Glad we have our priorities straight!

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Wotan

The education of kids in Baltimore is up to the citizens of Baltimore and Maryland to figure out. The Federal government shouldn't have anything to do with "education" in the first place.

Wrong, or at least so sez the supreme court.

curly

[Leslie]

One thing private schools enforce is classroom discipline.  That goes a long way in a learning environment.  Disruptors are out of there without any ifs, ands or buts.

They don't have to go any further in the discipline dept. than to expel the disruptive student.

Public schools is a different breed of cat altogether.  I would support more money for public education if it was used to hire Joe Brown patrolling the hallways with a brickbat.  "Trouble" public schools need a system like Singapore's or Japan's, with big martial arts experts walking the halls.  Of course that would do no good against a student with a gun, so we'd need metal detectors at all entrances, keeping some other outside doors locked for a short while...  'Til the hall monitors have done their thing.

Mind you, these guys would have to have a good sense of justice so as not to go overboard.  They should look and be intimidating.

Once a school demonstrated good grades (after these measures were taken) then talk about building nice schools with better educational tools that won't be destroyed by neer-do-wells within a week.  There's usually only a few troublemakers (maybe a gang), but they can cause big trouble for everyone else.  These students are not there to learn.

Doesn't matter whether the school is white or predominately black.  Trouble schools are serious business.  I have respect for teachers who have the guts to teach there.  Even modern schools with everything you could possibly want, far as teaching goes, have their share of bad boys.  Think what it must be like in the school you used as an example in your topic post Curly.  Many of those students deserve an education and should not live in fear.

The band Devo has a song "We're through being cool."  Hire professional hallway "enforcers" to solve the problem.  That's where initial funding should go.

I'm sure you know more about the situation than me, but that is my opinion.  It'll never happen I know, but seems like it would work.



Les

[Thrawn]

Wow, if I understand the US public school system properly,sounds like Maryland has to get it's **** in order.

[Wotan]

The federal government could get rid of the US Dept. of Education tomorrow without any repercussions from the Supreme Court.

The Federal Government isn't obligated under the Constitution to provide funding for local / state public schools.

Public Education is left to the states. AFAIK the only rulings that the Supreme made toward Public Education and Funding had to do with States violating the constitutional rights of portions of their citizenry.

They did not obligate the Federal Government to provide funding. What Federal Funding the states receive now is voluntary and as long as they comply with the Federal Guide lines.

Your point in this thread appears to be "why does the Fed spend money in Iraq when the schools in Baltimore rot". The answer is "the federal government isn’t responsible for the conditions of Baltimore's schools".

Besides all that:

http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press108/second/06june/unspent062904.htm

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Wotan
The federal government could get rid of the US Dept. of Education tomorrow without any repercussions from the Supreme Court.

The Federal Government isn't obligated under the Constitution to provide funding for local / state public schools.

Public Education is left to the states. AFAIK the only rulings that the Supreme made toward Public Education and Funding had to do with States violating the constitutional rights of portions of their citizenry.

They did not obligate the Federal Government to provide funding. What Federal Funding the states receive now is voluntary and as long as they comply with the Federal Guide lines.

Your point in this thread appears to be "why does the Fed spend money in Iraq when the schools in Baltimore rot". The answer is "the federal government isn’t responsible for the conditions of Baltimore's schools".

Besides all that:

http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press108/second/06june/unspent062904.htm

Your earlier statement The education of kids in Baltimore is up to the citizens of Baltimore and Maryland to figure out. The Federal government shouldn't have anything to do with "education" in the first place is incorrect.  States do not have the right to provide "separate, but equal" (brown vs. board of education?)  Therefore, the education of children obviously isn't up to the citizens of a state.

My point is that we are spending approximately one billion dollars/day on a war where the stated reasons are false (no WMDs.)   Rather than pizz the money away on such craziness, why not pizz it away on the children of US citizens.

I am not saying the feds should do this/that/whatever.  I am simply saying that since they are throwing the money away in Iraq, why not spend it in this country?

curly

[Wotan]

Are you playing games? What is the context of this thread? My reply should be read within the context of this thread. You are complaining about the Federal Government spending money in Iraq and not on dilapidated schools.

Separate but equal is up to the states to figure out how to pay for, just like it’s up to the states to figure out how to fund school construction and repair.

Living outside of Baltimore I don’t wish to pay to educate children in another state. Especially when I have no input on how that money is spent. Living in America I can understand what my government is trying to do in Iraq. I can hold the president and my congress folk accountable for how they waste that money.

Maybe you should ask the Baltimore school board and/or Superintendent what they have thrown their money away on. Maybe you should ask the state of Maryland, a state with a high tax rate, what they have thrown their money away on.

Whether you agree with the Iraq war or not is of no consequence. That’s water under the bridge. That doesn’t change the responsibility the Federal Government has in seeing Iraq rebuilt. Like all things run by Government I am sure money is and will be wasted and "thrown away". What difference does it make if it’s thrown away in Iraq or in Baltimore? Well I have no say in how my money will be wasted in Baltimore.

Do an internet search of the Kansas City school system. Throwing money at it didn’t help much.

I will help you:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

Here's a blurb:

For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." The education establishment and its supporters have replied, "No one's ever tried." In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.

Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil--more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.

The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.

The Kansas City experiment suggests that, indeed, educational problems can't be solved by throwing money at them, that the structural problems of our current educational system are far more important than a lack of material resources, and that the focus on desegregation diverted attention from the real problem, low achievement.

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Wotan
Are you playing games? What is the context of this thread? You are complaining about the Federal Government spending money in Iraq and not on dilapidated schools.

The context is simple.  Read the first note.  

Later, you made an erroneous statement.  I corrected it.  

I am not suggesting that money is the entire solution to the school problem.  Again, read the thread.

I am simply saying I would prefer to spend taxpayer money in the US on US problems rather than in Iraq on fake problems.

curly

[Wotan]

The context is simple. Read the first note.

Apparently it's not. Had you read my reply with in the context of your original premise you would have no reason to swing in another direction.

Go back and reread what I posted with in the context of your original post. Clearly we are talking about money.

Also, separate but equal was more a civil rights issue rather a strict educational one.

My statement:

The Federal government shouldn't have anything to do with "education" in the first place.

Doesn’t mean states don’t have to abide by the Constitution.  If it makes you feel better then I will add "outside of ensuring Constitutional protection the Federal Government should not have anything to do with "education" in the first place”. The point remains the same.

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Wotan
Apparently it's not. Had you read my reply with in the context of your original premise you would have no reason to swing in another direction.

Go back and reread what I posted with in the context of your original post. Clearly we are talking about money.

Also, separate but equal was more a civil rights issue rather a strict educational one.

My statement:

 

Doesn’t mean states don’t have to abide by the Constitution.  If it makes you feel better then I will add "outside of ensuring Constitutional protection the Federal Government should not have anything to do with "education" in the first place”. The point remains the same.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant (ensuring ... .)  you're right, I didn't see your qualifier.

Now, whether the feds should fund education, that's an entirely separate issue.  In sort of the same direction, should the feds have funded the highway program across the country?  Can you imagine driving across Oklahoma on state built roads?

curly

[rpm]

Bush's education policies have always bothered me. While Governor he did raise test scores, but at the same time had the highest drop out rate in history. Kicking or forcing out the slow ones just to raise the overall score is not right. Spending more money on more teachers and facilities would seem to be a better solution.

The reason most private schools have higher success rates is the children mainly come from affluent families. By and large there are no children from ghettos or poverty striken homes and families unless they are there on a basketball scholarship. This does not mean poor kids are geneticly dumber, they just have a harder environment to deal with. Often little or no parental supervision is a major factor with both parents working or single parents working two jobs. The home environment is key in how the child performs at school.

People wanting vouchers so they can enroll their kids in private schools have the mistaken idea their kids will recieve a better education. Allowing children from all social classes will only water down those high scores and we will be right back where we started, except the public schools that were already in financial trouble are in worse shape because everyone used tuition vouchers to send their money to a private school.

It's a Catch-22.

[Wotan]

Roads are different in that they aid in the defense of the nation by making the movement of troops easier as well as a host of other things.

Americans were better educated in the past and it didn’t cost billions to do it. Read the link I provided above about the KC school system.

Federalizing the education system will have all kinds of negative consequences. It will take away local control for one. It will waste even more money. It will unevenly distribute tax money and be used like Social Security to scare and manipulate the masses.

It’s a bad idea all round.  Federal Highway funding has provided jobs, trade growth etc. It paid for itself. Federalizing education will simply grow and grow. Every election will see "We need to spend more on education blah blah blah..."

RPM read the links I provided above. It may sound good to "spend more money on teachers and classrooms" but it doesn’t bare fruit.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/press/press108/second/06june/unspent062904.htm

Dated June 29, 2004

New Government Data Confirms Federal Education Funding is Increasing More Quickly than States Can Spend It; States Have Billions in Unspent No Child Left Behind & Special Education Funds – and Percentage of Unspent Funds is Increasing

States Still Haven’t Spent $526 Million Carried Over from Clinton Administration; $2.7 Billion Has Been Sitting Unused for Two Years or More

This is just one of those “effeminate” issues that are used to scare folks much like SS and healthcare is used to scare the elderly. The problem isn’t funding, the problem is with the parents and communities that send kids to school unprepared and undisciplined. More money won’t change that.

[midnight Target]

Sorry Curly, Catholic school boy here. The quality of education I received and the quality of the instructors was unmatched by any public school in the area.

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry Curly, Catholic school boy here. The quality of education I received and the quality of the instructors was unmatched by any public school in the area.

Sorry?  About what?  Did you read what I wrote?

There are 3 types of private schools: catholic, religious (not catholic) and independent. For the most part, religious schools are joke when compared to public schools. Catholic and independent schools are stronger than religious schools, but still fall short of public schools so far as quality of instructional staff. Of course, this is "on average." There are private schools better than the average public school.

curly

[midnight Target]

ummm, Sorry there weren't more catholic school girls?

[Simaril]

Originally posted by AKcurly
Costs on a per student expenditure?  Sure, private schools frequently hire teachers w/o the proper credentials.  

Good education requires a government smart enough to provide a decent facility; parents who care; teachers who possess adequate credentials and the willingness to interact with the family.

The burn out rate of public school teachers is very high --- poor compensation, high student/teacher load and poor support from the administrative staff.

Excellent education can occur in the most dismal surroundings, but it requires an unusual teacher ... sort of like the Michael Jordan of teachers.

Concerning the quality of private school instruction, well, my experience has been that it's awful (on average,) especially the religious schools.  I had at least one college freshman class once a year (two semester year) for over 30 years and the private school students were always behind -- even the bright ones.

curly

1) Is credentialling a requirement for being a good teacher? It seems to me that with apparent failure of national educational system, indoctrination in the system's "right" way to do things may be a mixed blessing at best.

2) I find it very hard to believe that "in 30 years of teaching" the private school students were "always" behind, "even the bright ones." Being able to make such a statement costs you a few credibility points, in fact.
Oh, and by the way, I am a graduate of a private religious non-catholic school that had some "unaccredited" teachers. I was admitted to a highly competitive 6 year combined undergraduate/medical school program right out of high school. I was selected editor of the Med School paper while pursuing studies, and I was Chief Resident in my postgraduate program. I'm now Board Certified in three (3) medical specialties, serve as physician advisor to the Utilization Review department, and I'm involved in training programs for residents and medical students. My high school taught me very well, and I was in no way "behind" even though I wasn't "blessed" with a public school education.

3) And you still haven't addressed the cost per student issue. Blaming it on hiring cheap teachers begs the question, since measured outcomes of . Large surveys have repeatedly shown that the parochial system, even with its "unaccredited" teachers and much poorer compensation, obtains similar and often improved objective outcomes.

4) My brother in law burned out as a (certified) public school teacher not because of compensation, but because the bureaucracy above him took ill advised positions, failed to respond to real conditions, and generally would not support his efforts to improve his school and his students. He could not maintain discipline in his classroom because he had no support from his principle. Bureaucracy, not certification, is the major issue - adn buraeucracy costs lots of (wasted) money.