Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

Morgans wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

I have two problems with this. First, professional educators (read
NEA) are a big part of the problem.

I keep hearing "the union is the problem" mantra. Around here, the
only interaction we have with the NEA is the fact that they have good
liability insurance, and good legal programs if things really turn to
**** for a teacher. That's it. I'm not quite sure how much of an
influence they are, anywhere. They sure are not much, here.


Please note that I wrote NEA as in the NATIONAL organization and as a cover
all for the STATE orgnaizations. Unless NC is different, and it might well
be, they have plenty of lobbiest working full time to protect their rice
bowl.



Second how are you going to have the parental oversite without the
elections? And if you only let parents run for the offices or worse
only let parents vote then you get into the whole taxation without
representation thing.

Yeah, there are things to be worked out, for sure. The thing is, I
don't think parents should have real control over any situation, or
they will end up being a board of education with a different name,
which is not what I would want to see.

The whole point is that professional educators that know education
should be running the show, with parents giving guidance and
sugestions, only. No real power. If everyone says what we have is
not working, why not try something new?


One way or another you are doing to have to have some elected official(s)
with oversight responsibility. There is no way around it.


That is a problem with all elected governments. (talking about new
people
coming on every two years)

Yes, but when the future of our next generation is at stake, we need
something better than what government as usual is giving us, don't you
think? Also, what I see from far too many board of education
members, is that they are there with an ax to grind, and that has no
place in deciding how our children are educated.

We need to see consistancy. The programs come and go so rapidly, no
program ever has a chance to succeed, before it is changed. Things
take time to get going, and see how they work. If they don't work,
then change them, or toss them out. Changing them because a new
group has come on in control needs to be changed.



What if the porofessional educators or at least those willing to serve on
this board, in any given area suck?


Most school administrators come up from the ranks of teachers.

It is remarkeable how quickly they forget what is going on in the
classroom.


And what makes you think that the ones in your new program will be any
different?


It does help when they were a good teacher, I will admit. The very
worst administrators are the ones that went straight through to
administration without ever spending any time in the classroom.

I admit that I do not have all the answers on improving education,
unlike some others that have been spouting their own line of
fertilizer. I do feel I know what some of the problems are, however,
and many other teachers and people that are close to education have
echoed some of the things I have stated. We all can't be wrong, can
we?
If I did have all of the answers, or a majority of them, I would not
be teaching construction in NC, but instead would be upwardly mobile
in the national education scene. I am confident that I know that
some things I have heard will not work, though.


The education problems all boil down to a combination of some bad teachers,
some bad administrators, some bad parents, and state and federal lawmakers
and courts stepping in to make a bad situation worse.

We need to get rid of silly federal and state mandates for student testing
that require teachers teach to a test and little else. We need a system of
getting rid of bad teachers and rewarding good ones. We need a process that
allows us to get kids that cause problems out of the schools but only after
teachers are given the right and responsibility to deal with those on the
bubble in the classroom. And we need to make parents responsible for how
their children act when they are in school.

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

The education problems all boil down to a combination of some bad
teachers, some bad administrators, some bad parents, and state and
federal lawmakers and courts stepping in to make a bad situation
worse.

We need to get rid of silly federal and state mandates for student
testing that require teachers teach to a test and little else. We
need a system of getting rid of bad teachers and rewarding good ones.
We need a process that allows us to get kids that cause problems out
of the schools but only after teachers are given the right and
responsibility to deal with those on the bubble in the classroom. And
we need to make parents responsible for how their children act when
they are in school.

It seems to me that all the conversation about education in this thread
misses a few key points.

In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a state-level
priority, and in many if not most communities, not a local priority. On a
national level, we struggle with issues such as standardization and
"leaving no children behind", but put no substantial financial support
into either area. States largely fund education through property taxes (a
practice that was deemed unconstitutional here in Ohio more than once, yet
there is no change on the horizon), which largely works against
standardization and ensuring equal educational opportunities. On a local
level, school systems are sometimes unbalanced in terms of the ratio of
administrators to teachers.

What I find curious is that the teachers in this thread aren't speaking of
the teacher/student ratio. Given the significant increase in necessary
knowledge beyond what was needed when I was in K-12 almost 50 years ago,
and that class sizes are now about 3 times what they were then, I don't
know why it isn't apparent that this has to at least contribute to the
issues under discussion.

The way I see it, there need be no other reasons for the results that
we're getting other than the priorities and structure that we're working
with.

Neil

On 2007-12-04, Neil Gould wrote:

In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a state-level
priority, and in many if not most communities, not a local priority. On a
national level,...

Regardless of priority, the presumption that U.S. education is underfunded is a
persistent myth as is the belief that funding levels and results (educated
students) are causally related. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa126.html

Recently, Doug Carter posted:

On 2007-12-04, Neil Gould wrote:

In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a
state-level priority, and in many if not most communities, not a
local priority. On a national level,...

Regardless of priority, the presumption that U.S. education is
underfunded is a persistent myth as is the belief that funding levels
and results (educated students) are causally related.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa126.html

To begin with, I did not write that "education is underfunded" in the
sense that you are suggesting or that your cited reference uses. If you
wish to make such an argument, it would be a good idea to quote my entire
paragraph so that others can see how you have intentionally distorted its
meaning.

To support your conclusion based on the article, which IMO is suprisingly
poor for the CATO institute, one has to determine how much of the funding
actually reaches the individual student, as it is only "per pupil" if the
pupil directly benefits from it. The article was written in 1990, and
basically supports the NEA statement that there was a 31% increase in
government spending "for education" during the prior decade. What do we
know about that period of time that might raise questions about the actual
value of that money? How much did your car or your house cost in 1980 vs.
1990? I can tell you that my 1984 vehicle cost about 1/3 of what the same
make and model cost when I replaced it in 1991 (and the cost of the same
make and model was almost 60% more when it was replaced in 2001). Also,
expenditures that were typical in 1990 were non-existant in 1980, for
example purchases of personal computers. So, to me, that 31% increase is
not positively impressive.

Even so, my point was not about the *amount* of money, it was about the
PRIORITIES, in particular how that money is spent. In our community, we
spend more per pupil than all but one other community in the state, but we
are not getting that kind of return on our investment. I (and the state
auditor FWIW) attribute it to a top-heavy school system. So, on what do
you base the relevance of your "Regardless of priority..." as an argument
for our lack of success in educating these youth?

--
Neil

On 2007-12-05, Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Doug Carter posted:

On 2007-12-04, Neil Gould wrote:

In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a
state-level priority, and in many if not most communities, not a
local priority. On a national level,...

Regardless of priority, the presumption that U.S. education is
underfunded is a persistent myth as is the belief that funding levels
and results (educated students) are causally related.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa126.html

To begin with, I did not write that "education is underfunded" in the
sense that you are suggesting or that your cited reference uses. If you
wish to make such an argument, it would be a good idea to quote my entire
paragraph so that others can see how you have intentionally distorted its
meaning.

Sorry. I missunderstood your meaning; my bad.

To support your conclusion based on the article, which IMO is suprisingly
poor for the CATO institute, one has to determine how much of the funding
actually reaches the individual student, as it is only "per pupil" if the
pupil directly benefits from it. The article was written in 1990, and
basically supports the NEA statement that there was a 31% increase in
government spending "for education" during the prior decade. What do we
know about that period of time that might raise questions about the actual
value of that money? How much did your car or your house cost in 1980 vs.
1990? I can tell you that my 1984 vehicle cost about 1/3 of what the same
make and model cost when I replaced it in 1991 (and the cost of the same
make and model was almost 60% more when it was replaced in 2001). Also,
expenditures that were typical in 1990 were non-existant in 1980, for
example purchases of personal computers. So, to me, that 31% increase is
not positively impressive.


I don't think that the rate of increase in education funding has ever been
below the inflation rate in this country.

Even so, my point was not about the *amount* of money, it was about the
PRIORITIES, in particular how that money is spent. In our community, we
spend more per pupil than all but one other community in the state, but we
are not getting that kind of return on our investment. I (and the state
auditor FWIW) attribute it to a top-heavy school system. So, on what do
you base the relevance of your "Regardless of priority..." as an argument
for our lack of success in educating these youth?

Again, I read your post too quickly and missunderstood it. I agree completly
with your last paragraph. Lets start at the Federal level by disolving the
Department of Education as my fellow Republicans promised, but failed to do in
the mid '90s. Next, lets bust the state monopoly on primary and secondary
education.

Recently, Doug Carter posted:

On 2007-12-05, Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Doug Carter posted:

To begin with, I did not write that "education is underfunded" in the
sense that you are suggesting or that your cited reference uses. If
you wish to make such an argument, it would be a good idea to quote
my entire paragraph so that others can see how you have
intentionally distorted its meaning.

Sorry. I missunderstood your meaning; my bad.

No problem, it happens.

To support your conclusion based on the article, which IMO is
suprisingly poor for the CATO institute, one has to determine how
much of the funding actually reaches the individual student, as it
is only "per pupil" if the pupil directly benefits from it. The
article was written in 1990, and basically supports the NEA
statement that there was a 31% increase in government spending "for
education" during the prior decade. What do we know about that
period of time that might raise questions about the actual value of
that money? How much did your car or your house cost in 1980 vs.
1990? I can tell you that my 1984 vehicle cost about 1/3 of what the
same make and model cost when I replaced it in 1991 (and the cost of
the same make and model was almost 60% more when it was replaced in
2001). Also, expenditures that were typical in 1990 were
non-existant in 1980, for example purchases of personal computers.
So, to me, that 31% increase is not positively impressive.


I don't think that the rate of increase in education funding has ever
been below the inflation rate in this country.

Well, that may be a different issue, but you may be surprised. Do you know
what the rate of inflation was for that period?

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/I..._currentPage=1

Also, I wrote of expenditures that would probably be included in the NEA's
funding statement (the article took a backwards approach to this, so this
is speculation on my part).

Even so, my point was not about the *amount* of money, it was about
the PRIORITIES, in particular how that money is spent. In our
community, we spend more per pupil than all but one other community
in the state, but we are not getting that kind of return on our
investment. I (and the state auditor FWIW) attribute it to a
top-heavy school system. So, on what do you base the relevance of
your "Regardless of priority..." as an argument for our lack of
success in educating these youth?

Again, I read your post too quickly and missunderstood it. I agree
completly with your last paragraph. Lets start at the Federal level
by disolving the Department of Education as my fellow Republicans
promised, but failed to do in the mid '90s. Next, lets bust the
state monopoly on primary and secondary education.

To what end? In this state, the voucher system has established a large
number of independent educational institutions. Most of them are just
ripping off the public coffers, and are doing a worse job than the public
schools.

I think there can be fiscal responsibility and appropriate priorities
within the existing structure. The reason that we don't have that now is
the real problem.

Neil

On 2007-12-05, Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Doug Carter posted:

Again, I read your post too quickly and missunderstood it. I agree
completly with your last paragraph. Lets start at the Federal level
by disolving the Department of Education as my fellow Republicans
promised, but failed to do in the mid '90s. Next, lets bust the
state monopoly on primary and secondary education.

To what end? In this state, the voucher system has established a large
number of independent educational institutions. Most of them are just
ripping off the public coffers, and are doing a worse job than the public
schools.

Geez... is diversity and choice so bad? At least parents in your state have a
choice.

I think there can be fiscal responsibility and appropriate priorities
within the existing structure. The reason that we don't have that now is
the real problem.

Since the prospects of the government giving up their monoploy are bleak, I
hope you are right but the cycle of underperformance and reform has been going
on for a long time

We need to get rid of silly federal and state mandates for student testing
that require teachers teach to a test and little else.

I agree with everything else in your post, but this.

IMHO, No Child Left Behind -- flawed though it may be -- is the first
step in the right direction toward improving our schools. For the
first time in my lifetime teachers are being held to a real,
measurable standard -- which is the first necessary step to addressing
any systemic problems that may exist.

WRT to Jim's concerns, BTW, it's also the best way to disprove that
systemic problems DON'T exist.

There are many things I'd change in NCLB -- but discarding it entirely
would be a mistake.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
We need to get rid of silly federal and state mandates for student
testing that require teachers teach to a test and little else.

I agree with everything else in your post, but this.

IMHO, No Child Left Behind -- flawed though it may be -- is the first
step in the right direction toward improving our schools. For the
first time in my lifetime teachers are being held to a real,
measurable standard -- which is the first necessary step to addressing
any systemic problems that may exist.


It was a great idea that doesn't work in its' application. The schools and
teachers have to spend most of the year doing nothing but teach to a test
and it isn't even a very well written test.

And how many individual teachers do you know that have been terminated
because of NCLB I know of none and of several that should have never been
allowed to teach in the first place.

"Jay Honeck" wrot

IMHO, No Child Left Behind -- flawed though it may be -- is the first
step in the right direction toward improving our schools. For the
first time in my lifetime teachers are being held to a real,
measurable standard -- which is the first necessary step to addressing
any systemic problems that may exist.

One big problem with it is that there are individual students that can not
cope with the setting that we are forced to put them into.

Also, vast sums of money are put into these very low performing students,
which take away from funds that are available to be spent on good kids like
Joe.

Also, the teaching to a test is a real problem. There is such pressure to
get to all of the material, that a teacher can not take the time to work
with something that the students have real interest in, and want to explore
in more detail. Sorry, got to keep moving on to the next unit.
--
Jim in NC