004Jan1.html

We are confronted with an admin that raises lying, cheating and stealing to an artform, in every phase of endeavor....

Since you dont support vouchers, I guess you support the status quo on public education?

Status quo in public education resulted in me going to a top 10 EE schools and graduating in top 10%. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be dismantled and replaced with vouchers.

Before you buy into this attempt to dismantle the public education system, by saying it's fundamentally flawed because it's public, go to countries abroad who consistently destroy the US in math and science competitions and see what kind of school systems they have.

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

There is already a choice of taking the bus to some other school or going to private school with your own money. I don't think the government should be subsidizing private schools.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: charrison

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

hmm...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice shot, Charrison. First knowingly destroy the public school system, then bring in vouchers. Can't put the cart ahead of the horse, now can we?

And be sure that public school opponents are well funded, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48083-2004Jan1.html

We are confronted with an admin that raises lying, cheating and stealing to an artform, in every phase of endeavor....

Since you dont support vouchers, I guess you support the status quo on public education?

Status quo in public education resulted in me going to a top 10 EE schools and graduating in top 10%. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be dismantled and replaced with vouchers.

Before you buy into this attempt to dismantle the public education system, by saying it's fundamentally flawed because it's public, go to countries abroad who consistently destroy the US in math and science competitions and see what kind of school systems they have.

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

There is already a choice of taking the bus to some other school or going to private school with your own money. I don't think the government should be subsidizing private schools.

I dont think that is the case(at least not everywhere). Students usually have to go to the schools based upon the districts they live in.

Given that parents pay for those schools via taxes, I think parents should have the right to send their kids to another school if they desire with a voucher(covering normal cost per student at the public school).
Good public schools have nothing to fear from vouchers.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice shot, Charrison. First knowingly destroy the public school system, then bring in vouchers. Can't put the cart ahead of the horse, now can we?

And be sure that public school opponents are well funded, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48083-2004Jan1.html

We are confronted with an admin that raises lying, cheating and stealing to an artform, in every phase of endeavor....

Since you dont support vouchers, I guess you support the status quo on public education?

Status quo in public education resulted in me going to a top 10 EE schools and graduating in top 10%. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be dismantled and replaced with vouchers.

Before you buy into this attempt to dismantle the public education system, by saying it's fundamentally flawed because it's public, go to countries abroad who consistently destroy the US in math and science competitions and see what kind of school systems they have.

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

There is already a choice of taking the bus to some other school or going to private school with your own money. I don't think the government should be subsidizing private schools.

I dont think that is the case(at least not everywhere). Students usually have to go to the schools based upon the districts they live in.

Given that parents pay for those schools via taxes, I think parents should have the right to send their kids to another school if they desire with a voucher(covering normal cost per student at the public school).
Good public schools have nothing to fear from vouchers.

1. Most parents don't pay enough taxes to pay for education for their kids or the cost of a voucher. They shouldn't be allowed to cash out more than they paid in.
2. By your logic, childless and single people should get a refund of the portion of their taxes that goes to support public schools since they don't have kids going there.

 

[SuperTool]

Also, why do rightwingers think that government paying private companies for education will be any less of a money drain than the government paying private companies for healthcare.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice shot, Charrison. First knowingly destroy the public school system, then bring in vouchers. Can't put the cart ahead of the horse, now can we?

And be sure that public school opponents are well funded, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48083-2004Jan1.html

We are confronted with an admin that raises lying, cheating and stealing to an artform, in every phase of endeavor....

Since you dont support vouchers, I guess you support the status quo on public education?

Status quo in public education resulted in me going to a top 10 EE schools and graduating in top 10%. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be dismantled and replaced with vouchers.

Before you buy into this attempt to dismantle the public education system, by saying it's fundamentally flawed because it's public, go to countries abroad who consistently destroy the US in math and science competitions and see what kind of school systems they have.

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

There is already a choice of taking the bus to some other school or going to private school with your own money. I don't think the government should be subsidizing private schools.

I dont think that is the case(at least not everywhere). Students usually have to go to the schools based upon the districts they live in.

Given that parents pay for those schools via taxes, I think parents should have the right to send their kids to another school if they desire with a voucher(covering normal cost per student at the public school).
Good public schools have nothing to fear from vouchers.

1. Most parents don't pay enough taxes to pay for education for their kids or the cost of a voucher. They shouldn't be allowed to cash out more than they paid in.
2. By your logic, childless and single people should get a refund of the portion of their taxes that goes to support public schools since they don't have kids going there.

1. Reguardless of the parents ability to pay, every kid get x dollars per head. Giving a voucher for up to that amount does not really seem to be an issue.
2.No, that appears to be your logic. I did not mention anything about changing how schools were funded.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice shot, Charrison. First knowingly destroy the public school system, then bring in vouchers. Can't put the cart ahead of the horse, now can we?

And be sure that public school opponents are well funded, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48083-2004Jan1.html

We are confronted with an admin that raises lying, cheating and stealing to an artform, in every phase of endeavor....

Since you dont support vouchers, I guess you support the status quo on public education?

Status quo in public education resulted in me going to a top 10 EE schools and graduating in top 10%. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be dismantled and replaced with vouchers.

Before you buy into this attempt to dismantle the public education system, by saying it's fundamentally flawed because it's public, go to countries abroad who consistently destroy the US in math and science competitions and see what kind of school systems they have.

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

There is already a choice of taking the bus to some other school or going to private school with your own money. I don't think the government should be subsidizing private schools.

I dont think that is the case(at least not everywhere). Students usually have to go to the schools based upon the districts they live in.

Given that parents pay for those schools via taxes, I think parents should have the right to send their kids to another school if they desire with a voucher(covering normal cost per student at the public school).
Good public schools have nothing to fear from vouchers.

1. Most parents don't pay enough taxes to pay for education for their kids or the cost of a voucher. They shouldn't be allowed to cash out more than they paid in.
2. By your logic, childless and single people should get a refund of the portion of their taxes that goes to support public schools since they don't have kids going there.

1. Reguardless of the parents ability to pay, every kid get x dollars per head. Giving a voucher for up to that amount does not really seem to be an issue.
2.No, that appears to be your logic. I did not mention anything about changing how schools were funded.

The government should not be paying people to send their kids to private schools. If you want to send your kids to private school, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it. I am paying to make public school education available to students in my district, not their private schools. Because now I am only paying for kids who go to public school. You want me to pay for vouchers for everyone, including rich people who send their kids to private and prep schools. You want my taxes to go to send some Bush wannabe to Andover prep? Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice shot, Charrison. First knowingly destroy the public school system, then bring in vouchers. Can't put the cart ahead of the horse, now can we?

And be sure that public school opponents are well funded, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48083-2004Jan1.html

We are confronted with an admin that raises lying, cheating and stealing to an artform, in every phase of endeavor....

Since you dont support vouchers, I guess you support the status quo on public education?

Status quo in public education resulted in me going to a top 10 EE schools and graduating in top 10%. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be dismantled and replaced with vouchers.

Before you buy into this attempt to dismantle the public education system, by saying it's fundamentally flawed because it's public, go to countries abroad who consistently destroy the US in math and science competitions and see what kind of school systems they have.

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

There is already a choice of taking the bus to some other school or going to private school with your own money. I don't think the government should be subsidizing private schools.

I dont think that is the case(at least not everywhere). Students usually have to go to the schools based upon the districts they live in.

Given that parents pay for those schools via taxes, I think parents should have the right to send their kids to another school if they desire with a voucher(covering normal cost per student at the public school).
Good public schools have nothing to fear from vouchers.

1. Most parents don't pay enough taxes to pay for education for their kids or the cost of a voucher. They shouldn't be allowed to cash out more than they paid in.
2. By your logic, childless and single people should get a refund of the portion of their taxes that goes to support public schools since they don't have kids going there.

1. Reguardless of the parents ability to pay, every kid get x dollars per head. Giving a voucher for up to that amount does not really seem to be an issue.
2.No, that appears to be your logic. I did not mention anything about changing how schools were funded.

The government should not be paying people to send their kids to private schools. If you want to send your kids to private school, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it. I am paying to make public school education available to students in my district, not their private schools. Because now I am only paying for kids who go to public school. You want me to pay for vouchers for everyone, including rich people who send their kids to private and prep schools. You want my taxes to go to send some Bush wannabe to Andover prep? Thanks, but no thanks.

You are going to pay 8000 a student(or whatever the cost per student is), no matter where the student goes. Does it really matter the student goes? Most private schools cost less than public ones, so this could actually save you money.

But I guess you beleive that failed public school is better than offering parents a choice when they are too poor to afford a better school for their kids. After all, vouchers will help poor minorities the most.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice shot, Charrison. First knowingly destroy the public school system, then bring in vouchers. Can't put the cart ahead of the horse, now can we?

And be sure that public school opponents are well funded, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48083-2004Jan1.html

We are confronted with an admin that raises lying, cheating and stealing to an artform, in every phase of endeavor....

Since you dont support vouchers, I guess you support the status quo on public education?

Status quo in public education resulted in me going to a top 10 EE schools and graduating in top 10%. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be dismantled and replaced with vouchers.

Before you buy into this attempt to dismantle the public education system, by saying it's fundamentally flawed because it's public, go to countries abroad who consistently destroy the US in math and science competitions and see what kind of school systems they have.

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

There is already a choice of taking the bus to some other school or going to private school with your own money. I don't think the government should be subsidizing private schools.

I dont think that is the case(at least not everywhere). Students usually have to go to the schools based upon the districts they live in.

Given that parents pay for those schools via taxes, I think parents should have the right to send their kids to another school if they desire with a voucher(covering normal cost per student at the public school).
Good public schools have nothing to fear from vouchers.

1. Most parents don't pay enough taxes to pay for education for their kids or the cost of a voucher. They shouldn't be allowed to cash out more than they paid in.
2. By your logic, childless and single people should get a refund of the portion of their taxes that goes to support public schools since they don't have kids going there.

1. Reguardless of the parents ability to pay, every kid get x dollars per head. Giving a voucher for up to that amount does not really seem to be an issue.
2.No, that appears to be your logic. I did not mention anything about changing how schools were funded.

The government should not be paying people to send their kids to private schools. If you want to send your kids to private school, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it. I am paying to make public school education available to students in my district, not their private schools. Because now I am only paying for kids who go to public school. You want me to pay for vouchers for everyone, including rich people who send their kids to private and prep schools. You want my taxes to go to send some Bush wannabe to Andover prep? Thanks, but no thanks.

You are going to pay 8000 a student(or whatever the cost per student is), no matter where the student goes. Does it really matter the student goes? Most private schools cost less than public ones, so this could actually save you money.

But I guess you beleive that failed public school is better than offering parents a choice when they are too poor to afford a better school for their kids. After all, vouchers will help poor minorities the most.

No I am not going to pay 8000 a student. If you are sending your kids to private school, I am paying 0 per your student now, and I don't intend to start paying them jack.
This is just another trick to get Bush's rich friends who are going to send their kids to private school anyways, an $8K per kid subsidy.

 

[SuperTool]

But hey, if you are willing to put in a means test like there is for college financial aid, maybe I'll consider it, but watch how quickly GOP support will dissipate if they don't get a nice check from uncle Sam.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice shot, Charrison. First knowingly destroy the public school system, then bring in vouchers. Can't put the cart ahead of the horse, now can we?

And be sure that public school opponents are well funded, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48083-2004Jan1.html

We are confronted with an admin that raises lying, cheating and stealing to an artform, in every phase of endeavor....

Since you dont support vouchers, I guess you support the status quo on public education?

Status quo in public education resulted in me going to a top 10 EE schools and graduating in top 10%. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be dismantled and replaced with vouchers.

Before you buy into this attempt to dismantle the public education system, by saying it's fundamentally flawed because it's public, go to countries abroad who consistently destroy the US in math and science competitions and see what kind of school systems they have.

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

There is already a choice of taking the bus to some other school or going to private school with your own money. I don't think the government should be subsidizing private schools.

I dont think that is the case(at least not everywhere). Students usually have to go to the schools based upon the districts they live in.

Given that parents pay for those schools via taxes, I think parents should have the right to send their kids to another school if they desire with a voucher(covering normal cost per student at the public school).
Good public schools have nothing to fear from vouchers.

1. Most parents don't pay enough taxes to pay for education for their kids or the cost of a voucher. They shouldn't be allowed to cash out more than they paid in.
2. By your logic, childless and single people should get a refund of the portion of their taxes that goes to support public schools since they don't have kids going there.

1. Reguardless of the parents ability to pay, every kid get x dollars per head. Giving a voucher for up to that amount does not really seem to be an issue.
2.No, that appears to be your logic. I did not mention anything about changing how schools were funded.

The government should not be paying people to send their kids to private schools. If you want to send your kids to private school, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it. I am paying to make public school education available to students in my district, not their private schools. Because now I am only paying for kids who go to public school. You want me to pay for vouchers for everyone, including rich people who send their kids to private and prep schools. You want my taxes to go to send some Bush wannabe to Andover prep? Thanks, but no thanks.

You are going to pay 8000 a student(or whatever the cost per student is), no matter where the student goes. Does it really matter the student goes? Most private schools cost less than public ones, so this could actually save you money.

But I guess you beleive that failed public school is better than offering parents a choice when they are too poor to afford a better school for their kids. After all, vouchers will help poor minorities the most.

No I am not going to pay 8000 a student. If you are sending your kids to private school, I am paying 0 per your student now, and I don't intend to start paying them jack.
This is just another trick to get Bush's rich friends who are going to send their kids to private school anyways, an $8K per kid subsidy.

Your paying no matter what.

But like I said, I guess you like to keep poor minorities in bad public schools.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Nice shot, Charrison. First knowingly destroy the public school system, then bring in vouchers. Can't put the cart ahead of the horse, now can we?

And be sure that public school opponents are well funded, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48083-2004Jan1.html

We are confronted with an admin that raises lying, cheating and stealing to an artform, in every phase of endeavor....

Since you dont support vouchers, I guess you support the status quo on public education?

Status quo in public education resulted in me going to a top 10 EE schools and graduating in top 10%. This cannot be allowed to continue. It must be dismantled and replaced with vouchers.

Before you buy into this attempt to dismantle the public education system, by saying it's fundamentally flawed because it's public, go to countries abroad who consistently destroy the US in math and science competitions and see what kind of school systems they have.

Who said anything about dismantling schools that work. Public education worked for me as well(have a masters from a state school). There do exist schools that broken and where those schools exist, parents and kids are stuck with only the public option. This is why vouchers needs to exist.

Where vouchers have been implemented, there has not been a dismantling of the public school system.
But where schools are broken, parents need choice.

There is already a choice of taking the bus to some other school or going to private school with your own money. I don't think the government should be subsidizing private schools.

I dont think that is the case(at least not everywhere). Students usually have to go to the schools based upon the districts they live in.

Given that parents pay for those schools via taxes, I think parents should have the right to send their kids to another school if they desire with a voucher(covering normal cost per student at the public school).
Good public schools have nothing to fear from vouchers.

1. Most parents don't pay enough taxes to pay for education for their kids or the cost of a voucher. They shouldn't be allowed to cash out more than they paid in.
2. By your logic, childless and single people should get a refund of the portion of their taxes that goes to support public schools since they don't have kids going there.

1. Reguardless of the parents ability to pay, every kid get x dollars per head. Giving a voucher for up to that amount does not really seem to be an issue.
2.No, that appears to be your logic. I did not mention anything about changing how schools were funded.

The government should not be paying people to send their kids to private schools. If you want to send your kids to private school, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it. I am paying to make public school education available to students in my district, not their private schools. Because now I am only paying for kids who go to public school. You want me to pay for vouchers for everyone, including rich people who send their kids to private and prep schools. You want my taxes to go to send some Bush wannabe to Andover prep? Thanks, but no thanks.

You are going to pay 8000 a student(or whatever the cost per student is), no matter where the student goes. Does it really matter the student goes? Most private schools cost less than public ones, so this could actually save you money.

But I guess you beleive that failed public school is better than offering parents a choice when they are too poor to afford a better school for their kids. After all, vouchers will help poor minorities the most.

No I am not going to pay 8000 a student. If you are sending your kids to private school, I am paying 0 per your student now, and I don't intend to start paying them jack.
This is just another trick to get Bush's rich friends who are going to send their kids to private school anyways, an $8K per kid subsidy.

Your paying no matter what.

But like I said, I guess you like to keep poor minorities in bad public schools.

I went to a public inner city school that was 90% "minority" (and I don't mean asians).
It was "bad" on paper, terrible college admission rates, etc, etc, yet I was able to take enough AP courses to start college with 36 credits, which is more than a years worth. It's not about the schools, it's about the parents and the students. The main problem is that public schools can't cherrypick and weed out retards and troublemakers. If you forced private schools to accept all the students, they would have same problems. The solution is to have separate public schools for these problem children, and regular public schools with regular children so that teachers don't have to waste all day on discipline problems. These no child left behind mandates aren't helping, because some children should be left behind so that majority of the children can move ahead.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I went to a public inner city school that was 90% "minority" (and I don't mean asians).
It was "bad" on paper, terrible college admission rates, etc, etc, yet I was able to take enough AP courses to start college with 36 credits, which is more than a years worth. It's not about the schools, it's about the parents and the students. The main problem is that public schools can't cherrypick and weed out retards and troublemakers. If you forced private schools to accept all the students, they would have same problems. The solution is to have separate public schools for these problem children, and regular public schools with regular children so that teachers don't have to waste all day on discipline problems. These no child left behind mandates aren't helping, because some children should be left behind so that majority of the children can move ahead.

I will agree parents do make the difference. Those going for an education are likely going to get a reasonable one.

But at some point, poor performing schools should not be rewarded with continued funding if they remain poor performers.

One of poor performing high schools here is now one of the best, because they fired all the teachers and admin staff and started over.
The parents and students are the same, but something sure changed.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I went to a public inner city school that was 90% "minority" (and I don't mean asians).
It was "bad" on paper, terrible college admission rates, etc, etc, yet I was able to take enough AP courses to start college with 36 credits, which is more than a years worth. It's not about the schools, it's about the parents and the students. The main problem is that public schools can't cherrypick and weed out retards and troublemakers. If you forced private schools to accept all the students, they would have same problems. The solution is to have separate public schools for these problem children, and regular public schools with regular children so that teachers don't have to waste all day on discipline problems. These no child left behind mandates aren't helping, because some children should be left behind so that majority of the children can move ahead.

I will agree parents do make the difference. Those going for an education are likely going to get a reasonable one.

But at some point, poor performing schools should not be rewarded with continued funding if they remain poor performers.

One of poor performing high schools here is now one of the best, because they fired all the teachers and admin staff and started over.
The parents and students are the same, but something sure changed.

How do you know that miracle is any different from the Houston Miracle

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I went to a public inner city school that was 90% "minority" (and I don't mean asians).
It was "bad" on paper, terrible college admission rates, etc, etc, yet I was able to take enough AP courses to start college with 36 credits, which is more than a years worth. It's not about the schools, it's about the parents and the students. The main problem is that public schools can't cherrypick and weed out retards and troublemakers. If you forced private schools to accept all the students, they would have same problems. The solution is to have separate public schools for these problem children, and regular public schools with regular children so that teachers don't have to waste all day on discipline problems. These no child left behind mandates aren't helping, because some children should be left behind so that majority of the children can move ahead.

I will agree parents do make the difference. Those going for an education are likely going to get a reasonable one.

But at some point, poor performing schools should not be rewarded with continued funding if they remain poor performers.

One of poor performing high schools here is now one of the best, because they fired all the teachers and admin staff and started over.
The parents and students are the same, but something sure changed.

How do you know that miracle is any different from the Houston Miracle

Or maybe all it takes is change..or the threat of change.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I went to a public inner city school that was 90% "minority" (and I don't mean asians).
It was "bad" on paper, terrible college admission rates, etc, etc, yet I was able to take enough AP courses to start college with 36 credits, which is more than a years worth. It's not about the schools, it's about the parents and the students. The main problem is that public schools can't cherrypick and weed out retards and troublemakers. If you forced private schools to accept all the students, they would have same problems. The solution is to have separate public schools for these problem children, and regular public schools with regular children so that teachers don't have to waste all day on discipline problems. These no child left behind mandates aren't helping, because some children should be left behind so that majority of the children can move ahead.

I will agree parents do make the difference. Those going for an education are likely going to get a reasonable one.

But at some point, poor performing schools should not be rewarded with continued funding if they remain poor performers.

One of poor performing high schools here is now one of the best, because they fired all the teachers and admin staff and started over.
The parents and students are the same, but something sure changed.

How do you know that miracle is any different from the Houston Miracle

Or maybe all it takes is change..or the threat of change.

If they had to fire all the teachers, then they should have hired better teachers earlier. But that is secondary to the public/private debate. I am not advocating public schools hire bad teachers.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I went to a public inner city school that was 90% "minority" (and I don't mean asians).
It was "bad" on paper, terrible college admission rates, etc, etc, yet I was able to take enough AP courses to start college with 36 credits, which is more than a years worth. It's not about the schools, it's about the parents and the students. The main problem is that public schools can't cherrypick and weed out retards and troublemakers. If you forced private schools to accept all the students, they would have same problems. The solution is to have separate public schools for these problem children, and regular public schools with regular children so that teachers don't have to waste all day on discipline problems. These no child left behind mandates aren't helping, because some children should be left behind so that majority of the children can move ahead.

I will agree parents do make the difference. Those going for an education are likely going to get a reasonable one.

But at some point, poor performing schools should not be rewarded with continued funding if they remain poor performers.

One of poor performing high schools here is now one of the best, because they fired all the teachers and admin staff and started over.
The parents and students are the same, but something sure changed.

How do you know that miracle is any different from the Houston Miracle

Or maybe all it takes is change..or the threat of change.

If they had to fire all the teachers, then they should have hired better teachers earlier. But that is secondary to the public/private debate. I am not advocating public schools hire bad teachers.

But you are advocating letting schools stay that way. If a school get bad, it might takes years to turn it around. People know what schools are good and bad, let them decide where their kid needs to go to school.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Turn off those damn italics and cease the long arse posts.

Schools . . . much like medicine . . . are not commodities that are easily researched or selected. My wife's school has some of the worst demographics but they are one of the top schools in her system. But her school system has the lowest local supplement in the region. As neighboring counties with mad cheddar poach the best teachers, literacy facilitators, and principals a school (or even school system) can rapidly deteriorate. It is the people that truly make schools successful (granted money helps - for salaries and materials).

Vouchers are no solution for the vast majority of children attending (low performing) schools b/c someone must foot the entire bill for tuition, there must be an open slot, plus the child must have transportation to the new school. Busing (fortunately) is being dismantled throughout the nation and public transportation sux in most areas below the Mason-Dixon.

Every person that yells "vouchers", "charters", "school choice", or some other mantra as the "solution" to improve education . . . doesn't understand education/development. That doesn't mean the aforementioned devices do not have a place in education reform . . . but they are NOT panaceas . . . hell they aren't even good bandaids.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I went to a public inner city school that was 90% "minority" (and I don't mean asians).
It was "bad" on paper, terrible college admission rates, etc, etc, yet I was able to take enough AP courses to start college with 36 credits, which is more than a years worth. It's not about the schools, it's about the parents and the students. The main problem is that public schools can't cherrypick and weed out retards and troublemakers. If you forced private schools to accept all the students, they would have same problems. The solution is to have separate public schools for these problem children, and regular public schools with regular children so that teachers don't have to waste all day on discipline problems. These no child left behind mandates aren't helping, because some children should be left behind so that majority of the children can move ahead.

I will agree parents do make the difference. Those going for an education are likely going to get a reasonable one.

But at some point, poor performing schools should not be rewarded with continued funding if they remain poor performers.

One of poor performing high schools here is now one of the best, because they fired all the teachers and admin staff and started over.
The parents and students are the same, but something sure changed.

How do you know that miracle is any different from the Houston Miracle

Or maybe all it takes is change..or the threat of change.

If they had to fire all the teachers, then they should have hired better teachers earlier. But that is secondary to the public/private debate. I am not advocating public schools hire bad teachers.

But you are advocating letting schools stay that way. If a school get bad, it might takes years to turn it around. People know what schools are good and bad, let them decide where their kid needs to go to school.

Fine, as long as my money is not going to private schools.

 

[alpha366i]

Heres my solution.
High school shouldnt not be manadtory. If a kid doesnt want to go then let him join the work force and he will find out whats it like without higher education. So when he goes back to school, he would actually want to learn the material and not goof around like most High School kids these days. The problem I notice having being a recent HS grad is that alof of th kids there dont want to be there. They dont take things serioulsy and act like failing a test, cutting class is no big deal. We have to change the atttitude of the kids and we can do that by making HS a choice like college.