PDA

View Full Version : No child left behind


Don K
July 20th 03, 08:22 PM
As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.

It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
previously taught in the private school system and is short
3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
love to hire her, but now he can't.

Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
with a long-term substitute.

The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!

Don

Nina
July 20th 03, 08:42 PM
"Don K" > wrote in message
...
> As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
>
> It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> previously taught in the private school system and is short
> 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> love to hire her, but now he can't.
>
> Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> with a long-term substitute.
>
> The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
Absolutely idiotic. Here in CO the subs at least have to have a bachelor
degree.

Nina
July 20th 03, 08:42 PM
"Don K" > wrote in message
...
> As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
>
> It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> previously taught in the private school system and is short
> 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> love to hire her, but now he can't.
>
> Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> with a long-term substitute.
>
> The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
Absolutely idiotic. Here in CO the subs at least have to have a bachelor
degree.

SlinkyToy
July 20th 03, 09:51 PM
Austin is so hard-up for qualified teachers that any professional with a
bachelor's degree and experience in their field is accepted as "qualified"
and teaches full-time in the classroom while completing the accellerated
teaching certificate program at UT. Funn tho, the qualifications for a sub
are the ability to stay awake during class.

My kid will be attending private school for a reason.

"Don K" > wrote in message
...
> As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
>
> It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> previously taught in the private school system and is short
> 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> love to hire her, but now he can't.
>
> Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> with a long-term substitute.
>
> The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> Don
>
>

SlinkyToy
July 20th 03, 09:51 PM
Austin is so hard-up for qualified teachers that any professional with a
bachelor's degree and experience in their field is accepted as "qualified"
and teaches full-time in the classroom while completing the accellerated
teaching certificate program at UT. Funn tho, the qualifications for a sub
are the ability to stay awake during class.

My kid will be attending private school for a reason.

"Don K" > wrote in message
...
> As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
>
> It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> previously taught in the private school system and is short
> 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> love to hire her, but now he can't.
>
> Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> with a long-term substitute.
>
> The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> Don
>
>

The Real Bev
July 20th 03, 10:39 PM
SlinkyToy wrote:
>
> Austin is so hard-up for qualified teachers that any professional with a
> bachelor's degree and experience in their field is accepted as "qualified"
> and teaches full-time in the classroom while completing the accellerated
> teaching certificate program at UT. Funn tho, the qualifications for a sub
> are the ability to stay awake during class.

No teachers' union? If not, don't ever let the *******s in or you'll end
up with California's educational system.

Friend has a PhD in Physics, an LLD (law, obviously), and is having
trouble getting the educationalism courses (few classes, lotteries held)
needed to allow him to get a full credential to teach AP calculus.

--
Cheers,
Bev
-----------------------------------------
There's something wrong with my keyboard.
Whenever I type x I get x.

The Real Bev
July 20th 03, 10:39 PM
SlinkyToy wrote:
>
> Austin is so hard-up for qualified teachers that any professional with a
> bachelor's degree and experience in their field is accepted as "qualified"
> and teaches full-time in the classroom while completing the accellerated
> teaching certificate program at UT. Funn tho, the qualifications for a sub
> are the ability to stay awake during class.

No teachers' union? If not, don't ever let the *******s in or you'll end
up with California's educational system.

Friend has a PhD in Physics, an LLD (law, obviously), and is having
trouble getting the educationalism courses (few classes, lotteries held)
needed to allow him to get a full credential to teach AP calculus.

--
Cheers,
Bev
-----------------------------------------
There's something wrong with my keyboard.
Whenever I type x I get x.

Arri London
July 21st 03, 01:36 AM
Don K wrote:
>
> As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
>
> It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> previously taught in the private school system and is short
> 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> love to hire her, but now he can't.
>
> Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> with a long-term substitute.
>
> The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> Don

That's strange indeed.
I did substitute teaching in London for two years or so. The
two agencies who sent me out (to normal state-run schools)
*required* that I have at least a bachelor's degree, plus a
recent (within the past five years) teaching certification.
Plus an interview, during which I was questioned on the UK
national curriculum, classroom management techniques etc.
Plus they both did additional security checks (by Scotland
Yard no less) to supplement the one I had to undergo prior
to taking my teaching certificate.
They also ran update courses on all sorts of topics to keep
us current, including stress management. And both gave nice
end-of-term parties too!

Arri London
July 21st 03, 01:36 AM
Don K wrote:
>
> As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
>
> It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> previously taught in the private school system and is short
> 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> love to hire her, but now he can't.
>
> Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> with a long-term substitute.
>
> The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> Don

That's strange indeed.
I did substitute teaching in London for two years or so. The
two agencies who sent me out (to normal state-run schools)
*required* that I have at least a bachelor's degree, plus a
recent (within the past five years) teaching certification.
Plus an interview, during which I was questioned on the UK
national curriculum, classroom management techniques etc.
Plus they both did additional security checks (by Scotland
Yard no less) to supplement the one I had to undergo prior
to taking my teaching certificate.
They also ran update courses on all sorts of topics to keep
us current, including stress management. And both gave nice
end-of-term parties too!

Don K
July 21st 03, 02:29 AM
"Arri London" > wrote in message
...
> Don K wrote:
> > The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> > the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> That's strange indeed.
> I did substitute teaching in London for two years or so. The
> two agencies who sent me out (to normal state-run schools)
> *required* that I have at least a bachelor's degree, plus a
> recent (within the past five years) teaching certification.
> Plus an interview, during which I was questioned on the UK
> national curriculum, classroom management techniques etc.
> Plus they both did additional security checks (by Scotland
> Yard no less) to supplement the one I had to undergo prior
> to taking my teaching certificate.
> They also ran update courses on all sorts of topics to keep
> us current, including stress management. And both gave nice
> end-of-term parties too!

My daughter, a college sophomore, has worked as a substitute
teacher during her winter break. She had to pass a security
background check to qualify.

Don

Don K
July 21st 03, 02:29 AM
"Arri London" > wrote in message
...
> Don K wrote:
> > The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> > the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> That's strange indeed.
> I did substitute teaching in London for two years or so. The
> two agencies who sent me out (to normal state-run schools)
> *required* that I have at least a bachelor's degree, plus a
> recent (within the past five years) teaching certification.
> Plus an interview, during which I was questioned on the UK
> national curriculum, classroom management techniques etc.
> Plus they both did additional security checks (by Scotland
> Yard no less) to supplement the one I had to undergo prior
> to taking my teaching certificate.
> They also ran update courses on all sorts of topics to keep
> us current, including stress management. And both gave nice
> end-of-term parties too!

My daughter, a college sophomore, has worked as a substitute
teacher during her winter break. She had to pass a security
background check to qualify.

Don

Don K
July 21st 03, 02:41 AM
"Shag" > wrote in message
...
> "Don K" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> > will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
> >
> > It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> > to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> > previously taught in the private school system and is short
> > 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> > love to hire her, but now he can't.
> >
> > Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> > transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> > with a long-term substitute.
> >
> > The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> > the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> Am I missing something here? Why doesn't the teacher
> stay on as the "long term sub"? Are the pay/perks significantly
> different?

I think the pay is different so the teacher will go to a school
that's not under Title One rather than take the cut. My wife
is off touring potential colleges down in NC with younger
daughter, so I can't ask her right now.

Don

Don K
July 21st 03, 02:41 AM
"Shag" > wrote in message
...
> "Don K" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> > will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
> >
> > It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> > to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> > previously taught in the private school system and is short
> > 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> > love to hire her, but now he can't.
> >
> > Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> > transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> > with a long-term substitute.
> >
> > The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> > the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> Am I missing something here? Why doesn't the teacher
> stay on as the "long term sub"? Are the pay/perks significantly
> different?

I think the pay is different so the teacher will go to a school
that's not under Title One rather than take the cut. My wife
is off touring potential colleges down in NC with younger
daughter, so I can't ask her right now.

Don

Don K
July 21st 03, 02:43 AM
"Bubbalicious" > wrote in message
...
> "Don K" > wrote:
>
> >The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> >the ability to breathe
>
> but, but, but...........what about the three courses? The long term
sub
> doesn't sound any more qualified than a baby sitter.

Therein lies the irony.

Don

JoelnCaryn
July 21st 03, 03:29 AM
>The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
>the ability to breathe.

Wow. No bachelors degree requirement??

Nina
July 21st 03, 03:36 AM
"JoelnCaryn" > wrote in message
...
> >The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> >the ability to breathe.
>
> Wow. No bachelors degree requirement??
In GA I believe it was an Associates degree that w as required.

Karen Wheless
July 21st 03, 03:45 AM
> Am I missing something here? Why doesn't the teacher
> stay on as the "long term sub"? Are the pay/perks significantly
> different?

It probably differs by state and school district, but my mom used to
substitute teach. Substitutes, even "long term subs", are paid a much
lower rate, usually by the day, and aren't eligible for things like
health insurance, retirement plans, etc. However, in some areas
qualified teachers will work as subs in hopes of getting a permanent
position.

Karen

Dennis P. Harris
July 21st 03, 04:31 AM
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:39:39 -0700 in
misc.consumers.frugal-living, The Real Bev
> wrote:

> No teachers' union? If not, don't ever let the *******s in or you'll end
> up with California's educational system.
>
uhh, nooo... texas being a right-to-starve state, they can't
find enough teachers because teachers haven't organized to get
decent pay. texas schools, as well as those in all the other
right-to-starve states where teachers can't strike, are all near
the bottom of state rankings.

MerryStahel
July 21st 03, 04:49 AM
"Nina" said:

>"JoelnCaryn" > wrote in message
...
>> >The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
>> >the ability to breathe.
>>
>> Wow. No bachelors degree requirement??
>In GA I believe it was an Associates degree that w as required.

In OK, the sub only needs to have a high school diploma or a GED.

Merry
Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once
http://www.stardancerpress.com/MerryStahel/
http://community.webshots.com/user/merrystahel

Ned Flanders
July 21st 03, 05:22 AM
"Don K" > wrote in message >...
> As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
>
> It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> previously taught in the private school system and is short
> 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> love to hire her, but now he can't.
>
> Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> with a long-term substitute.
>
> The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> Don

Would they permit her to apply for a substitute position and then the
principal could place her in the first grade class? See should be
able to take the classes at night somewhere to fulfill the
requirements and to receive her certification at which point they
could hire her as the official teacher. Perhaps wishful thinking on
my part...

Cheers,

Ned

Nina
July 21st 03, 05:40 AM
"MerryStahel" > wrote in message
...
> "Nina" said:
>
> >"JoelnCaryn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> >> >the ability to breathe.
> >>
> >> Wow. No bachelors degree requirement??
> >In GA I believe it was an Associates degree that w as required.
>
> In OK, the sub only needs to have a high school diploma or a GED.
>
Mercy!

Bev
July 21st 03, 06:36 AM
>> Wow. No bachelors degree requirement??
>In GA I believe it was an Associates degree that w as required.

I don't believe anything more than a high school diploma is required. If it
is, things have changed a bit since I last discussed the subject with a sub.

Bev


Remove the "SpamFree" for email, please.
Join us in the Diabetic-Talk Chatroom on UnderNet
/server irc.undernet.org --- /join #Diabetic-Talk
More info: http://www.diabetic-talk.org/

Nicole H
July 21st 03, 07:20 AM
In CA, a substitute just has to have so many units (90 or so) and pass the
CBEST. Not difficult at all.

Nicole in CA


> Absolutely idiotic. Here in CO the subs at least have to have a bachelor
> degree.
>
>

JoelnCaryn
July 21st 03, 07:40 AM
>>> Wow. No bachelors degree requirement??
>>In GA I believe it was an Associates degree that w as required.
>
>I don't believe anything more than a high school diploma is required. If it
>is, things have changed a bit since I last discussed the subject with a sub.

I have a sub certificate for AZ and it required both a bachelors and a
background check.

Must vary a *lot* by state.

j647
July 21st 03, 04:20 PM
Be careful what you wish for, it just may come true. Having 11 years in
public education, I see "no child left behind" as nothing less then Bush's
attempt to discredit the public school system so he can take that money and
funnel it into private schools. (If they got tax money, would they then be
public schools?) One only needs to look at how well he's handled the Irac
situation to have a preview of what's comming in public education. By the
way, private schools are not subject to the NCLB rules. How's that for fair
play?

John Foote


"Don K" > wrote in message
...
> As a result of this program, my wife's elementary school
> will have to make do without a 1st grade teacher.
>
> It seems the present, experienced teacher isn't "qualified"
> to be hired to teach in this Section One school, because she
> previously taught in the private school system and is short
> 3 courses, which are now required. The principal would
> love to hire her, but now he can't.
>
> Since no other qualified teacher in the county is willing to
> transfer to this needy school, these kids will have to make do
> with a long-term substitute.
>
> The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> the ability to breathe. No child left behind, indeed!
>
> Don
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03

j647
July 21st 03, 04:32 PM
I would love to be paid babysitter wages:
$3.50 per kid per hour

25 kids x 7 hours x 200 days x $3.50= $122500

Where can I sign up?



"Don K" > wrote in message
...
> "Bubbalicious" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Don K" > wrote:
> >
> > >The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
> > >the ability to breathe
> >
> > but, but, but...........what about the three courses? The long term
> sub
> > doesn't sound any more qualified than a baby sitter.
>
> Therein lies the irony.
>
> Don
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03

Dennis
July 21st 03, 05:16 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:41:54 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>The paperwork you have to go through to apply is absolutely
>incredible, and involves the FBI. Really. I suppose
>they're trying to eliminate people with a criminal record -
>that would be a good thing to do.

My wife and MIL had to be fingerprinted and have a criminal background
check just to be volunteers at my kids' school.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 21st 03, 05:22 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:20:04 GMT, "j647" > wrote:

>Be careful what you wish for, it just may come true. Having 11 years in
>public education, I see "no child left behind" as nothing less then Bush's
>attempt to discredit the public school system so he can take that money and
>funnel it into private schools. (If they got tax money, would they then be
>public schools?) One only needs to look at how well he's handled the Irac
>situation to have a preview of what's comming in public education. By the
>way, private schools are not subject to the NCLB rules. How's that for fair
>play?

Hmm... "then" vs. "than", "Irac", "comming"...

Eleven years in public education, you say?

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

L. Maurer
July 21st 03, 06:35 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:22:13 -0700, Dennis > wrote:


>Hmm... "then" vs. "than", "Irac", "comming"...
>
>Eleven years in public education, you say?
>

Thank you! I live across the street from two teachers who want nothing
more than to have less children to bother them, more money for doing
very little, and a union to make this happen. Public education IS in
trouble, but the .gov isn't the problem.

mama

The Real Bev
July 21st 03, 06:52 PM
Dennis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:20:04 GMT, "j647" > wrote:
>
> >Be careful what you wish for, it just may come true. Having 11 years in
> >public education, I see "no child left behind" as nothing less then Bush's
> >attempt to discredit the public school system so he can take that money and
> >funnel it into private schools. (If they got tax money, would they then be
> >public schools?) One only needs to look at how well he's handled the Irac
> >situation to have a preview of what's comming in public education. By the
> >way, private schools are not subject to the NCLB rules. How's that for fair
> >play?
>
> Hmm... "then" vs. "than", "Irac", "comming"...
>
> Eleven years in public education, you say?

He's probably embarrassed that he flunked out in his junior year, don't
rub it in.

I do remember wanting to mark up and return the teachers' notes that my
kids brought home, but I figured the kids would pay for it.

Many of their teachers were good, but many definitely were not. I
remember only a few outrageously stupid teachers from my own school days
-- the most noteworthy was my 8th grade math teacher, who spent most of
his time reding the confiscated comic books while the rowdies built towers
out of the desks in the back of the room; years later he became the
principal at my son's junior high. Sick.

--
Cheers,
Bev
*----------------------------------------------------*
*Are you *sure* there's a hyphen in "anal-retentive?"*

Bob Ward
July 21st 03, 08:10 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:22:13 -0700, Dennis > wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:20:04 GMT, "j647" > wrote:
>
>>Be careful what you wish for, it just may come true. Having 11 years in
>>public education, I see "no child left behind" as nothing less then Bush's
>>attempt to discredit the public school system so he can take that money and
>>funnel it into private schools. (If they got tax money, would they then be
>>public schools?) One only needs to look at how well he's handled the Irac
>>situation to have a preview of what's comming in public education. By the
>>way, private schools are not subject to the NCLB rules. How's that for fair
>>play?
>
>Hmm... "then" vs. "than", "Irac", "comming"...
>
>Eleven years in public education, you say?
>
>the Dennis formerly known as (evil)


Eleven years in the first grade tends to leave its mark.

Nicole H
July 21st 03, 09:34 PM
that's the rate here in CA, at least in my part.
I work at my children's school and had to go thru the FBI screening
process... it's not too bad. Unfortunately, criminals occasionally slip
thru... we're a small district and get to know every one... so that's good
for us. But some of these largers schools, there's no way.
My background check took about 10 days.... and I had to pay for the
electronic finger/hand prints (taken at the sherrif's dept)

Nicole

Nicole H
July 21st 03, 09:40 PM
Some of us, work our butts off for our students and truly care about the
kids.
And this is at a, dare I say it, -- public school.
As in any profession, there are bad seeds but that doesn't mean every one in
that profession is bad.

But then again, I can't do everything for every child. Parents still have a
responsibility.... but many blame the school for their child not
succeeding... when in fact, it's their own fault.

Nicole

L. Maurer
July 22nd 03, 03:36 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:40:11 GMT, "Nicole H"
> wrote:

>But then again, I can't do everything for every child. Parents still have a
>responsibility.... but many blame the school for their child not
>succeeding... when in fact, it's their own fault.

Oh goody, let's blame it on the parents. Our family adventure in
public schooling began last year after every other year was spent in a
private school. Parent concern was not a problem in our case. Getting
the attention of a teacher who has no fear of loosing her job due to
honor students failing her classes seems to be a problem. Getting the
attention of a principal who is more concerned with attending classes
to get her Dr. than addressing the fact that her teacher wasn't
teaching was also a problem. Having a tantrum in the principal's
office wasn't my first choice but it did remind the people working at
the school that they had more to worry about than their chatty emails
and their hair style. We did get the child's teacher changed and the
approaching F in Math became an A. I watched other parents trust the
school system, and their chidlren, who had been previous honors and
"challenge" students, failed. Now these children are out of the honors
program for next year and spend what would have been a time to
participate in advanced classes, in remedial math.

Yup, parent participation is manditory if you allow your child to
attend a public school. Children get lost in public school and good
teachers are reprimanded for doing a good job and making those who
think this is a "paid social gathering" look bad.

mama

silvasurfa
July 22nd 03, 05:53 PM
"Nicole H" > wrote in message
. ..
> Some of us, work our butts off for our students and truly care about the
> kids.
> And this is at a, dare I say it, -- public school.
> As in any profession, there are bad seeds but that doesn't mean every one
in
> that profession is bad.

The teachers don't have to be crap for the schooling to be crap. Like any
small cog in a big machine there is only so much any one teacher can do.

>
> But then again, I can't do everything for every child. Parents still have
a
> responsibility.... but many blame the school for their child not
> succeeding... when in fact, it's their own fault.
>
> Nicole
>
>

On weekdays children spend almost as many waking hours at school as they do
outside school, and some of those outside of school hours get loaded up with
homework, much of it busy work and not always suited to the individual
child's learning needs. There are school holidays and weekends, but it is
nice to give kids some time off from lessons, at least one day a week
without work, and at least 4 weeks a year totally lesson free... after all,
that is what most full time employed adults get, and adults have greater
endurance than kids.

And it is probably a good thing if most kids do some sort of physical
activity outside of school... and maybe have a hobby too that exercises
their intellect... that's fair enough eh? Growing minds and bodies need more
than set exercises to turn out healthy, need to meet a few goals they set
for themselves.

Then there are all the other things the outside of school time must
encompass... getting shoes fitted, haircuts, doctor's visits, dentist's
visits, weddings and funerals, maybe the occasional visit to church or pagan
ceremony or whatever passes for spiritual education in your family, visiting
grandma in the nursing home, the occasional cultural event or visit to a
museum or zoo, all stuff which really should not be skipped. And if your
child likes reading, well that can take hours out of the day... yet we
shouldn't stop them doing it.

So whilst parents can assist with their children's education by monitoring
how a child feels about school, by keeping an eye on the quality of homework
produced, by reading messages sent home from the school, by helping a kid
when a problem is detected, by going to parent teacher nights... when it
really comes down to it, schools get given the best serving of time with
the child, schools get given a fair bit of funding, and schools are the ones
who have people with degrees to do the job of educating kids.

I will soon be sending my eldest to school. I do so with trepidation,
remembering from my childhood the amount of uncontrolled playground
bullying, the ratio of inspired to uninspired teachers, the various forms of
organisational stupidity encountered in any large organisation, the lack of
individual attention, the tedious hours sitting through stuff I already
knew, the general atmosphere of despair and timeserving.

If it really comes down to it, if I end up thinking school is doing a poorer
job for my child than I could do at home, if I repeatedly try to fix the
problems and make no progress... then I would withdraw my child from school
and homeschool. You are right... in the end the parents are responsible, and
if the school is inadequate the only way to get enough time with the child
to do what the school should be doing is to withdraw the child and teach
them at home.

Of course that results in a school losing funding for that child doesn't it?
Ah well, if it was being wasted anyway then better it be spent on hospitals
and parks.

Now you'll call me a rat for being willing to flee a sinking ship.

Dennis
July 22nd 03, 06:04 PM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:07:44 -0400, "Tsu Dho Poster"
> wrote:

>If there were no public schools there would be no tax $ collected for
>education. I guess ppl would just pay directly to the private schools.
>I'd think they would want to continue collecting tax $ and give ppl
>vouchers....any money they save would go to a worthy cause....like another
>"No CEO Left Behind" tax cut.

During a campaign to raise state taxes earlier this year, it was
reported that the average per-student spending in Oregon public
schools was $8000 a year, and the average private school tuition was
$4000 a year. Seems like the state is missing out on a nice revenue
scam by not going to vouchers. They could collect the tax money, skim
off 50% for redecorating state offices, buying luxury SUVs for the
motor pool and funding legislative retreats, and send the rest out as
school vouchers.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

L. Maurer
July 22nd 03, 06:34 PM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:33:20 -0400, JohnDoe > wrote:

>
>that is usually the best place to start, as they say the apple rarely
>falls far from the tree.
>
What I've been subjected to so far is people in a position to teach
and who are paid to teach my child who are more concerned with their
social standing within the school and how much time they can spend
away from the children and stilll retain their salary and benefits.
Even concerned parents are met with a road block of upper level
defenses for teachers who do a very poor job.

mama

Kathy
July 23rd 03, 12:38 AM
"Dave Bonar" > wrote in message
. ..
> L. Maurer > wrote:

> I teach high school science, mainly physics. Over the past two years I
> have becom involved in a program for improving physics education using,
> in part, Socratic questioning in inquiry based situations. The program
> is based on research in learning and has been tested and shown to be
> better at both short and long term retention of physics knowledge then
> traditional classroom instruction.
>
> I believe that this approach is the best method of teaching I know.
> However it is different from traditional teaching and puts a different
> burden on the students. There are times when this frustrates honors
> students because they are good at traditional methods. I've seen it
> frustrate them enough to really effect their grades. Should I change
> away from a method I know is better to protect a single student's grade?
>
> Dave

That brings back memories. 30 years ago, I was such an honors student, and I
had such a physics teacher. If he'd just stuck to multiple-guess,
fill-in-the-blank tests I could have skated that course. Instead he made us
think. After years of public schooling, I hadn't had to think for myself in
so long that if I ever knew how, I'd forgotten. Frustrating hardly describes
the
feeling. But I knew even then that he was teaching something much more
important than physics. I struggled for my B in that class and it was worth
every minute. I'm glad to hear there are still such teachers in public
school.

And if there's anybody out there named Andersen who invented the test
question "given a red light of known wavelength and a meterstick, use what
you know about interference to calculate the distance between your
eyelashes", well, your students still remember you!

Kathy

Don K
July 23rd 03, 12:39 AM
"Dennis" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:07:44 -0400, "Tsu Dho Poster"
> > wrote:
> During a campaign to raise state taxes earlier this year, it was
> reported that the average per-student spending in Oregon public
> schools was $8000 a year, and the average private school tuition was
> $4000 a year.

Maybe that's partly because the private school isn't mandated to
accomodate every person who walks in the door. For instance,
do private schools educate severely mentally or physically
handicapped kids who may require one-on-one assistance
the entire day?

Do they try to educate kids who don't get properly clothed
and fed, and whose parents take out their frustration on
them because they have no money, since they are
alcoholics or drug addicts or mentally ill and cannot
hold a job and wouldn't pay $4000 tuition even if they
had it.

If the parents are willing to cough up $4000 tuition, then
they've got a tangible stake in their kids' education and
are likely to be involved and supportive with their kid's
education.

Don

L. Maurer
July 23rd 03, 12:51 AM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:33:32 -0400, (Dave
Bonar) wrote:


>I'd like to state right off the bat that this comment hits a nerve with
>me. Nothing that follows should be taken as a personal attack. I do
>not know the situation at the school your child attended.
>
>I teach high school science, mainly physics.

Nothing in your post offended me. You'r teaching! The person teaching
my son wasn't teaching. She was busy reading her personal emain and
primping. The children tell me her favorite answer to a question was
"ask your nieghbor". This behavior was rampant and the principal did
nothing about it when it was brought to her attention.

Glad to hear there are still REAL teachers out there,
mama

Nicole H
July 23rd 03, 12:57 AM
Then why don't you homeschool or pay for private school?
If you are so unhappy with your child's education, do something to make the
situation better.

There are parents out there that want the school to provide everything for
them and their child. But when it comes down to it, the parent is the one
responsible for the upbringing and education of their children. If I didn't
love our elementary school, I sure wouldn't put my children in it. I am
responsible for *my* children's education.

Parents who don't want to put the time in effort into their own children
start blaming the school.
You cannot blame every public school teacher because you've had a bad
experience.
And quite frankly, I don't understand how any parent would tolerate
substandard eduction. One you have the power to fix the situation...
whether that be homeschooling, private school, charter school, etc
Where there's a will, there's a way.

I work my butt off at school to do the best job possible. It's not always
easy. But we do the best that we can

>>>Yup, parent participation is manditory if you allow your child to
attend a public school. Children get lost in public school and good
teachers are reprimanded for doing a good job and making those who
think this is a "paid social gathering" look bad.>>>
This statement is ludicrious. Parent participation isn't mandatory but
maybe it should be. I see parents who spend absolutely no time with their
children, who don't check their backpacks, homework files, etc and then are
shocked when the child is doing poorly. Then call at the end of the year,
wanting a conference cuz there's a problem.

Like someone previously posted, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree
Enuf said
Nicole

The Real Bev
July 23rd 03, 02:33 AM
Nicole H wrote:
>
> Then why don't you homeschool or pay for private school?
> If you are so unhappy with your child's education, do something to make the
> situation better.

Had we not assumed that the public schools were similar to those we
ourselves attended, we would have done so. As it was, we gave them
additional work in math and English such that what the school did was
largely irrelevant.

> There are parents out there that want the school to provide everything for
> them and their child. But when it comes down to it, the parent is the one
> responsible for the upbringing and education of their children. If I didn't
> love our elementary school, I sure wouldn't put my children in it. I am
> responsible for *my* children's education.
>
> Parents who don't want to put the time in effort into their own children
> start blaming the school.
> You cannot blame every public school teacher because you've had a bad
> experience.
> And quite frankly, I don't understand how any parent would tolerate
> substandard eduction. One you have the power to fix the situation...
> whether that be homeschooling, private school, charter school, etc
> Where there's a will, there's a way.
>

When I was a kid, parents were actively discouraged from getting involved
with the school; the teachers considered it interference with their
professional expertise. Parents were expected to chip in 50 cents/year
for PTA, to look at their kids' stuff at the annual Open House, and to
provide a cake or cookies on request for various school events

Moreover, nobody in elementary school had homework, except for the
occasional requirement of a project of some sort, generally a poster.
That meant nobody needed lockers and nobody (except the occasional kid who
really needed makeup work) had to carry books home (with special
permission, of course).

You paid attention in class, you did your classwork, and you learned. If
you didn't want to do that you were welcome to spend time sitting in the
hall outside the principal's office counting the holes in the ceiling
tiles.

> I work my butt off at school to do the best job possible. It's not always
> easy. But we do the best that we can
>
> >>>Yup, parent participation is manditory if you allow your child to
> attend a public school. Children get lost in public school and good
> teachers are reprimanded for doing a good job and making those who
> think this is a "paid social gathering" look bad.>>>

Undoubtedly a union thing. "Of course you'd like Fifi, everybone wants
Fifi. But you'll take Ethel here because she has seniority."

> This statement is ludicrious. Parent participation isn't mandatory but
> maybe it should be. I see parents who spend absolutely no time with their
> children, who don't check their backpacks, homework files, etc and then are
> shocked when the child is doing poorly. Then call at the end of the year,
> wanting a conference cuz there's a problem.
>
> Like someone previously posted, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree
> Enuf said

So how do you explain my early educational experience in an area with
perhaps 50% Hispanic students? The teachers then seemed able to take care
of business without whining or demanding unpaid assistance; how is it
different today?

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
"Calling someone an asshole for being rude to a telemarketer
is like accusing someone who's shot a burglar in his home
of being a poor host." -- W.S.Rowell

Don K
July 23rd 03, 02:47 AM
"Dennis" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:39:29 -0400, "Don K" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Dennis" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:07:44 -0400, "Tsu Dho Poster"
> >> > wrote:
> >> During a campaign to raise state taxes earlier this year, it was
> >> reported that the average per-student spending in Oregon public
> >> schools was $8000 a year, and the average private school tuition was
> >> $4000 a year.
> >
> >Maybe that's partly because the private school isn't mandated to
> >accomodate every person who walks in the door. For instance,
> >do private schools educate severely mentally or physically
> >handicapped kids who may require one-on-one assistance
> >the entire day?
> >
> >Do they try to educate kids who don't get properly clothed
> >and fed, and whose parents take out their frustration on
> >them because they have no money, since they are
> >alcoholics or drug addicts or mentally ill and cannot
> >hold a job and wouldn't pay $4000 tuition even if they
> >had it.
> >
> >If the parents are willing to cough up $4000 tuition, then
> >they've got a tangible stake in their kids' education and
> >are likely to be involved and supportive with their kid's
> >education.
>
> Should make no difference. It would still cost the taxpayers $8K per
> student, but the state would only hand out $4K worth of voucher per
> student in private school. Or are you saying that the bad/disabled
> kids skew the average up by more than 100%?

To some extent, I think private schools can indulge in
cherry-picking the students that are easiest to teach and
therefore cost less. If they had a mandate to teach all
comers, their costs would rise.

If private schools took all but the most costly students,
then the per capita costs would rise further for those left
behind in public schools.

On the other hand, if all the problem students in public
schools could be shipped off to private schools, then
the per capita cost of public schools would drop
correspondingly.

Don

The Real Bev
July 23rd 03, 04:28 AM
Nicole H wrote:
>
> As you know, times have changed. There are more teenage pregnancies, more
> single parent homes, more drug abuse, lack of discipline, etc, etc, etc.
> The values of this country has really gone down the drain.
>
> Back in the day, parents were discouraged.... at my school, that's not the
> case. Nor is that the case in most schools. In fact, most schools have
> little to no parental involvement.
> We have a steady supply of parent volunteers. And it's been shown in
> various studies that the more parents are involved, the better the school
> and student become.
> During any day on campus, it's easy to see 30 or so moms walking around,
> helping in the classroom, etc. We are blesed to have parents who care about
> their children's education.

That's nice, but it shouldn't be essential. What are we paying $8K per
kid for if we have to do the schools' work ourselves? Not every kid is
blessed with nice middle-class supportive parents, but that's no excuse
for the schools to give up. It's their goddam job and they ought to do it
a whole lot better than they are.

> To be honest with you, I don't know why school is so different. But I do
> know that things have changed and there's not much we can do. We can suck
> it up and do the best with what we have.
>
> I grew up in a small farming community (read immigrant workers and their
> children).... I have many friends who are children of field laborers, that
> have gone to college, completed their masters, etc. Being Hispanic was not
> against them... nor did they use their race as an excuse. Many of my
> friends are doing very well. No excuses.

The mention of Hispanic was a language thing, nothing else. There was no
special attention given, the kids just learned to speak English --
possibly because it was to nobody's benefit to keep the kids from learning
English as quickly as possible.

> > So how do you explain my early educational experience in an area with
> > perhaps 50% Hispanic students? The teachers then seemed able to take care
> > of business without whining or demanding unpaid assistance; how is it
> > different today?

--
Cheers,
Bev
=============================================
A: Top posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

L. Maurer
July 23rd 03, 04:50 AM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:57:01 GMT, "Nicole H"
> wrote:

>Then why don't you homeschool or pay for private school?
>If you are so unhappy with your child's education, do something to make the
>situation better.
>
My child was in private school all his life. I lived in the suburbs of
Dallas. The schools there are sub-standard. I don't feel that it is
best for him that I home school him because he deserves a
professional. I put him in public school when we moved. We moved
because he deserved to be able to play in his front yard with friends,
have a lemonaide stand, and be a boy. We did something to make the
situation better by moving. We also did something to make his public
education better. We DEMANDED that teachers pay attention.


>Parents who don't want to put the time in effort into their own children
>start blaming the school.
>You cannot blame every public school teacher because you've had a bad
>experience.

I have only had one experience with this public school. We're trying
it again because he will change schools this year. I have reviewed my
previous posts and honestly don't notice anything which blames every
public school teacher. It certainly wasn't my intention to blame all
teachers for the experience we had in public school.

>And quite frankly, I don't understand how any parent would tolerate
>substandard eduction. One you have the power to fix the situation...
>whether that be homeschooling, private school, charter school, etc
>Where there's a will, there's a way.
>
Erm, you said One. Is there a two or are you just ranting?

>I work my butt off at school to do the best job possible. It's not always
>easy. But we do the best that we can
>

I don't doubt that you do the best you can, I do however doubt your
ability to not take things personally :)


>This statement is ludicrious.

You haven't been near the school my son attended. How can you decide
what is ludicrious?

>Parent participation isn't mandatory but
>maybe it should be. I see parents who spend absolutely no time with their
>children, who don't check their backpacks, homework files, etc and then are
>shocked when the child is doing poorly. Then call at the end of the year,
>wanting a conference cuz there's a problem.
>

I think it would be wonderful if every parent knew what was happening
at the school my son attended last year. The social club mentality
would stop. As for conferences, I asked, three times, and never got a
response until I went to the Principal and asked for a new math
teacher.

>Like someone previously posted, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree
>Enuf said
>Nicole
>

Well Nicole from your post I'm going to guess that either your mother
or your father had a very short temper and took things waaayyyy too
personally.

Good teachers are something to be treasured. What happened in my son's
school was a waste and a dis-service to the children.

mama

Don Klipstein
July 23rd 03, 06:55 AM
In article >, The Real Bev wrote:
>Nicole H wrote:
>>
>> Then why don't you homeschool or pay for private school?
>> If you are so unhappy with your child's education, do something to make the
>> situation better.
>
>Had we not assumed that the public schools were similar to those we
>ourselves attended, we would have done so. As it was, we gave them
>additional work in math and English such that what the school did was
>largely irrelevant.
>
>> There are parents out there that want the school to provide everything for
>> them and their child. But when it comes down to it, the parent is the one
>> responsible for the upbringing and education of their children. If I didn't
>> love our elementary school, I sure wouldn't put my children in it. I am
>> responsible for *my* children's education.
>>
>> Parents who don't want to put the time in effort into their own children
>> start blaming the school.
>> You cannot blame every public school teacher because you've had a bad
>> experience.
>> And quite frankly, I don't understand how any parent would tolerate
>> substandard eduction. One you have the power to fix the situation...
>> whether that be homeschooling, private school, charter school, etc
>> Where there's a will, there's a way.
>
>When I was a kid, parents were actively discouraged from getting involved
>with the school; the teachers considered it interference with their
>professional expertise. Parents were expected to chip in 50 cents/year
>for PTA, to look at their kids' stuff at the annual Open House, and to
>provide a cake or cookies on request for various school events

And this differs significantly from what happened to my two younger
brothers who went to public school from K to 12 in oh-so-bad Philadelphia
where so much so bad happens.
As politically incorrect as it is to say so, most of the failures result
from parents who do not want to be involved, do not want to do their major
part in educating their kids but "strangely" expect the schools to do it
all, do not do what it takes to get their kids to not cut classes (or
entire school days), and do not do what it takes to get kids to do their
homework (my brothers did receive homework).
Most children failing in public school do so where over 20% of their
classmates come from families in poverty. The main factor seems to me bad
attitude or bad childrearing skills (or lack thereof) that have high
correlation with the parents being in poverty. Not that I would remove
blame from school systems or state school funding schemes that don't let
every child have required textbooks or non-crumbling classrooms, but most
of the problems seem to result from parents failing to make their kids do
what most parents make their kids do.

Much of the public school troubles are in urban areas where back in the
1950's and 1960's white high school dropouts easily got good union jobs
and where black and Latino people usually did not. The playing field is
more level now - in the direction where people of any color usually need
to do well in school (or spend $$$$$ on trade school corses, many of
which teach what people should learn in high school) to make a decent
or semi-decent living.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein
July 23rd 03, 07:21 AM
In article >, Don K wrote:

<SNIP previously quoted stuff>

>To some extent, I think private schools can indulge in
>cherry-picking the students that are easiest to teach and
>therefore cost less. If they had a mandate to teach all
>comers, their costs would rise.
>
>If private schools took all but the most costly students,
>then the per capita costs would rise further for those left
>behind in public schools.
>
>On the other hand, if all the problem students in public
>schools could be shipped off to private schools, then
>the per capita cost of public schools would drop
>correspondingly.

And how often do I post in agreement with this other Don K?
I sure agree with this now!
And I insist that a majority of failing student problems are
mostly from parent failure, even where things can be found wrong
on the part of the schools, teachers, school funding, etc!

- Don Klipstein )

Ken
July 23rd 03, 07:32 AM
> On the other hand, if all the problem students in public
> schools could be shipped off to private schools, then
> the per capita cost of public schools would drop
> correspondingly.
>
> Don

I would like to add a bit along these lines, but first, I'll explain
where my first hand experience lies. I was in business for almost
twenty years, mid-level management, then became an elementary school
teacher. I have a list of honors and awards a mile long, including
graduating at the top of my class from a public California university.
I didn't become a teacher because I had to, I became a teacher because
I wanted to. Every day as a teacher, I see things that simply make me
shake my head and wonder why I became a teacher. Because of my
business background, I see things from a very different angle than the
professional/permanent educators. I could write all night about the
world of education, but in this post, I'll only touch on two.

I work with many teachers who never should have become teachers. And
now, twenty years later, they are only worse, even detrimental to the
kids. And I also work with some outstanding teachers. One problem
is, they all get paid the same. A good teacher would be bargain at
$100,000/year, and the bad ones should be thrown out. That's not
something you will often hear from a teacher, but that's my opinion.
Unfortunately, as a teacher, I have no say in the matter. To try to
change things in my microcosm, I always volunteer for the interview
committee for new hires. The school won't let me within a mile of
that committee. I might want to hire somebody like me.

Public and private education are two different worlds, and
"cherry-picking" is just one part of the equation. Public education
follows more of a socialist/communist framework, everyone at their
ability, and I mean everyone. Private school follows more of a
capitalist framework. If you don't perform, you're out. And mom and
dad aren't going to be happy when the $10,000 tuition is forfeited
after only three weeks of school because their child got into a fight.
A private school has plenty of other parents wanting that slot and
willing to pay for it. So if Johnny wants to stay, Johnny better
perform. Just like the real world. In public school, if Johnny gets
into a fight, the best we can do is send him home for three days to
his own computer, phone, dvd player, you name it. But in private
school, there's an incentive to do well and act right. And that
incentive is mom and dad losing thousands and thousands of dollars in
lost tuition. This is one reason why a student who isn't doing well
in public school and/or is being a disturbance will suddenly become a
good student when transferring to a private school. You better
believe their precious little-one will often straighten up and fly
straight.

I could go on and on: We're using an 18th or 19th century model in a
21st century world. Teaching is women's work, so it's not respected.
But now, women can go into other professions, so there's a tremendous
brain-drain and brain diversion from teaching. The good and bad of
tenure. Etc., etc., etc. But to be merciful to all of you and to
myself, I'll sign off here.

Ken

root
July 23rd 03, 10:57 AM
L Maurer > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:57:01 GMT, "Nicole H"
> wrote:
>
>>This statement is ludicrious.
>
> You haven't been near the school my son attended. How can you decide
> what is ludicrious?
>

How can *anybody* decide what is ludicrious?

Nicole H
July 23rd 03, 05:31 PM
Exactly! Great post

Nicole

Nicole H
July 23rd 03, 05:35 PM
Short temper and take things waaayy to personally? Hon, you have NO idea.
But I'm not surprised by that.
And you're right, good teachers are worth their weight in gold and we do the
very best we can w/the situation we're in.
Nicole
>>
> Well Nicole from your post I'm going to guess that either your mother
> or your father had a very short temper and took things waaayyyy too
> personally.
>
>

lucianna
July 23rd 03, 07:51 PM
Ben Carson's story is available on video and autobiography - "Gifted
Hands" at

http://www.brownssbooks.com/site/525439/product/GiftedHands

and it's on sale now for $20.00 for both book and video.

Ben Carson was a failing, inner-ctiy student and is now a pediatric
neurosurgeon.

A big piece of the puzzle for struggling youth, and espcially minority
youth, is teacher or parent expectation.

Children, largely, live up to our expectations and the amount and
quality of intellecturally and culturally enriching stimuli they
receive.

http://www.brownssbooks.com
Brown Sugar & Spice

(Don Klipstein) wrote in message >...
> In article >, The Real Bev wrote:
> >Nicole H wrote:
> >>
> >> Then why don't you homeschool or pay for private school?
> >> If you are so unhappy with your child's education, do something to make the
> >> situation better.
> >
> >Had we not assumed that the public schools were similar to those we
> >ourselves attended, we would have done so. As it was, we gave them
> >additional work in math and English such that what the school did was
> >largely irrelevant.
> >
> >> There are parents out there that want the school to provide everything for
> >> them and their child. But when it comes down to it, the parent is the one
> >> responsible for the upbringing and education of their children. If I didn't
> >> love our elementary school, I sure wouldn't put my children in it. I am
> >> responsible for *my* children's education.
> >>
> >> Parents who don't want to put the time in effort into their own children
> >> start blaming the school.
> >> You cannot blame every public school teacher because you've had a bad
> >> experience.
> >> And quite frankly, I don't understand how any parent would tolerate
> >> substandard eduction. One you have the power to fix the situation...
> >> whether that be homeschooling, private school, charter school, etc
> >> Where there's a will, there's a way.
> >
> >When I was a kid, parents were actively discouraged from getting involved
> >with the school; the teachers considered it interference with their
> >professional expertise. Parents were expected to chip in 50 cents/year
> >for PTA, to look at their kids' stuff at the annual Open House, and to
> >provide a cake or cookies on request for various school events
>
> And this differs significantly from what happened to my two younger
> brothers who went to public school from K to 12 in oh-so-bad Philadelphia
> where so much so bad happens.
> As politically incorrect as it is to say so, most of the failures result
> from parents who do not want to be involved, do not want to do their major
> part in educating their kids but "strangely" expect the schools to do it
> all, do not do what it takes to get their kids to not cut classes (or
> entire school days), and do not do what it takes to get kids to do their
> homework (my brothers did receive homework).
> Most children failing in public school do so where over 20% of their
> classmates come from families in poverty. The main factor seems to me bad
> attitude or bad childrearing skills (or lack thereof) that have high
> correlation with the parents being in poverty. Not that I would remove
> blame from school systems or state school funding schemes that don't let
> every child have required textbooks or non-crumbling classrooms, but most
> of the problems seem to result from parents failing to make their kids do
> what most parents make their kids do.
>
> Much of the public school troubles are in urban areas where back in the
> 1950's and 1960's white high school dropouts easily got good union jobs
> and where black and Latino people usually did not. The playing field is
> more level now - in the direction where people of any color usually need
> to do well in school (or spend $$$$$ on trade school corses, many of
> which teach what people should learn in high school) to make a decent
> or semi-decent living.
>
> - Don Klipstein )

July 23rd 03, 09:14 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 01:36:15 GMT, "Nina" > wrote:

>
>"JoelnCaryn" > wrote in message
...
>> >The qualifications for a long-term sub is a warm body and
>> >the ability to breathe.
>>
>> Wow. No bachelors degree requirement??
>In GA I believe it was an Associates degree that w as required.
>
>

High School diploma will do it in GA. I know folks who started
subbing only a year or so after graduation, while going to Jr.
College. I'm not sure about the pay rate, but it's not much.
$40-$50/day, I think.

D.

Bob Ward
July 24th 03, 06:02 AM
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:28:21 -0400, JohnDoe > wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:13:53 -0700, The Real Bev
> wrote:
>
>>
>>True. Part of teaching is to encourage the essential receptiveness, or
>>make the penalty for non-receptivity sufficiently high that the number of
>>people indulging in it is minimized. This is a skill, and it's what
>>teachers supposedly get paid to do.
>>
>I will say it again, some children will not be receptive to learning


Yes, your continuing to post here proves your point all too well.

L. Maurer
July 24th 03, 01:20 PM
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:19:41 GMT, wrote:

>Grade inflation in the face of massive parent pressure serves no one.
>The kid can't get the SAT score because... why? The grades went from
>an 'F' to an 'A', they *should* be smarter, shouldn't they?

The math teacher was changed, the child went to private tutoring to
catch up, and he passed the manditory state tests. My goal wasn't
grade inflation, my goal was education. He does understand that it is
his responsivility to behave and make the grades. He couldn't make the
grades this time and asked for help.

mama

Shag
July 25th 03, 02:03 AM
"The Real Bev" > wrote in message
...
> JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >True. Part of teaching is to encourage the essential receptiveness, or
> > >make the penalty for non-receptivity sufficiently high that the number
of
> > >people indulging in it is minimized. This is a skill, and it's what
> > >teachers supposedly get paid to do.
> > >
> > I will say it again, some children will not be receptive to learning
>
> Of course. Do you think that 80% are non-receptive? How about 50%?

I'd say that 50% are below average in receptivity.

Albert Wagner
July 25th 03, 04:06 AM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:03:34 GMT
"Shag" > wrote:
<snip>
> I'd say that 50% are below average in receptivity.

This is a joke, right? On anything you care to measure 50% are above
and 50% are below average.

The Real Bev
July 25th 03, 04:06 AM
JohnDoe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:48:58 -0700, The Real Bev
> > wrote:
>
> >Of course. Do you think that 80% are non-receptive?
> in some schools, yes
>
> >How about 50%?
> in some schools, yes, it all depends on the environment the child
> lives in
>
> >A
> >small number I can believe, and the system damn well ought to figure out
> >what to do about that, even if it means starting up "reform schools"
> >again. If the number is large, there is something pathological about the
> >entire system and perhaps the only solution is to fire everybody and start
> >from scratch.
>
> you are still missing the point, the "SYSTEM" isn't at fault nor is
> the system liable for the poor environment that many children live in.
> the fault lies entirely with the parents and the poor job so many of
> them do bring up their children.

I'm not missing the point. Kids from "good" families will generally do
better. What I'm worried about is the kids who don't come from "good"
families. Are you saying that a school system that can't educate 50% of
its students is acceptable?

The "system" is obligatory. That means that EVERY kid has to go to
school. The wealthy can afford private schools, or the public schools in
wealthy communities, which are generally excellent. The not-wealthy are
left to the mercies of the ordinary public schools. Do you actually think
that every not-wealthy parent is doing a ****-poor job of bringing up his
kids? How about half? Are only half doing a rotten job?

Let's assume that ALL the kids in not-wealthy homes are not being properly
educated. Isn't it a proper function of the schools to find some way to
overcome the effects of a ****ty home when so many of the kids come from
****ty homes? You can't just blame it on the rotten parents -- these are
the kids that your properly-educated (we will assume) kids are going to
have to deal with for the rest of their lives. What kind of a life will
your kids have when half of the people their age can't read?

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ===
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.

Elizabeth
July 25th 03, 04:43 AM
> you are still missing the point, the "SYSTEM" isn't at fault nor is
> the system liable for the poor environment that many children live in.
> the fault lies entirely with the parents and the poor job so many of
> them do bring up their children.
>

In the Dallas area, we constantly hear criticism of the public schools from
black "leaders" who proclaim the schools are deliberately shortchanging
black kids. Never do they mention that most of the kids have no father in
the house & their mothers are very young. The kids start school having
never been read a book or taught numbers/colors/letters. Their is no
parental support of the school. Some of the kids are not even toilet
trained. Generally we don't hear too much complaining from the hispanic
population. In the white schools there is more parental involvement but a
huge number of the kids are problems. They come to school tired having
stayed up late playing video games. Breakfast is twinkies and Dr. Pepper.
They have ADD or whatever the current excuse is for poor behavior. Why
would anyone want to be a teacher?

EBBY

Chloe
July 25th 03, 01:37 PM
"The Real Bev" > wrote in message
...
><snip>
> Let's assume that ALL the kids in not-wealthy homes are not being properly
> educated. Isn't it a proper function of the schools to find some way to
> overcome the effects of a ****ty home when so many of the kids come from
> ****ty homes? You can't just blame it on the rotten parents -- these are
> the kids that your properly-educated (we will assume) kids are going to
> have to deal with for the rest of their lives. What kind of a life will
> your kids have when half of the people their age can't read?

I think in some parts of the country we've pretty much achieved that
statistic already.

I talk to quite a few middle class people who are involved in one way or
another (although not as parents of kids in school!) in the horrible urban
system where I live. One acquaintence recently commented that people who've
had a bad experience in the school system when they were kids will naturally
and pretty much inevitably turn into parents with no trust in or respect for
the system. Add to that the problems in a lot of families with poverty, drug
and alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse, and general instability (most of
the kids who start the year in my local grade school do not finish the year
in that school) and I'm convinced there really isn't all that much the
schools can do.

When I was a kid there used to be quite a bit of peer pressure in the
direction of being a good student, too. Once you have all the kids whose
parents care about their education siphoned off into various kinds of
private and/or religious schools, you don't even have that factor to help
the situation.

Is there a lot of incompetence and waste in the nation's school systems?
Probably. Only the truly selfless and the truly pathetic really want to
struggle year after year in a system with the kind of problems that the
larger society hands them and says "Here, fix this."

Albert Wagner
July 25th 03, 03:11 PM
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:39:09 GMT
"Shag" > wrote:
<snip>
> Well, that's exactly my point. To bring this back to
> the topic at hand (though why it's doing in m.c.f-l
> I'm a little fuzzy), someone mentioned that some
> kids are not receptive to education. I'm just pointing
> out that in any group you're going to find about 50%
> below average in receptivity. The question is, how
> far down the receptivity curve do we have to go
> before we just throw up our hands and give up on
> those kids? One sigma? Two sigma?
>
> One the other hand, I think the public schools need
> to do more for those at the _other_ end of the
> receptivity spectrum. Those kids are more likely to be
> the ones that do something to help mankind.

Good. So then it was tongue in cheek. I pretty much agree with this
post. It's already been shown that separating boys and girls is
beneficial to both. Perhaps separating by learning disabilities will be
also.

Albert Wagner
July 25th 03, 03:35 PM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:29:20 -0400
JohnDoe > wrote:
<snip>
> you are still missing the point, the "SYSTEM" isn't at fault nor is
> the system liable for the poor environment that many children live in.
> the fault lies entirely with the parents and the poor job so many of
> them do bring up their children.

While this is true, it is also true that a good school and a remarkable
teacher have reversed the effects of bad parenting for many children.
In a time of few real heroes, I suspect that many teachers enter
teaching because of a remarkable teacher in their past.

I don't believe that there is a simple solution to this problem (poor
parenting). It is unfair and ultimately unworkable to hold a school
accountable for a problem that they didn't create and have only limited
resources to fix. Some people would like to hold schools accountable
because schools are subject to political harrassment and parenting is
not.

No solution that treats children as chattel of their parents rather than
as wards of society will succeed.

Dennis
July 25th 03, 06:29 PM
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:38:11 -0600, Arri London >
wrote:

>Also keep in mind that the majority of private schools have
>endowments and other sources of income. The tuition they
>receive isn't the only thing paying for the school expenses,
>any more than any university can operate only on tuition.

I have no idea how the numbers compare, but the public schools in my
area also receive frequent donations from individuals and
corporations, not to mention many, many hours of volunteer labor.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.

Mogie
July 25th 03, 08:20 PM
A big problem in the lack of parental involvement today. The thinking is
that the schools get enough tax money so they should handle everything.

I've worked in schools and seen the difference a parent can make. Get
involved and stay involved. It makes a world of difference.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Ed Clarke
July 25th 03, 10:33 PM
In article >, The Real Bev wrote:

>> >small number I can believe, and the system damn well ought to figure out
>> >what to do about that, even if it means starting up "reform schools"
>> >again. If the number is large, there is something pathological about the
>> >entire system and perhaps the only solution is to fire everybody and start
>> >from scratch.
>>
>> you are still missing the point, the "SYSTEM" isn't at fault nor is
>> the system liable for the poor environment that many children live in.
>> the fault lies entirely with the parents and the poor job so many of
>> them do bring up their children.
>
> I'm not missing the point. Kids from "good" families will generally do
> better. What I'm worried about is the kids who don't come from "good"
> families. Are you saying that a school system that can't educate 50% of
> its students is acceptable?

Take a look at this:

http://www.aft.org/american_educator/spring2003/catastrophe.html

And note that ALL of the parents in the study were very interested in
having their children succeed in school. There were no parents in the
study that did not care about their children due to drugs/alcohol/stupidity.
The difference is poverty. Read the article and look at the way they
collected the data.

baron48
July 25th 03, 11:56 PM
Dennis > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:38:11 -0600, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >Also keep in mind that the majority of private schools have
> >endowments and other sources of income. The tuition they
> >receive isn't the only thing paying for the school expenses,
> >any more than any university can operate only on tuition.
>
> I have no idea how the numbers compare, but the public schools in my
> area also receive frequent donations from individuals and
> corporations, not to mention many, many hours of volunteer labor.

Don't forget the exclusive vendor contracts and the advertising
space on school buses.

-Tom

Don K
July 26th 03, 02:32 AM
"Ed Clarke" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> >> you are still missing the point, the "SYSTEM" isn't at fault nor is
> >> the system liable for the poor environment that many children live in.
> >> the fault lies entirely with the parents and the poor job so many of
> >> them do bring up their children.
> >
> > I'm not missing the point. Kids from "good" families will generally do
> > better. What I'm worried about is the kids who don't come from "good"
> > families. Are you saying that a school system that can't educate 50% of
> > its students is acceptable?
>
> Take a look at this:
>
> http://www.aft.org/american_educator/spring2003/catastrophe.html
>
> And note that ALL of the parents in the study were very interested in
> having their children succeed in school. There were no parents in the
> study that did not care about their children due to
drugs/alcohol/stupidity.

How do you know that?
Do a word search for "alcohol" and "drug" at that site.
Those words are not mentioned at all.

> The difference is poverty. Read the article and look at the way they
> collected the data.

OK, it says in general, poverty is a bad thing.
It doesn't say anything one way or another about bad parents.
That's probably because the bad parents didn't invite the researchers
into their homes to study them.

Don

Charles Hobbs
July 26th 03, 03:29 AM
Don K wrote:
> "Ed Clarke" > wrote in message

>>
>>http://www.aft.org/american_educator/spring2003/catastrophe.html
>>
>>And note that ALL of the parents in the study were very interested in
>>having their children succeed in school. There were no parents in the
>>study that did not care about their children due to
>
> drugs/alcohol/stupidity.
>
> How do you know that?
> Do a word search for "alcohol" and "drug" at that site.
> Those words are not mentioned at all.
>
>
>>The difference is poverty. Read the article and look at the way they
>>collected the data.
>
>
> OK, it says in general, poverty is a bad thing.
> It doesn't say anything one way or another about bad parents.
> That's probably because the bad parents didn't invite the researchers
> into their homes to study them.

Guess what? It's a survey done by one of the big teachers' unions (AFT).
I don't particularly *expect* them to "look inward", as it were, for
problems.

MerryStahel
July 28th 03, 03:53 PM
>Perhaps separating by learning disabilities will be
>also.

Not so much learning disabilities but how the children learn. Some are visual
learners, and some are audio learners and others learn other ways.

At my daughters' middle school, they separated the children into 3 groups.
Although no stigma was attached, they were ranked low, medium and high - based
on the speed the kids learned. So pretty much, the lowest group was remedial.


The teachers assigned to this set of students then proceeded to teach the kids,
based on THE KID's style of learning.

It was a roaring success. The kids LEARNED. They learned exactly what the
other kids in the two "higher" classes learned, but they learned according to
THEIR style and pace.

One daughter was in the remedial group. The other daughter was in the high
group.

And I'll brag again. The remedial student just gradated for the SECOND time
(Bachelor's degree) from Penn State, with a 4.0 (Dean's List)...and the other
is at Texas A & M, with a 4.0 (Dean's List) and will be finishing up next year.

Those classes were a God-send and brought my girls up to grade level. They
moved at the kid's pace, and using the kid's natural tendency concerning how
THEY learn.

I only say good about the public-school system in Mechanicsburg, PA.

The eldest also just got her first job and is now financially independent. She
had 3 job offers before she graduated, and accepted the one with the most
benefits, and which sounded like the most fun, in her field.

Merry
Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once
http://www.stardancerpress.com/MerryStahel/
http://community.webshots.com/user/merrystahel

Albert Wagner
July 28th 03, 04:25 PM
On 28 Jul 2003 13:53:55 GMT
(MerryStahel) wrote:

> >Perhaps separating by learning disabilities will be
> >also.
>
> Not so much learning disabilities but how the children learn. Some
> are visual learners, and some are audio learners and others learn
> other ways.

Absolutely. My poor choice of words.

<snip>
Terrific. Isn't it amazing how so many people ignore what the
psychological sciences have already taught us about how children learn?
And instead focus on failed regimentation, harsh discipline, and
standardized testing? To my mind, the whole system of moving a
homogenous group of children through grades, using the same techniques
on the whole group is silly. Each should progress at their own pace and
with nothing less that total mastery of a subject.

Google