If we are going to have public schooling, especially compelled public schooling, we must take care of the human needs of children.

[Seymour Flops]

First, let me state that I am both a public school teacher and a person who is libertarian. As a libertarian, I would not object to public schools being phased out completely. I am confident that, in the absences of public schools, I would earn a far larger salary than my district determined scale. Point is that the "if" in my statement is sincere.

Since the answer to whether we will have public school is an overwhelming "yes," that the Twoparties agree on, we have to take a realistic look at what a child needs in order to learn in a public school.

A hungry child will not learn.
An exhausted child will not learn.
A sick child will not learn, if his sickness makes him too uncomfortable to concentrate.
A child who cannot see the board will not learn, in the absence of special accommodations.
A child who dreads the weekend due to abusive or negligent parents will learn perhaps Mon - Thurs, but will not learn on Friday.

My fellow/sister teachers often complain and lament that "we have to parent" some kids. They are right, that is exactly what we often have to do. We parent the kids, because the parents won't. That's what the welfare state has taught them is the way to behave.

If I were to suggest that we simply allow those kids to stay home, those same teachers would sputter with outrage. Because those kids have a "right" to a public school education. Because public school is the great equalizer. But is it?

A child experiencing any of the above is not getting an equal education to a child with an identical demographic, parental education and socioeconomic background whose parents provide the care the students needs, and appropriate time and location in which to study. If we are to be the equalizers, we must find ways to close those gaps.

When I taught at an elementary school we ran "Grizzly Bear Camp," which was an after school program that let kids study and do homework in the library for 90 minutes after school, followed by play time and a snack in the gym, and a bus ride home. It was a great success. In Junior High, they have after school "tutorials," but they are more a case of "You're behind in your work, so you are assigned to after school tutorials." Not nearly as helpful to kids with inadequate parenting.

If a child has a visual impairment severe enough to be classified as a disability, the school will spare little expense in providing equipment for that child to be able to access materials. If a child needs glasses and can't see the board, but the parent is too lazy to provide them, they kid is just out of luck. Why? Any schools budget can easily absorb the cost of prescription eyeglasses.

We feed the kids free breakfast and lunch and continue that into the summer. That's good. Our counselors will provide school supplies and a backpack to kids whose parents will not buy them. Good again. But we should be providing any other needs that arise as well. Let a committee decide who has the need, since educators insist on committees. But get the kids taken care of, don't chastise them for not being ready to learn.

 

[night_son]

Perhaps you are overthinking it all. American children used to be a pretty tough, resilient breed who bounced back from personal life trauma and went on to perform at least adequately—academically speaking. The last thing America needs is an intensified nanny state coming out of the public education sector. What America is not is Soviet Russia of the 1970's where political officer cadre buzzed around every aspect of a school student's life ensuring his or her development of absolute faith in and allegiance to The Party. American government must never seek to emulate such a level of state worship, not ever. What children at large need more than anything else is to be unplugged from social media, online space, video games and all electronic devices. The internet is killing mankind, rotting his spirit from within, corrupting his mind and atrophying his collective physique. Further, it is parents, not teachers, who should be taking the lead at all times in the healthy and safe development of their children. The State needs to GTF out of the lives of American children and stay out.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Perhaps you are overthinking it all. American children used to be a pretty tough, resilient breed who bounced back from personal life trauma and went on to perform at least adequately—academically speaking.

Still true for the large majority of children. I see children from impoverished homes whose mothers crossed the border to have them and never taught them a syllable of English go through a three-year bilingual program and end up in PAP English by 7th grade.

The difference from now and the past is that we don't expel secondary students who misbehave and we don't encourage failing students to simply drop out and become auto mechanics and whatnot. We keep every student in school, whether they thrive there are not. This in the name of equality. That's the main reason schools seem to be failing. We are failing the same students that we used to get rid of. Getting rid of them was its own kind of failure, I believe you would agree.

The last thing America needs is an intensified nanny state coming out of the public education sector. What America is not is Soviet Russia of the 1970's where political officer cadre buzzed around every aspect of a school student's life ensuring his or her development of absolute faith in and allegiance to The Party. American government must never seek to emulate such a level of state worship, not ever.

That is a strong argument for ending the public schools, not for neglecting public school children once they are forced to attend.

Public school will always be a mouthpiece for someone's political agenda, that's the nature of giving people a captive audience. In my school days, the agenda was pretty basic American patriotism, combined with a reasonable level of concern for the flaws in our history. No one much objected to that. What has become so outrageous is that now it is the woke agenda that is being pressed. Almost no one wants that, but that's what happens when we turn kids over to the state.

What children at large need more than anything else is to be unplugged from social media, online space, video games and all electronic devices. The internet is killing mankind, rotting his spirit from within, corrupting his mind and atrophying his collective physique.

Clearly. Best decision we ever made was to keep our young children away from video games. I had played this game in the seventies as a teenager:

Just little electronic dots for players, but it captured my mind, took it off fishing, talking, reading, or anything else. No Nintendo for the Flops kids, even though my mom refused to baby sit them if they couldn't play video games. /rant

Further, it is parents, not teachers, who should be taking the lead at all times in the healthy and safe development of their children.

Yes, they should. But a percentage of them will not and I know of no way to change that.

The State needs to GTF out of the lives of American children and stay out.

Then we must end public schools.

 

[Street Juice]

But we should be providing any other needs that arise as well. Let a committee decide who has the need, since educators insist on committees. But get the kids taken care of, don't chastise them for not being ready to learn.

OK, but mandate both mother and father, having demonstrated the inability to care for the child they created, be rendered infertile until such time as they can show otherwise.

 

[Street Juice]

I know of no way to change that.

Render them chemically incapable of reproducing until they show they can care for the child they already created.

 

[Street Juice]

Getting rid of them was its own kind of failure, I believe you would agree.

Yes, but it was the kid's failure, not the school's. The schools fail when they allow disruptive kids to degrade the quality of the education the non-disruptive students receive.

 

[Seymour Flops]

OK, but mandate both mother and father, having demonstrated the inability to care for the child they created, be rendered infertile until such time as they can show otherwise.

Would you favor having radioactive waves be directed at their crotches when they stand in line at the welfare office? I hear you that such parents should not be having more kids. I'm just not sure what method would be best if we decide to make that mandatory.

Render them chemically incapable of reproducing until they show they can care for the child they already created.

Yet another idea.

Yes, but it was the kid's failure, not the school's.

It is the school's failure if they claim to be there to provide an education for everyone, but toss out kids who might make their stats look bad.

The schools fail when they allow disruptive kids to degrade the quality of the education the non-disruptive students receive.

Yes, those students should be separated from the willing.

 

[initforme]

Those who complain about public schools need to quit their current jobs and go in and teach because they know exactly how to fix it.

 

[Street Juice]

Yes, those students should be separated from the willing.

Now you are talking something like juvenile hall

 

[Street Juice]

Would you favor having radioactive waves be directed at their crotches when they stand in line at the welfare office? I hear you that such parents should not be having more kids. I'm just not sure what

I'll ignore the first part, but there are ways of preventing pregnancies that are effective and reversible. Guaranteed if the parents had to suffer some consequence for their irresponsible behavior (which is how the world works, after all) you'd see an upsurge in responsible parenting. Which is good for the kid, good for the parents, good for the school, good for the community and good for the country. Which is why it won't happen. TPTB do not have our best interests at heart.

It is the school's failure if they claim to be there to provide an education for everyone, but toss out kids who might make their stats look bad.

The schools do provide it. It's the parent's job to make sure the kid takes it and only the parents have the incentive to make sure the kid takes it.

 

[SweetSue92]

First, let me state that I am both a public school teacher and a person who is libertarian. As a libertarian, I would not object to public schools being phased out completely. I am confident that, in the absences of public schools, I would earn a far larger salary than my district determined scale. Point is that the "if" in my statement is sincere.

Since the answer to whether we will have public school is an overwhelming "yes," that the Twoparties agree on, we have to take a realistic look at what a child needs in order to learn in a public school.

A hungry child will not learn.
An exhausted child will not learn.
A sick child will not learn, if his sickness makes him too uncomfortable to concentrate.
A child who cannot see the board will not learn, in the absence of special accommodations.
A child who dreads the weekend due to abusive or negligent parents will learn perhaps Mon - Thurs, but will not learn on Friday.

My fellow/sister teachers often complain and lament that "we have to parent" some kids. They are right, that is exactly what we often have to do. We parent the kids, because the parents won't. That's what the welfare state has taught them is the way to behave.

If I were to suggest that we simply allow those kids to stay home, those same teachers would sputter with outrage. Because those kids have a "right" to a public school education. Because public school is the great equalizer. But is it?

A child experiencing any of the above is not getting an equal education to a child with an identical demographic, parental education and socioeconomic background whose parents provide the care the students needs, and appropriate time and location in which to study. If we are to be the equalizers, we must find ways to close those gaps.

When I taught at an elementary school we ran "Grizzly Bear Camp," which was an after school program that let kids study and do homework in the library for 90 minutes after school, followed by play time and a snack in the gym, and a bus ride home. It was a great success. In Junior High, they have after school "tutorials," but they are more a case of "You're behind in your work, so you are assigned to after school tutorials." Not nearly as helpful to kids with inadequate parenting.

If a child has a visual impairment severe enough to be classified as a disability, the school will spare little expense in providing equipment for that child to be able to access materials. If a child needs glasses and can't see the board, but the parent is too lazy to provide them, they kid is just out of luck. Why? Any schools budget can easily absorb the cost of prescription eyeglasses.

We feed the kids free breakfast and lunch and continue that into the summer. That's good. Our counselors will provide school supplies and a backpack to kids whose parents will not buy them. Good again. But we should be providing any other needs that arise as well. Let a committee decide who has the need, since educators insist on committees. But get the kids taken care of, don't chastise them for not being ready to learn.

The problem is that we continue to call these schools. They are not. They are day-orphanages. But society and the parents of these children refuse to accept them as such, and then chastise teachers for not "just teaching the three R's"

This results in teacher burnout and teachers leaving in droves and young people not going into education--for which we ALSO get blamed. "If you can't hack it, get out".

To which I would answer: this is exactly what is happening. Teachers are getting out in droves, retiring early, and not going into it.

So. Now what?

 

[Unkotare]

...

This results in teacher burnout and teachers leaving in droves and young people not going into education--for which we ALSO get blamed. "If you can't hack it, get out".

To which I would answer: this is exactly what is happening. Teachers are getting out in droves, retiring early, and not going into it.

So. Now what?

The same post over and over and over and over and over.......

 

[The Irish Ram]

How about separation of teacher and parent. Everything you listed is the responsibility of the parent, not the teacher...

 

[Seymour Flops]

How about separation of teacher and parent. Everything you listed is the responsibility of the parent, not the teacher...

Yes, I get that.

News flash: parents are not doing it in many cases.

If public schools are not an equalizer of that kind of disadvantage, what it the point of it? Let all schools be private, and voluntary to send your kids there. Then the kids with the best parents will get the best education, which is what you are advocating.

 

[Woodznutz]

Perhaps you are overthinking it all. American children used to be a pretty tough, resilient breed who bounced back from personal life trauma and went on to perform at least adequately—academically speaking. The last thing America needs is an intensified nanny state coming out of the public education sector. What America is not is Soviet Russia of the 1970's where political officer cadre buzzed around every aspect of a school student's life ensuring his or her development of absolute faith in and allegiance to The Party. American government must never seek to emulate such a level of state worship, not ever. What children at large need more than anything else is to be unplugged from social media, online space, video games and all electronic devices. The internet is killing mankind, rotting his spirit from within, corrupting his mind and atrophying his collective physique. Further, it is parents, not teachers, who should be taking the lead at all times in the healthy and safe development of their children. The State needs to GTF out of the lives of American children and stay out.

Those parents are also victims of the educational system, so it's a multi-generational problem. You can't ask parents to do what they are ignorant of.

 

[night_son]

Those parents are also victims of the educational system, so it's a multi-generational problem. You can't ask parents to do what they are ignorant of.

Sure we can. Fifty thousand years of human parenting later one would expect fathers and mothers to be sort of apt to protect their children no matter the danger or cost to self. One might almost say it is in their DNA.

 

[Woodznutz]

Those who complain about public schools need to quit their current jobs and go in and teach because they know exactly how to fix it.

I don't know how to teach but I can fix the problems that hinder teachers from teaching, and the problems kids have in paying attention. Think of me as the 'plumber' who stops the 'flood' from the 'broken pipe' so everyone can get on with what they are there for.

 

[Woodznutz]

Sure we can. Fifty thousand years of human parenting later one would expect fathers and mothers to be sort of apt to protect their children no matter the danger or cost to self. One might almost say it is in their DNA.

Parents are the main problem, which is then compounded by the teachers.

This is a great subject. I hope we can explore it seriously.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

First, let me state that I am both a public school teacher and a person who is libertarian. As a libertarian, I would not object to public schools being phased out completely. I am confident that, in the absences of public schools, I would earn a far larger salary than my district determined scale. Point is that the "if" in my statement is sincere.

Since the answer to whether we will have public school is an overwhelming "yes," that the Twoparties agree on, we have to take a realistic look at what a child needs in order to learn in a public school.

A hungry child will not learn.
An exhausted child will not learn.
A sick child will not learn, if his sickness makes him too uncomfortable to concentrate.
A child who cannot see the board will not learn, in the absence of special accommodations.
A child who dreads the weekend due to abusive or negligent parents will learn perhaps Mon - Thurs, but will not learn on Friday.

My fellow/sister teachers often complain and lament that "we have to parent" some kids. They are right, that is exactly what we often have to do. We parent the kids, because the parents won't. That's what the welfare state has taught them is the way to behave.

If I were to suggest that we simply allow those kids to stay home, those same teachers would sputter with outrage. Because those kids have a "right" to a public school education. Because public school is the great equalizer. But is it?

A child experiencing any of the above is not getting an equal education to a child with an identical demographic, parental education and socioeconomic background whose parents provide the care the students needs, and appropriate time and location in which to study. If we are to be the equalizers, we must find ways to close those gaps.

When I taught at an elementary school we ran "Grizzly Bear Camp," which was an after school program that let kids study and do homework in the library for 90 minutes after school, followed by play time and a snack in the gym, and a bus ride home. It was a great success. In Junior High, they have after school "tutorials," but they are more a case of "You're behind in your work, so you are assigned to after school tutorials." Not nearly as helpful to kids with inadequate parenting.

If a child has a visual impairment severe enough to be classified as a disability, the school will spare little expense in providing equipment for that child to be able to access materials. If a child needs glasses and can't see the board, but the parent is too lazy to provide them, they kid is just out of luck. Why? Any schools budget can easily absorb the cost of prescription eyeglasses.

We feed the kids free breakfast and lunch and continue that into the summer. That's good. Our counselors will provide school supplies and a backpack to kids whose parents will not buy them. Good again. But we should be providing any other needs that arise as well. Let a committee decide who has the need, since educators insist on committees. But get the kids taken care of, don't chastise them for not being ready to learn.

Superior Students Need the Same Rewards Superior Athletes Get

Children need to compete in teams for a reward. Divide the class into teams, with a parity of IQs. Quiz frequently.

The team with the highest score will get Friday off. The team with the lowest score will have to come in on Saturday. High individual scorers from four grades older will be paid to teach the Saturday classes.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Parents are the main problem, which is then compounded by the teachers.

This is a great subject. I hope we can explore it seriously.

Everything Wrong With Education Is Done Right in Sports

No football coach blames his team's poor performance on his players' parents. Neither should any teacher.