children

[SteveB]

... in response to He lives with his mother, posted by Alvin on Jun 8, 2002

I understand,,,we see many kids that are allowed to make their own choices,,,this is an AW's way of saying she can't control the kids,,,lol,,,I bet she would blame the school if your son fails a subject,,,I see this all the time,,,When I first started teaching, these parents were told,,we are running the school,,get your kids here and let us educate them,,,now we have given in to these type of parents, we've watered down the curriculum so the lazy butts can pass, and public schools are going down the tubes,,,I wonder,,,,how will this effect the country in the long haul???  When the rich get richer and the poor,,,,poorer,,,due to lack of education???HUUUUUUMMMMM

Steveb  a concerned teacher

[NW Jim]

... in response to Re: He lives with his mother, posted by SteveB on Jun 8, 2002

Steve,
I could rant about the deficiencis of public education for hours. I think Don, Ray, and Alvin have clearly touched on the highlights. It basically boils down to Choice and responbility.

When conservatives and thinking people push for school vouchers, we're told that if the smart motivated students leave the public schools will crumble. Supposedly the smart students rub off on the less motivated. This is the sinking life boat theory. If we, the public education establishment can force middle class kids to stay in the system, they'll keep funding our gigantic failure and the boat won't swamp.

How dare the informed parent want to remove their child from a sinking boat, shame on you for being selfish! Yes the rich and political class are probably laughing at your kid, they know the more that sink---will leave more opportunity for their children.

The teachers unions have got themselves in a box by supporting a sinking system. Understandably, they want the best economic benefits for their members. However, they have let the lowered standards and student rights take precedence over excellence in education.

There is one way out as far as the pay for teachers; in the Netherlands, public school teachers and private school teachers are paid the same wage by law. Of course this doesn't address those teachers who want a captive audience for there socialistic, self-esteem centered pet theories.

Tying this into the MOB scene. I believe in choice for marriage, education, etc. Looking overseas for a spouse, and putting your children in private school both require sacrifice with the goal of long term happiness.

Viva choice!

[Alvin]

... in response to Re: He lives with his mother, posted by SteveB on Jun 8, 2002

nt

[The Walker]

... in response to Re: He lives with his mother, posted by SteveB on Jun 8, 2002

If you look closely, neither education, nor health care, nor a dozen other welfare benefits are listed therein. Freedom, yes, the freedom to fail, the freedom to succeed. If you can afford to send your kids to private school, or Notre Dame, that is your right. If you can't, then you have to be satisfied with public schools. If you can afford good health insurance, fine, if not, then you have to be satisfied with whatever you can get. The world doesn't owe you anything. Root, hog, or die.

To the framers of the Constitution, what you do with your freedom is your business, so long as you do not impose on your neighbors. If you want to work extra and get your kids the best education you can afford, go ahead. If you would rather have the fancy car and the boat and let your kids take their chances with public schools, your call. If you don't earn enough money for boats or private schools, that's the breaks. Home school or private school (religious or secular). After all, not everyone can qualify for or afford MIT or Notre Dame or Bryn Mawr. Or you can simply "let George do it" and send them to public schools. Some public schools are okay. Most are not. I have found that in most nations and systems where public schools are left to the teachers to run and where private schooling is not allowed or not available, the public schools drag everyone down, instead of lifting them up. Ireland is a shining exception, but then Ireland does have a healthy private school culture as well. Their public schools are turning out great kids, and they are about as far from our system in method as can be.

My wife and I tried the public system. We tried to make it accountable and we tried to make it work. We were outnumbered and outvoted. Public schools and teacher's unions and education groups now have an elitist attitude that parents are to send their kids, vote for school levies, and come to PTA meetings to provide money and manpower. Parents are not fit to question the education their children receive. Parents are not to question teachers or their methods or their grading systems even when the teacher screws them up and is caught at it. If the kids turn out bad, it is the parent's fault, even though the schools have done their best to keep parents out of the loop. This is because we are into our third generation of ignorant teachers, who themselves were taught by fools.

The heck with that.

There is too little learning and too much social engineering going on in public schools. Parents as a vast majority don't want elementary school kids reading "Daddy's Boyfriend" or "Mommy's Girlfriend". Let those parents who are bisexual teach that at home, along with religion. I surely don't want health class's sex education turned into the Kama Sutra, which is what one junior high tried to do, discussing sexual positions and various aids (read dildos) to eroticism. Sex ed is supposed to be explanation of the basic processes and a good dose of prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy. Not dildos and doggie-style. The class was so erotically centered that when they finished, none of the girls remembered how to keep from getting pregnant. They used the "oh well" method. If they got pregnant, "Oh well". And if you think their health and sexed classes were screwy, you should have seen their math, science and history departments. I thank the Great Spirit often that I got my kids out of the blackboard jungles and into a clean, safe, school where knowledge came first. For us, home schooling was not really an option. For one thing, home schooling was not legal in most states back then. Also I was out doing my thing with the military so often that my wife was rather busy filling both roles at home and to add a third role was a bit much to ask.

As for social mainstreaming, in most states home school kids can attend some school classes, band, for instance. Schools tried to ostracize and shun them but the legislatures overcame that. Schools will still try that today, but unless they want to lose their federal dollars they had better pay close attention to Titles 7-9. The various home school organizations in your state can fill you in on your options and rights. After all, you are still paying school income or property taxes (even if you rent), therefore you are entitled to certain services.

-Don

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Re: He lives with his mother, posted by The Walker on Jun 8, 2002

I agree with just about everything you said Don. But I don't think you'll ever convince the likes of Hillary Clinton.

I'm hopeful that the recent trend toward home schooling and the debate over school vouchers is beginning to put some pressure on the public schools to clean up their act. But I suspect that the teachers' unions and the politicians that they support are not going to roll over easily on this.

Let the battle rage on...

Ray

[stefang]

... in response to Re: Re: He lives with his mother, posted by The Walker on Jun 8, 2002

With the riches of this country we should have a top educational system. The quality of the education for all students should be a priority because the future children will run the country. I think government works closely with business to decide what to teach our kids. Since we have become a service economy more than a industrial economy employers don't really need top skills. You will find a lot of rich who want dumbed down people to flip their burgers for minimum wage. If all kids recieved a decent education then a lot more might open a higher tech business which would help the US economy more than a McDonalds. If the government doesn't want to help the poorer people fine but they better stop giving 30 billion dollar tax breaks to oil companies. No public welfare then no corporate welfare either. If you look at all of the businesses that have gone bankrupt these past couple of years most are from the greed of the ceo's and top exec's. They had a top education but no morals.
This country is also in a bad situation with our national debt. Without Europe and Japan buying our debt we would be in serious trouble, if they decide to call in on our loans we would have to default or print more money. The economy would crash and see serious inflation, one of the bad consequences of a floating currency. The dollar is only worth as much as the trust that people put in it.
The better the skill of our work force the better we would be to compete against other countries in building products. This would actually create more tax base for the country because of better wages for the majority. More small start up companies which tend to build better products than the big corporations who only think of their pockets.

[Alvin]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: He lives with his mother, posted by stefang on Jun 8, 2002

I live in North Carolina.  NC used to be the largest manufacturer of cloth in the world.  My first job was sweeping the largest revolutionnary mill in the world.  Now China is the major manufacturer of fabric in the world and now very little is produced in the US. The rich benefit from this by their lower cost at a higher cost to the public.

Alvin

[The Walker]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: He lives with his mother, posted by stefang on Jun 8, 2002

The funny thing is, the more money we throw at public education, the worse it gets. Cleveland and Chicago and NYC spend more per pupil than almost anyone and yet their public schools are a shambles. Private schools generally spend one fifth per pupil what the large school systems do and they beat their academic pants off every time. All the big systems have teachers with teaching degrees, many of them Master's degrees. Hasn't helped. The big systems are often chaired by Doctors of Education. I rest my case.

If industry had their way, all the kids would be majoring in math and science and computers and we'd import immigrants on temporary work visas for our burger flipping. The rest of our kids unfit for college would be in trade schools. Right now we are dependent on immigration for our technological edge, but it will not last. Other nations will smarten up and keep their home-grown talent and fund their own research. Industry is screaming for more math and science to be taught in schools. They donate computers and money for science and math programs. Scholarships for the same (and medical). No industry offers scholarships in janitorial work or burger flipping. Most major industries also have a tuition-reimbursement program for their employees.

Industry is more disgusted with public schools than I am. Industry realizes that we will need more bright kids to invent and refine the products/processes that will keep American industry at the top of the heap. Tashika from Compton with a GED, an attitude, and 6 inch long gold fingernails is not going to keep the US on top of the heap. Neither is Fred from Idaho, with a HS diploma from juvenile jail and a PhD in car theft.

True, industry does have a big interest in the industrial or alternative schools. You know, the Joint Vocatinal Schools? Where they send kids who can't pass even a regular HS course. At least they are taught a skill of some sort. Not everyone is going to make it in college and it is better these kids learn a marketable skill to keep them off welfare and from stripping my car at night. After all, we do need janitors and meat cutters and hairdressers and barbers and road construction crews and sanitation workers. Besides, they can make out. Garbage collectors in almost every major city are paid more than teachers, but then again they do their jobs better, too.

Average Teacher Salary in the US is $48,000, according to the teacher's unions. For 9-1/2 month's work per year. Really 8 months when you consider the winter and spring breaks and the various teacher goof-off days. If I wanted a lazy man's job I'd teach. I used to teach in the service, it isn't that hard. You make them sit up and pay attention, and you must be a master of your subject as well. I used to sub at our local school before the union got the state to pass a law where subs had to have teaching certificates. I subbed math, history and chemistry. No problem. I got one class in history for half a year due to the teacher having a very difficult pregnancy and birth. That was when the ranch was much smaller, true, but I still had time to teach classes and do all the farm chores and paperwork. Saying teaching is hard is a myth brought up by teachers to excuse their own ineptitude. They are afraid people will learn the truth and they will lose their cushy jobs.

-Don

[stefang]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: He lives with his mother, posted by The Walker on Jun 8, 2002

I agree that schools are much weaker than before it doesn't help with tests that use multiple choice instead of an essay type answer. When I went to college we had multiple choice tests and the majority of people were failing in my class. I didn't understand it at all why people found it difficult, usually two questions could be ruled out as plain stupidity and you only needed common sense to pass these tests. Then I had an economics class where the teacher required essay tests, that class I had to study to get an A. I don't know how well my grammar is here because that was always my weakest subject. In college I would ask my English professor a question and he would say to look it up myself. Maybe he wanted me to learn on my own which was good, but when I took my papers to a friend to inspect he beleived my teacher was being to critical of my writing abilities. The question is who to blame? The teachers or higher up. The teachers are told what to teach from the boards so maybe there should be blame here also.

I never finished college because of monetary reasons and wasn't sure about sitting behind an office desk. I am happy about working with my hands, but I also am starting to think more about owning my own business, you cannot rely on a company to provide no matter what your skills are.
skilled trades actually require intelligence. If someone can't make change from a dollar would you want him to build your house. An Electrician requires a lot of knowledge to pass their licenses. I've known people who went into college and after decided to apprentice for a union electrican, they stated learning electrical was much harder than college. You cannot run a CNC lathe without math skills. A garbage truck he he, some people probably couldn't figure out how to use the compressor, sad but true. I don't really want to give more money to schools but try to change them back to what they were like before. A lot of countries offer better chances for students to go on to college to increase their skills. The better workers who produce more for their economy create the tax base to offset the costs of the higher education. It is fine if government doesn't want to help but then they should lower our taxes and stop giving multinationals our tax dollars. After 9/11 Bush instantly called for money to give to the airlines to keep them afloat. The truth is no money should of been given. Some of the airlines would of went bankrupt and then the others who managed their businesses better would become stronger. If I were to break my leg tomorrow and couldn't make my house payment would the government make them for me? No, so they should not help businesses either the week should fold so other businesses who are more efficient can take over. I guess what I'm getting at is the politicians are working for corporations when they should be working for us. The big companies really don't care if we have skilled workers because they can either transplant their operations or hire contract workers, free trade. The small and midsized companies are hurt the most, because they need the local workers who unfortunately aren't very skilled anymore.

[The Walker]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He lives with his mo..., posted by stefang on Jun 8, 2002

If you break your leg, one man is out of a job. If about half of the major airlines go down, tens of thousands go with them.

It is the old story. If you owe the bank a hundred thousand dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a hundred million dollars, you own the bank. Let's face, it money talks. Always has. If government allows thirty thousand people to go broke all at once just in the airlines, then the downstream fallout in the hotel industry, entertainment industry, etc., where tens of thousands more go broke, guess who WON'T get re-elected next election? And the public will call for people's heads. That is why both parties almost broke their necks bailing out large industries after 9/11. The US did much the same thing after Pearl harbor. As it was, we took a pretty good hit on the economy, about 1.3 trillion dollars. If the government had not shown strength when it did I believe it would have been far worse. Plus we had a lot of pressure from allies who had airline troubles of their own. All of a sudden a reduced number of connections from the USA. They could not ramp up enough flights to make up a tenth of the difference. As it was Swissair went out and so did several others. The airlines live hand-to-mouth more than any other industry, followed by dot-coms and the hotel/entertainment/tourist industry.

As much as I dislike government bailouts of corporations, in the course of national emergencies I believe it is necessary. We learned a lot from the Great Depression and Pearl Harbor. One thing was that government has to act quickly and decisively, even if perhaps slightly unwisely. You can always go back and fine tune your actions, but it is very difficult to repair the feelings of fear, doubt and despair that inaction and indecisiveness bring.

-Don

[stefang]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He lives with hi..., posted by The Walker on Jun 8, 2002

I don't want to argue to much about this because there are good and bad on both sides.
The problems with America.
Feminists he he had to put this one in
Laziness
Materialism
Corruptness
Crime Most people worry about their car being stolen but now you have to watch the brokers, funds, companies, etc..
Add to the list if you want..

US reminds me of Rome during their peak dynasty. Romans became lazy and had the territories defend them and feed them. They collected the taxes but slowly lost their empire. Most of the above defines the Romans at the peak dynasty. Hopefully we adjust but I beleive the Chinese will have the biggest economy 20 years from now. Also the EU gained a lot of power with their big trade block.

The other thing scary is the baby boomers retiring. I am not sure I will want to own stock during this period. If a majority decide to cash in it will cause a major decline in the market. I am starting to trust foreign companies more anyways. Medical stocks might be good, of course by that time the boomers will still outnumber the younger voters and will probably vote for national health care.

[kevin]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: He lives with his mother, posted by stefang on Jun 8, 2002

First, you talk about flipping burgers and low skill.  I think something to contemplate in light of this board, anyway, is that in the Philippines, it pretty much takes a college education to even so much as work at a place like McDonalds or Jollibees.  From what I can grasp, underemployment is profoundly more prevalent in the Philippines than what it is in the United States.

Well, about the oil industry, I really mean energy industry, in America, it's high time to change sources of what can fuel our economy.  First, fossil fuels are limited.  Forget the big oil special interests.  It's time for them to diversify.  Govrnment policy, as it relates to business, should be the same as it is to the tobacco industry.  Remember, cigarette manufacturers had to diversify for survival.  Smoking is no longer politically acceptable, never mind socially acceptable, in the United States.  Oil dependency ought to be regarded the same way.  From what I've read, solar energy, and hydrogen energy would be viable and safe ways to fulfill energy needs.  All it takes s a willingness to embark on such potential, given that accelerating dependence on fossil fuels is on borrowed time.  Perhaps if it wasn't for perpetual fossil fuel dependence, the motive for 911 might never have existed.

- Kevin

[SteveB]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: He lives with his mother, posted by stefang on Jun 8, 2002

I think I should get paid not to teach,,,,just like Walker's brothers, the farmers....lol....In my opinion, we are in deep trouble,,the rich are getting richer,,,,no middle class,,,the poor ,,poorer....I think pulling oneself up by the boot-straps is great,,,but without an education,,,its harder to accomplish,,,when this generation is as old as we are,,,,,,most of their jobs haven't been invented yet.....Where are these teacher unions?  Which states can teachers strike for better pay and working conditions?

[The Walker]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: He lives with his mother, posted by SteveB on Jun 8, 2002

OBTW I get not one red cent in government subsidies. I raise breeding cattle. The only crops I grow are for the cattle, the other animals and ourselves. Dirt farming is a good way to go broke in my onpnion.

I imagine I could qualify under the new farm bill for some money, I haven't studied it. But I won't. If you take the federal dollar, the feds have way too much say in your business. The government's main business is making you more and more dependent on them for survival.

I survive by my own wits and sweat. The government can go take a flying leap. And we beat them at taxes again this year, too. Brrrrappp! (loud raspberry)

-Don

[kevin]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He lives with his mo..., posted by The Walker on Jun 8, 2002

Food for thought.  How and why does he have a PAID summer vacation?  The rest of the working world doesn't!  Agricultural tradition!  Very convenient!  Remember the principle of summer vacation started out when kids were needed to tend the farm in the summer time when the American economy was agricultural.  Today it's a "preemptive" exempt work period, God forbid, should any teacher have to work more than what the contract truly calls for and prescribes to maximize their benefit.

- Kevin