Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Oh, so as long as you get yours it's all good.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A universal voucher system would either force private schools to take everyone, or still leave a significant portion of the population without an option for school.
Im a child of teachers. My parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles have all been teachers at one point or another.
Ive spent my entire life hearing about the problems in our school systems - mostly from the perspective of AFT-member public school teachers. Combined with my own personal politic views and experiences, Ive spent a lot of time thinking about the problems of our educational system.
The complexity of the problems, and the immediate barriers to reform - the opposing forces and lobbies, each with their own plans and explicit arguments against the opposition make the task of reform nearly impossible.
So I put some time into trying to think of a way to reform the education system that would both change the status quo, and still be politically feasible. (I'll be honest, this idea partially came from an episode of The West Wing, but I think it could work).
A "GI Bill" for teachers: Offer student loan forgiveness to new teachers who agree to teach in high-need areas for a certain number of years.
As I see it, that will both bring in new, young, and innovative teachers into the schools that need them the most, as well as injecting new blood into the Teacher's Unions, perhaps making them less resistant to change in the school system.
There are few ways to attack the problems with our school system that don't step on the toes of the Teacher's Union. This is one that I think could work.
Thoughts?
That is bull. A universal voucher system is one of the things that we desperately need. If there is a case that makes a single student far too expensive then the likely hood is that school is not what they need. Instead, those students should be sent to a place that is more specific to their needs. Public schools systems would still exist to as they should. The main difference is that the parents can take an active role in where their kids go to school thereby holding the school accountable for their actions.It works right for those who can afford that path.
If liberals would quit fighting vouchers, anyone could afford it.
Look, with enough resolve, local school systems could adopt a lot of things that would improve schools. Close campuses use uniforms, enforce rules, policies and standards, use discipline and make it stick, actually teach subjects that are designed to prepare kids for college or career, etc. All of the touchy feely crap that has come down in the past 30 years obviously isn't working and the idea of throwing larger and larger amounts of money isn't working either.
A universal voucher system would be unsustainable.
Private schools have an advantage over public schools - they can chose who they let in. A universal voucher system would either force private schools to take everyone, or still leave a significant portion of the population without an option for school.
Aside from that, I agree with some of your suggestions.
Im a child of teachers. My parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles have all been teachers at one point or another.
Ive spent my entire life hearing about the problems in our school systems - mostly from the perspective of AFT-member public school teachers. Combined with my own personal politic views and experiences, Ive spent a lot of time thinking about the problems of our educational system.
The complexity of the problems, and the immediate barriers to reform - the opposing forces and lobbies, each with their own plans and explicit arguments against the opposition make the task of reform nearly impossible.
So I put some time into trying to think of a way to reform the education system that would both change the status quo, and still be politically feasible. (I'll be honest, this idea partially came from an episode of The West Wing, but I think it could work).
A "GI Bill" for teachers: Offer student loan forgiveness to new teachers who agree to teach in high-need areas for a certain number of years.
As I see it, that will both bring in new, young, and innovative teachers into the schools that need them the most, as well as injecting new blood into the Teacher's Unions, perhaps making them less resistant to change in the school system.
There are few ways to attack the problems with our school system that don't step on the toes of the Teacher's Union. This is one that I think could work.
Thoughts?
Truth and, as another poster pointed out, there is nothing you can do within the school system to 'fix' the parents. That's one of the reasons that I think school choice is so important. If you are stuck in an area that is predominately made up of people that simply do not care, you can move your child to another school where the parents do care.It is the demise of the family that is causing most of the problems in the schools. Not the union, not the guvmint etc etc. All in my public school humble opinion.
It works right for those who can afford that path.
If liberals would quit fighting vouchers, anyone could afford it.
Look, with enough resolve, local school systems could adopt a lot of things that would improve schools. Close campuses use uniforms, enforce rules, policies and standards, use discipline and make it stick, actually teach subjects that are designed to prepare kids for college or career, etc. All of the touchy feely crap that has come down in the past 30 years obviously isn't working and the idea of throwing larger and larger amounts of money isn't working either.
A universal voucher system would be unsustainable.
Private schools have an advantage over public schools - they can chose who they let in. A universal voucher system would either force private schools to take everyone, or still leave a significant portion of the population without an option for school.
Aside from that, I agree with some of your suggestions.
Of course not...The schools are too busy teaching multiculturalism, political correctness, conflict resolution, feminist studies, fake "self-esteem" and how to nag your parents about recycling.I exercised my "school choice" for my middle child. I lost confidence in the way public schools handled disruptive students. So I put my kids in a Catholic school. Because they would just expel any kid that didn't get with their program. And they taught the "old fashioned way". You know, subject mastery.
I don't know how to "fix" this problem without fixing the family dynamics. And there is no way that anyone will come out and say that it is a students home life that is the issue. Parents would not put up with that.
There is a real good reason that America's high school students are no longer considered top performers in the world. Not even in the top 10. High school graduation rates are falling. Technical skills like auto repair, carpentry, machine shop, those skilled trades are no longer taught in HS.
JUst what is it that the parents and the education system want to accomplish?
I think that's a great idea.I have a love/hate relationship with the teaching "profession". What I love, of course, is the inherent honor it once had.
What I hate is the racket it has become. Mastery of subject matter is not even a second thought, rather mastery of a few principles of education that could be taught in maybe 24 credit hours (likely much less) that are revived, renamed, redefined, and overly redundant of each other to justify the necessity of a "major" in education.
Actual teaching of subject matter also has become a low priority with medicating, controlling diets, concern about self-esteem all over subject matter content. Those are topics for the parents.
When teachers get back to teaching and stop taking it upon themselves to parent, we may once again have a decent public education system.
On the flipside, parents need to let teachers teach.
Stop the overlap. Demarcate, don't conflate, the parent role and the teacher role.
Just for starters.
I agree with this post 100%.
I think the way to change the "racket" that teaching has become is to flood the system with new, innovative teachers. People who don't worship the status quo.
But, there is still that necessity of the 'major' in education. Just from personal experience, I used to be a college prof of chemistry. One student, whose final grade was a D-, and that was by a single point that she missed the F, was a education major. Her concentration was secondary ed science education.
She scared the crap out of me. She graduated, is likely teaching science in some high school, and she could barely tell the difference between an atom and a molecule. I am not kidding.
THAT is not a good thing.
If her major were any of the sciences, she either would not have graduated, actually applied herself and learned the subject matter, or changed her career goals.
But, because she had that Ed. degree, she is teaching a subject she has absolutely no business teaching.
So I put some time into trying to think of a way to reform the education system that would both change the status quo, and still be politically feasible.
April 11, 2012
"On Tuesday, Tennessee adopted a law to prevent school administrators from reining in teachers who expound on alternative hypotheses to the scientific theories of evolution and climate change.
The National Center for Science Education has said of the primary alternative to evolution creationism that students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level.