What Would You Do? (Education)

[Spare_change]

Tax payer money should not be used to pay for private schools or religious schools.

In order to fire "under performing" teachers - you have to have a metric by which to rate them. What would that be?

That was supposed to be one of the goals of Common Core - we see how well that went.

Even if you were to establish some metric methodology, doesn't local control negate standardization?

 

[Coyote]

I stated "why" already.

Right but your reason assumes equal results. If that were the only way to raise performance would you still oppose it?

Yes. Because I don't believe that is the "only way". If the private school model (and there isn't even just one) is the means to better performance - then let's shape our public schools to that model, not let them die. Personally, I think giving more community control, downsizing classroom size a great deal, and allowing teachers to be more innovative and creative is a far better idea.

That's the point. They have no reason to change. Give them a reason to change.

I think they have reason to change, but they are stifled in bureacracy. There have been good innovative ideas that are successful, like magnet schools. Funneling money into private education is not going to make them change, it will make it harder for them to change. I also don't think tax payers should fund religious enterprises.

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

 

[Coyote]

Tax payer money should not be used to pay for private schools or religious schools.

In order to fire "under performing" teachers - you have to have a metric by which to rate them. What would that be?

That was supposed to be one of the goals of Common Core - we see how well that went.

Even if you were to establish some metric methodology, doesn't local control negate standardization?

You can have a degree of standardization from the federal level - there's always been in terms of the general subjects taught etc. But now they're forced to teach to the test and that is destructive both to learning and the teacher's ability to teach.

 

[Coyote]

I stated "why" already.

Right but your reason assumes equal results. If that were the only way to raise performance would you still oppose it?

Yes. Because I don't believe that is the "only way". If the private school model (and there isn't even just one) is the means to better performance - then let's shape our public schools to that model, not let them die. Personally, I think giving more community control, downsizing classroom size a great deal, and allowing teachers to be more innovative and creative is a far better idea.

That's the point. They have no reason to change. Give them a reason to change.

I think they have reason to change, but they are stifled in bureacracy. There have been good innovative ideas that are successful, like magnet schools. Funneling money into private education is not going to make them change, it will make it harder for them to change. I also don't think tax payers should fund religious enterprises.

How do you feel about vouchers? School choice? Parochial schools? Home schooling?

I feel that parents have every right to choose what ever accredited school they want. But I do not believe we, the taxpayers should pay for it. I oppose vouchers for a variety of reasons. People should not be forced to subsidize private for-profit or religious schools. Taking money away from the public school system only makes the problem worse and leaves those students stuck in the system worse off. Private schools don't have to take everyone - they can pick and choose from the best if they want. Vouchers also don't help many families - they don't pay for the entire cost, they don't cover transportation, they don't work when there are no private schools in a reasonable distance or for parents that don't have transport options where there might be a private school. It subsidizes a few at the expense of others.

 

[ding]

Right but your reason assumes equal results. If that were the only way to raise performance would you still oppose it?

Yes. Because I don't believe that is the "only way". If the private school model (and there isn't even just one) is the means to better performance - then let's shape our public schools to that model, not let them die. Personally, I think giving more community control, downsizing classroom size a great deal, and allowing teachers to be more innovative and creative is a far better idea.

That's the point. They have no reason to change. Give them a reason to change.

I think they have reason to change, but they are stifled in bureacracy. There have been good innovative ideas that are successful, like magnet schools. Funneling money into private education is not going to make them change, it will make it harder for them to change. I also don't think tax payers should fund religious enterprises.

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes. Because I don't believe that is the "only way". If the private school model (and there isn't even just one) is the means to better performance - then let's shape our public schools to that model, not let them die. Personally, I think giving more community control, downsizing classroom size a great deal, and allowing teachers to be more innovative and creative is a far better idea.

That's the point. They have no reason to change. Give them a reason to change.

I think they have reason to change, but they are stifled in bureacracy. There have been good innovative ideas that are successful, like magnet schools. Funneling money into private education is not going to make them change, it will make it harder for them to change. I also don't think tax payers should fund religious enterprises.

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

How would you know?

 

[ding]

That's the point. They have no reason to change. Give them a reason to change.

I think they have reason to change, but they are stifled in bureacracy. There have been good innovative ideas that are successful, like magnet schools. Funneling money into private education is not going to make them change, it will make it harder for them to change. I also don't think tax payers should fund religious enterprises.

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

How would you know?

Because it is Darwinian.

 

[Unkotare]

I think they have reason to change, but they are stifled in bureacracy. There have been good innovative ideas that are successful, like magnet schools. Funneling money into private education is not going to make them change, it will make it harder for them to change. I also don't think tax payers should fund religious enterprises.

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

How would you know?

Because it is Darwinian.

There is something about the topic of education that seems to encourage people with no basis in education or experience to just pull 'certainties' out of their asses and pretend they know what they are talking about.

 

[ding]

They won't change until their existence is threatened.

I disagree. It's not as simple as that - specifically, the reasons for failing in those schools that are failing are diverse. It's why just throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem and likewise, taking money away doesn't solve anything either.

You would be surprised how much that would do.

How would you know?

Because it is Darwinian.

There is something about the topic of education that seems to encourage people with no basis in education or experience to just pull 'certainties' out of their asses and pretend they know what they are talking about.

Then you shouldn't do that.

 

[rdean]

I've heard Republicans go on and on about Common Core so I go look it up. This if from the Common Core website:

About the Standards | Common Core State Standards Initiative

Recognizing the value and need for consistent learning goals across states, in 2009 the state school chiefs and governors that comprise CCSSO and the NGA Center coordinated a state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards. Designed through collaboration among teachers, school chiefs, administrators, and other experts, the standards provide a clear and consistent framework for educators.

The Common Core is informed by the highest, most effective standards from states across the United States and countries around the world. The standards define the knowledge and skills students should gain throughout their K-12 education in order to graduate high school prepared to succeed in entry-level careers, introductory academic college courses, and workforce training programs.

The standards are:

1. Research- and evidence-based
2. Clear, understandable, and consistent
3. Aligned with college and career expectations
4. Based on rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills
5. Built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards
6. Informed by other top performing countries in order to prepare all students for success in our global economy and society

------------------------------------

So why are Republicans so against common core? One of the biggest reasons is ignorance. And that ignorance takes many forms.

For instance, here is a thread I started back on May 1st when a Republican congressman referred to algebra as "fuzzy math" for using letters.

Republican calls algebra "fuzzy math" for using letters with numbers.

How many Republicans have even read what Common Core is all about?

Ding wrote: Actually I don't know much about common core except my wife hates it so I must hate it too, lol.

The Iris Ram wrote: Go find the smartest kids in the world, and who is producing them, and copy their curriculum, plus college level classes in high school.

Which is pretty much what they did.

 

[rdean]

Ever wonder why foreign students, at great cost flock to US schools?

Number Of International Students In The US Up Nearly 10 Percent In 2015

Record number of international students studying in U.S.

Republicans think US schools are the worst in the world. The rest of the world thinks US schools are the best in the world. Come on. In the last 40 years, what have Republicans ever been right about? I'm talking policies they have passed that affects the country. Not "talking points".

Believe it or not, many foreigners send their kids here for High School, not just college:

http://www.usnews.com/education/hig...for-international-students-at-us-high-schools

Hilarious. It almost looks like our election map. Gee. I wonder why?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Scrap Common Core immediately. Go find the smartest kids in the world, and who is producing them, and copy their curriculum, plus college level classes in high school. What ever the smartest are doing we need to one up them. We need to be the smartest, the strongest, the fastest, the most courageous, the most compassionate, the best this world has ever seen.

You're right .... but, are we willing to have our kids go to school 10 hours a day, all year long? Are we willing to give our students a test in the 6th grade, and tell some that they are not going to be allowed into college, but rather have to learn a vocational skill? Are we willing to scrap the 'feel good' classes and concentrate our funding, and talent, on the core curriculum? Are you willing to tell your daughter she isn't smart enough to be a ballerina, or a rocket scientist?

How do we standardize schools so everyone gets an equal opportunity?

Not a bad idea. Not every child is meant to be a doctor. Some are meant to be bakers, plumbers, etc. Being a ballerina doesn't require a lot of intelligence, but talent in an entirely different, physical way. One-sized-fits-all education is a losing proposition for everyone.

 

[gallantwarrior]

...... flunk out the under performing students. .....

Give up on the students who need the most help? What a pussy quitter attitude.

No. Set standards and hold people accountable.

Kicking out the students who need help the most is quitting on them. The attitude of a quitter and a loser.

You do realize that that is the option of last resort, don't you?

I don't think you realize why teachers teach.

Speaking as a teacher, I don't think you do.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Ever thought that maybe it's not the school system but the kids themselves?

Actually not the kids, but specifically, the parents. Just because you can spawn a fuck-trophy doesn't make you a parent. Too many parents could give a flying f**k about how their children perform in school, or otherwise.

 

[Spare_change]

Tax payer money should not be used to pay for private schools or religious schools.

In order to fire "under performing" teachers - you have to have a metric by which to rate them. What would that be?

That was supposed to be one of the goals of Common Core - we see how well that went.

Even if you were to establish some metric methodology, doesn't local control negate standardization?

You can have a degree of standardization from the federal level - there's always been in terms of the general subjects taught etc. But now they're forced to teach to the test and that is destructive both to learning and the teacher's ability to teach.

So, let's carry your idea a bit further ....

Let's assume that Common Core is killed (a safe bet, I think). The local school board, however, establishes minimum standards of performance for the teachers - to be determined by testing the quality of the product delivered.

Don't the teachers still "teach the test" in order to protect their jobs and their income?

So - to carry your thought out ----- the school board says "we're not going to give you measurable standards, do the best you can, and we'll decide whether it's good enough or not." What kind of education does THAT produce? How does a school board get rid of a non-performing teacher? What proof do they have in a wrongful termination lawsuit?

How do you, as a school board member and a lay person, recognize a teacher who is underperforming? How do you know when your child is not getting a quality education?

 

[Spare_change]

Ever thought that maybe it's not the school system but the kids themselves?

Actually not the kids, but specifically, the parents. Just because you can spawn a fuck-trophy doesn't make you a parent. Too many parents could give a flying f**k about how their children perform in school, or otherwise.

I agree, BUT ....

Does that make it the responsibility of the government to ensure that the student gets a quality education, no matter the parent's involvement?? Does that mean that the government should usurp the rights of the parent to be involved? Should we just take the responsibility for educating our children away from parents and get it over with?

 

[gallantwarrior]

We need waaaaaaayyyy more technical high schools...


.

Do you believe in dual tracking (one for college and one for vocational school)? When should the split happen? How would you feel if your child was told they aren't smart enough for college?

First, we have to eliminate the "smart enough for college" bullshit. Loads of college educated morons would be completely incapable of doing trade-related jobs. So telling children they are "not smart enough for college" is a disservice to most people who are better suited to trade-related professions. In Europe, the split occurs at about 14 yrs old, or where Jr. High splits into High School. At that point, children (or their families) decide a child should pursue a trade-related profession or pursue academic interests. Too bad that we have decided here (the US) that no one has a future unless they have a college (university) degree. Of course, unions have a very different role across the water, too.

 

[rdean]

Scrap Common Core immediately. Go find the smartest kids in the world, and who is producing them, and copy their curriculum, plus college level classes in high school. What ever the smartest are doing we need to one up them. We need to be the smartest, the strongest, the fastest, the most courageous, the most compassionate, the best this world has ever seen.

You're right .... but, are we willing to have our kids go to school 10 hours a day, all year long? Are we willing to give our students a test in the 6th grade, and tell some that they are not going to be allowed into college, but rather have to learn a vocational skill? Are we willing to scrap the 'feel good' classes and concentrate our funding, and talent, on the core curriculum? Are you willing to tell your daughter she isn't smart enough to be a ballerina, or a rocket scientist?

How do we standardize schools so everyone gets an equal opportunity?

Not a bad idea. Not every child is meant to be a doctor. Some are meant to be bakers, plumbers, etc. Being a ballerina doesn't require a lot of intelligence, but talent in an entirely different, physical way. One-sized-fits-all education is a losing proposition for everyone.

Which is what Obama proposed. He talked about the benefits for education and went on to great lengths to explain training as a machinist which is the purpose of an apprenticeship and other apprenticeships includes plumbers and carpenters and so on. Any of those can be a great living.

So what did Republicans do?



For the record, Obama said he wanted everyone in America to have an education.

Hillary and Bernie ran on making college affordable. Bernie kept saying "free" which is unrealistic. Hillary outlined many ways to pay that wouldn't leave you in debt for decades. Any of those can make a great living.

So what did Republicans do? They gave us Trump. What is Trump's college plan? He knew better than run on anything college because we know what Republicans think of college. Listen to Santorum.

 

[Spare_change]

I've heard Republicans go on and on about Common Core so I go look it up. This if from the Common Core website:

About the Standards | Common Core State Standards Initiative

Recognizing the value and need for consistent learning goals across states, in 2009 the state school chiefs and governors that comprise CCSSO and the NGA Center coordinated a state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards. Designed through collaboration among teachers, school chiefs, administrators, and other experts, the standards provide a clear and consistent framework for educators.

The Common Core is informed by the highest, most effective standards from states across the United States and countries around the world. The standards define the knowledge and skills students should gain throughout their K-12 education in order to graduate high school prepared to succeed in entry-level careers, introductory academic college courses, and workforce training programs.

The standards are:

1. Research- and evidence-based
2. Clear, understandable, and consistent
3. Aligned with college and career expectations
4. Based on rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills
5. Built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards
6. Informed by other top performing countries in order to prepare all students for success in our global economy and society

------------------------------------

So why are Republicans so against common core? One of the biggest reasons is ignorance. And that ignorance takes many forms.

For instance, here is a thread I started back on May 1st when a Republican congressman referred to algebra as "fuzzy math" for using letters.

Republican calls algebra "fuzzy math" for using letters with numbers.

How many Republicans have even read what Common Core is all about?

Ding wrote: Actually I don't know much about common core except my wife hates it so I must hate it too, lol.

The Iris Ram wrote: Go find the smartest kids in the world, and who is producing them, and copy their curriculum, plus college level classes in high school.

Which is pretty much what they did.

The problem is not with the baseline concept of Common Core.The problem is in the implementation.

Common Core is, now, nothing more than a naked power grab by the federal government to take over control of education at all levels. When they tried to make federal funding contingent on CC compliance, they completely corrupted the original intent.

Further, CC has focused pressure on teachers to perform to a pre-determined level. This, obviously, greatly offends teachers' unions, and threatens every teacher (no matter how good they are).

 

[gallantwarrior]

Ever thought that maybe it's not the school system but the kids themselves?

Actually not the kids, but specifically, the parents. Just because you can spawn a fuck-trophy doesn't make you a parent. Too many parents could give a flying f**k about how their children perform in school, or otherwise.

I agree, BUT ....

Does that make it the responsibility of the government to ensure that the student gets a quality education, no matter the parent's involvement?? Does that mean that the government should usurp the rights of the parent to be involved? Should we just take the responsibility for educating our children away from parents and get it over with?

My initial response is, the parents are responsible. But if the government assumes such responsibility, shouldn't there be government sponsored, and funded, facilities to house and educate those children whose parents prove incapable of supporting education?