Layla_Z

__________________
~Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
~I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
~If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
George Carlin

ryandre

We need to give choice back to the parents, right now teachers unions want no competition and you paying taxes for it which allows them to teach at sub par levels, create school vouchers giving parents the choice of school which equal more competition for public schools. Also get rid of the department of education no where in the constitution does it the word "education" come up, bring it back to the state and local level, the more money we put into education the worse it gets,In 2000 the DoE budget was $33 billion, currently it is $64 billion, has it improved at all? Not in my eyes. It's our responsibility to determine what is best for our kids, not the federal government.

Scucca

I'd suggest otherwise. Choice exaggerates inequality of opportunity, exacerbating segregation but also impacting on general quality. OECD (2007, Chapter 5: Improving primary and secondary education, OECD Economic Surveys: United States, Vol. 2007 Issue 9, pp 97-124), for example, make the following remark:

"...the comparative weakness of US academic standards may stem in part from the highly decentralised administration of the school system and from the absence of central steering (through central curriculum or external exams)."

This would suggest that we can blame state discretion over academic performance standards for the US education failures.

Education, via a comprehensive school system, should provoke social mobility. Choice ensures a class ridden system where the human capital role of education actually becomes secondary.

__________________

aegyptos

I like to teachers required to have a at least an undergraduate degree in the subject they are teaching. I was shocked to realize at a
parent-teacher conference that my niece's AmHist teacher knew no history herself outside the bare minimum contained in the lesson plan. The lesson plan itself seemed to be taken directly from Howard Zinn. A person who doesn't know American History can't teach it. Likewise with math and science. A degree in early childhood education is no substitute for real knowledge. A teacher with a degree in mathematics or biology or history would be worth more money than one who doesn't have any specific knowledge to impart to students.

__________________
Report this post!

UtahBill

What you say makes sense at the higher grade levels, but not necessarily at the lower grade levels. What good does it do to have someone who really knows history try to teach it to children 12 years of age, or younger?
Even at grades 7 to 12, do we need to expose our children to the kind of history that will discourage them about our government? Save that for the senior year, along with economics and other harsh realities of life in America. And do we need a mathematician to teach basic algebra? No, we do not. In my college classes, I hated taking higher level math from a mathematician. He spent all the time on proofs and derivations, while all the students wanted was to learn how to USE calculus. None of us were math majors! We were studying to be engineers.
And I like Howard Zinn. He makes us aware of the warts of american history. If all you want is the white washed version of history, then by all means don't use Zinn at all.
Also, it is a hasty act to blame teachers. They usually are not the ones who set the curriculum, or determine minimal requirements in proficiency for teachers. Look at administration and the school board for those issues.
Back in the 60's in east Texas, our school board banned 2 books that our best teacher was using in class, "The Scarlet Letter" and "To Kill a Mockingbird". He was without a doubt the best teacher I ever had, and the administration made life difficult for him because he taught English at a much higher level than required for the grade level. So put the blame where it belongs, on the administration that establishea minimal standards of curriculum and teacher proficiency, the school board that sets community standards for the schools, and the parents who don't support the teachers. After all that, then it is fair to start weeding out the teachers who are substandard.

__________________
The Age of Reason doesn't have to be a thing of the past.
Being judgemental is the prime directive of some evangelicals.
No success can compensate for failure in the home.

aegyptos

You are actually supporting the dumbing down of our students. This attitude is a good argument for vouchers. You can use your voucher to send your kid to the government/union controlled school and I'll use mine to send my kid elsewhere. Choice in education is the answer.

UtahBill

Who are you addressing?
Vouchers will be used to send children to religious backed schools, where the dumbing down is already well established by many of them. There are no good private schools out there that the average american can afford. The solution is to fix the schools we have, not invent a system where every parent had choices that they can't afford. With vouchers, the rich will get smarter, and the poor will get dumber, making it even easier for the rich to subjugate and take advantage of the poor. Government standards are essential, but not the current standards. Those are pathetic..

aegyptos

To fix the schools we have we'd have to burn them to the ground and start all over with new staff and a whole new attitude. Better to give the parents the choice to do what they think is right. Then you can chose dumb government if you wish and someone else can choose dumb religious if they wish. Choice is better than no choice. I have no bias toward keeping the present failed system in place while we try hopelessly to fix it. It can't fixed if we retain the present staff. I think it is the people inside the school bureacracy at all levels who have created this failure.

UtahBill

and what credentials do you bring to this issue that might cause the rest of us to take you seriously?
As for failure, our schools routinely turn out kids who are suitable for trade schools, colleges, on the job training, etc. If a small percent of our kids are not getting what they should from existing schools, work on those kids. You don't tear down an entire system because a few kids are not getting all they could from the system.
I have high school, 3 years of technical training in the navy, and 3 years of college (night classes). My wife has a bachelors, a masters, and an administrator's certificate (yes, she is a teacher, now retired). Our son teaches science, with a masters degree. My late MIL was a teacher.
I see first hand what teachers have to go through, but usually they still consider it a rewarding career.
They may not make a lot of money, but they do make a difference. Think about what it would be like if the only education we got was from our parents, or some tutor if our parents could afford it. That is the way it was until child labor laws came into effect, and the kids had nothing to do since the factories couldn't employ them anymore. All those kids on the streets caused our govt to introduce free public education for the masses. Or did anyone here think that we have always had free public education?

aegyptos

My credentials are similar to yours but it isn't about you and me. Try to concentrate on the issue and drop the ad hom approach.