Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

On The Issues: Education

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I have to agree with justxxme. Shifting around students is not the answer. I believe in the free market approach but not for education.

We need to reform the schools we have. We have been throwing money at the problem for too long and getting little results. Standardized tests tells us nothing.
We need to get back to basics of teaching basics.

First, we need to invest more in Adult Education and help further educate many of these children parents. A lot of parents aren't involved with their children education because they themselves lack education. I see neither candidate address this.

Second, we need to put the emphasis back on classes instead of sports. It is sad when a high school Athletic coach is making more than a teacher. I say ban all sports until High School. There are many organizations that do sports programs after school if students in the junior high desire to play sports. Neither candidate addresses this.

We need quality teachers. Candidates address this but don't give us the definition of a quality teacher. Should it be based on a certain GPA or what?
It needs to be defined?

If a school is not performing which people commonly say is in a poor area, then I think the State education agency should take it over. At takeover they interview and hire the new administrators, principals and teachers if needed rather than the local school board. As it is now they merely put them on an improvement plan. In other words the ones responsible for the failure seldom get punished.

Just my thoughts on the matter.




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I honestly dont understand some of the reasoning. Education is something too important for competition.
EVERYBODY needs a decent education. EVERY SCHOOL needs to perform. It is not about high standards vs second rates schools, you see all McCain and this administration wants, is separating the rich from the poor even more.
It is up to the government to enforce the standards, dont let the schools run themselves like corporations.

I hope more people would understand this.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 



I agree with you and many of the other posters who don't see this as a viable option.

Giving the power back to the people is essentially a good idea, but flawed because the people will abuse the system without consequences. Children will in effect, be left behind.

I don't know why we can't just have a candidate clearly move in a simple direction to improve our schools. How hard can it be to redirect some funds into education and reward our teachers for hard work and give our students up to date resources?

I mean really. It's the simple answers that usually make the most sense.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
It is not about high standards vs second rates schools, you see all McCain and this administration wants, is separating the rich from the poor even more.

I have to agree with you here. Schools will most likely re-segregate if this occurs. (I'm not saying that it would be segregated by race, but more by socioeconomic status.) Whether or not the parents would realize it as it happens, I am not sure, but they would probably have a problem with it once they noticed. And what do we do then? Send the kids back to where they came from? Or try to find a new and better plan?

And then where does that bring us? Right back to where we are - with the wealthier schools having more up to date teaching tools, higher test scores, and lower drop out rates than the other schools.

I also agree with jam321 that we need quality teachers, and I would like to see how the candidates define a "quality teacher" and also how they intend to find and place them. As of right now we have districts begging for teachers and hiring just about anyone (with minimum qualifications). On the other hand we have districts that may have 200+ applicants for one job. What do we do here? There is only so much the in-need districts can offer. Some people don't want to move across the country for a job.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Take a peek at this article.

Little Manchurian Candidates

I posted it in a thread here in ATS I started concerning kids and education.

In my opinion the article is a must read.

It sure opened my eyes. And I'm back to researching the subject more now. I just can't believe what I read there. Will update when I get more info.

Thanks




[edit on 13-9-2008 by silo13]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
I honestly dont understand some of the reasoning. Education is something too important for competition.
EVERYBODY needs a decent education. EVERY SCHOOL needs to perform. It is not about high standards vs second rates schools, you see all McCain and this administration wants, is separating the rich from the poor even more.
It is up to the government to enforce the standards, dont let the schools run themselves like corporations.

I hope more people would understand this.


The government has run education for a very long time and they have done a very poor job of it. When was the last time the government ran anything that turned out well?

We have hurricanes and they can't even provide basic services to the people in an evacuation but we expect them to. The cradle to grave mentality of the government is another prime example of failure. Instead of a helping hand they have created entire generations of people that rely on government assistance to provide for their very existence.

I don't think segregation is bad at all. We need to segregate those that don't care from those that do and keep the government out of it. If people want an education for their kids they have to show it.

Test scores are at their lowest in any time in history in this country but we still say the same thing. More money and more government oversight.

I think we need to get government out of the education business. We need to stop forcing citizens to pay for failure after failure and let those that know how to educate and how the real world works do the job.

We need to break the unions these teachers have. A teacher now a days can go for 10 years abusing kids before something is done. Educators in this country are worse than priests when it comes to abuse.

I think society's problem is we have a endless sense of guilt when someone does poorly and instead of laying the blame at the feet of the one responsible we throw money at the problem.

If a kid isn't getting a proper upbringing we need to take those kids away from the parents, sterilize those parents and walk away. Problem solved. This enabling attitude we have in society needs to stop. Just because the parent might not have been taught a proper set of morals doesn't mean they should get a pass.

Education needs to be just that. Its not supposed to be the social experiment we see today.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by northof8]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by northof8
The government has run education for a very long time and they have done a very poor job of it. When was the last time the government ran anything that turned out well?


Well, many of the jobs government does don't have adequate comparisons in the so called free market to measure performance against. Further, a lot of what the government does involves administering activities that are ultimately performed by private interests. If the government had not made the freeway system, who would have?



We have hurricanes and they can't even provide basic services to the people in an evacuation but we expect them to. The cradle to grave mentality of the government is another prime example of failure. Instead of a helping hand they have created entire generations of people that rely on government assistance to provide for their very existence.


It sounds like you're referring to welfare. You really need to source that, though. It's a very strong statement and subjectively, I just don't see a generation of people depending on welfare around me. Where do you see this?

Regarding disaster recovery, this is another function that no one else is performing. And why would they? How can you become wealthy helping the downtrodden and hurt? Government has a lot of flaws, but a huge part of it's purpose is to provide for the common welfare in ways that aren't typically profitable.



I don't think segregation is bad at all. We need to segregate those that don't care from those that do and keep the government out of it. If people want an education for their kids they have to show it.

Test scores are at their lowest in any time in history in this country but we still say the same thing. More money and more government oversight.


I'm a little unclear on what you mean here but to be honest, I find the vague assertion that some people don't deserve access to basic services a little creepy. Who gets to decide that? The IQ test has been hotly debated and it's now fairly convincingly shown that it essentially validates a particular model of intelligence and is not a reliable barometer in every sense. Almost all testing works this way. So by what fair measurement do you propose we can separate the "wheat" from the "chaff"?



I think we need to get government out of the education business. We need to stop forcing citizens to pay for failure after failure and let those that know how to educate and how the real world works do the job.


First we've got to show that privatization is a viable alternative liable to lead to the greater good and not just the benefit of those wealthy enough to afford the best it can offer.



We need to break the unions these teachers have. A teacher now a days can go for 10 years abusing kids before something is done. Educators in this country are worse than priests when it comes to abuse.


Definitely need a source.



I think society's problem is we have a endless sense of guilt when someone does poorly and instead of laying the blame at the feet of the one responsible we throw money at the problem.


I don't think that's true at all. It seems to me that wealthy people by and large feel they deserve what they have and don't need to share it.



If a kid isn't getting a proper upbringing we need to take those kids away from the parents, sterilize those parents and walk away. Problem solved. This enabling attitude we have in society needs to stop. Just because the parent might not have been taught a proper set of morals doesn't mean they should get a pass.

Education needs to be just that. Its not supposed to be the social experiment we see today.


The problem with education today, IMHO, is that it has as much to do with indoctrination as it does with critical thinking skills. How would privatization repair this?

Oh, and sterilization? Seriously?



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   


First we've got to show that privatization is a viable alternative liable to lead to the greater good and not just the benefit of those wealthy enough to afford the best it can offer.

Yes, and we have seen the government do much better. Private schools educate way better than public schools. No need for an NEA that enables and encourages abuse of our children. We need to burn that union down for all the sexual abuse they have covered up over the years.



I don't think that's true at all. It seems to me that wealthy people by and large feel they deserve what they have and don't need to share it.


This is why we need to sterilize people. You think just because someone else has a bigger TV you need to have one too. This is theft by other means but still theft and people that think this way need to be eradicated from our society. So if someone came to your house and saw you had a bigger tv its ok for them to take it? You can't argue it any other way. You are a free loader on society.



The problem with education today, IMHO, is that it has as much to do with indoctrination as it does with critical thinking skills. How would privatization repair this?


How would privatization not fix this? That is the question. Its getting so bad on the radical left Obama wants to start sex education for K-6 for crying out loud. You people on the left have this cradle to grave mentality. Its immoral to expect me to take care of you. I would rather you were taken out and shot like a dog if you are that lazy.


“[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”

Link to Article

And this is what Obamanation wants more of. People need to be taken to task for what they impose on society. From neglect of children to abuse of children. One way to do this is to take the children away. Another is to kill child molesters on the spot. And another is to sterilize those that would expect everyone else to take care of them because they are too lazy, immoral or ignorant to stake their own claim.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   


Originally posted by northof8
Yes, and we have seen the government do much better. Private schools educate way better than public schools. No need for an NEA that enables and encourages abuse of our children. We need to burn that union down for all the sexual abuse they have covered up over the years.

Debates don't work this way, my friend. You are suggesting that privatization of education will improve the greater good and thus carry the burden of proof. Even supposing your argument doesn't need proof, where in the private sector are we going to see universal education for those who are not absurdly wealthy with equal coverage and greater quality? Who's going to pay for this? The parents? How will they afford it? Further, your source on sexual abuse in the California school system distorts the per capita aspect of the statistics. There are far more students in public school and there are in Catholic school. You haven't convincingly shown that sexual abuse is a greater problem in the public school system than it would be or is in private schools.



"I don't think that's true at all. It seems to me that wealthy people by and large feel they deserve what they have and don't need to share it."


This is why we need to sterilize people. You think just because someone else has a bigger TV you need to have one too. This is theft by other means but still theft and people that think this way need to be eradicated from our society. So if someone came to your house and saw you had a bigger tv its ok for them to take it? You can't argue it any other way. You are a free loader on society.

Left my quote up top to preserve context. This is an intense non-sequitur. We need to sterilize people? Why? Who? Who gets to decide? You? No thanks. Who proposed theft? Who said anything about stealing TV's (before you did)? And are you calling me a free loader? What do you know about me? Perhaps I've got the big TV, my friend, and the big difference is I don't mind sharing my good fortune. Eh?


How would privatization not fix this? That is the question. Its getting so bad on the radical left Obama wants to start sex education for K-6 for crying out loud. You people on the left have this cradle to grave mentality. Its immoral to expect me to take care of you. I would rather you were taken out and shot like a dog if you are that lazy.

No, it's not the question. You are the one proposing that it will make things better. You, then, must say how this will happen. And seriously: "you people"? I'm an Independent, for one thing. For another, so what if I do think that we should take care people whether or not they "deserve" it? I'm not even religious and I can tell you my views align more closely with Jesus, a good guy by any measure. Honestly. These are tenants of strength and virtue that have existed in our civilization for thousands of years. We care for the poor and downtrodden. No one told you to take care of me, but if there are more people like me in this county then there are you? Well then, welcome to Democracy, buddy. No one's getting shot like a dog on my vote.


Source on sexual abuse in California schools.

Please see my mention above. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."


And this is what Obamanation wants more of. People need to be taken to task for what they impose on society. From neglect of children to abuse of children. One way to do this is to take the children away. Another is to kill child molesters on the spot. And another is to sterilize those that would expect everyone else to take care of them because they are too lazy, immoral or ignorant to stake their own claim.

Not to invoke Godwin here, but surely you know that Hitler thought this was a great idea, too.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by JohnnyElohim]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
In my opinion the McCain education policies, that will probably be run, or closely monitored by Palin, are not only wrong, they are dangerous, and fracturing.
If parents have the right to choose the schools (public) their children attend, we will be left with a couple of good schools for the Middle Class, and a lot of crappy schools, for the less well off. It will be a further ghettoizing of America, it will keep the poorest Americans from having the right to a good school system, and impede their chances of social climbing, through education, living them with only one option: CRIME.

All public schools, in America, or any other place, should be positively intervened, so they can do their job properly. Children should be made to attend the school referent to their area of residence...

The "no child left behind" slogan, must be transformed into a National Mission, and all schools be given the means to properly educate every American.

P.S. - As for your notion that "our children belong to us, not to the state", you are totally wrong.
Children are autonomous being, they are not pets, they don't belong to anybody, nor to any institutions. As for parents, they are only legal guardians of their children, status that they will only maintain if they do not, in any way, endanger the child's future.

Wake up people, CHILDREN ARE NOT PROPERTY!!!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I would like to comment about higher education. I watched parts of the whatever that was called the other night on TV that wasn't really a debate but had both candidates speak to us separately...and while it was on, everyone in the room was bored to tears with it and ended up talking so I can't say I followed it very closely, however I did catch a little of Barack talking about his proposals for getting college students to do more community outreach and volunteer activities in exchange for more govn't funding.

On the one hand I think that is noble and communities can always use more outreach, and then on the other hand we see more students who are older now, married, working if not part-time some are working full time, and commuting from home (increasingly more are still living with their parents) and so already they are battling tight schedules and so I'm wondering how many will be able to fit it in. Also, many already do community work in exchange for financial aid. In order to pad your resume for graduate school admissions you simply have to include a bunch of volunteer work to stand out among the other candidates for acceptance, so I'm not sure really how his plan would actually change things? I think we aught to reward students who do research hours in the lab assisting professors and other graduate students. I think we aught to reward students who spend time in the libraries but if they are busy working at their paying jobs while also taking on another volunteer job to satisfy loan requirements it seems to me that this detracts from research time and library hours.

As I said, I didn't follow his speech very closely, and I was inclined to think that it should be an option, but not mandatory. Besides we need to encourage altruism, but if we make it mandatory, it kind of defeats the intrinsic benefit derived from community service.

As far as John McCain, I didn’t hear what he had to say on education or if he even talked about it, but I heard him comment about it at his convention speech and disagree with his policy position regarding vouchers for K-12 programs as it adversely impacts public school funding and runs into separation of church and state issues.

Here’s my idea: I think students should be provided with texts that they can keep. They need to value books and build their own personal libraries and be able to use them for reference. I have kept most of my books from higher education for these reasons, and wish I would have kept my H.S. texts. One thing I think it does is not only inspire more value in books and encourage intrinsic interests in learning, but also may build esteem. I mean when you are sitting there looking at your book shelf full of books you feel more confident and can say “you know, I read all of those”. I admit I’m kind of a crackpot and a bonehead for unusual ideas, and I know it would cost a lot, but maybe (and here’s the real kicker) some studies need to be done on this to see what possible benefits could be derived from a “keep the school books” program.

Nice thread!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
So... McCain's plan will what? Punish a school because the students suck?

When I was in school... It was a bit of a nightmare. But it isn't the school's or the teachers fault. Today's youth see their parents doing drugs, collecting welfare, see the black man leave the hood by promoting gangster life and drugs. What do they follow? A teacher they don't like or the bling bling king shouting curse words while dealing drugs?

Of course that's just what I saw. I don't know how it is in other schools. But my freshman class was over 1,000 students, graduating class of... under 200. You can't blame the teachers though. Hell half the time a teacher can't even give a child an F because that will "traumitize" the child.


The children need to be whipped into shape. My mother would smack me around if I messed up. Guess what? I didn't mess up. She'd give my teachers permission to beat me up if I didn't behave. Guess what, I behaved. But other kids? There were these blonde bimbo cheerleaders suing the school for kicking them off the cheerleading team. Why? They were drinking, doing drugs, having sex for money. But even worse is the parents supported their kids! Yep, instead of punishing them they hired lawyers to SUE the school for kicking them off the team!

So don't punish schools. Punish parents.

BTW I starred and flagged. This topic is exactly what is needed to reshape the Decision 2008 section! Good debate, links, no mudslinging, well, little mudslinging.

www.belowtopsecret.com...
Where I rant about today's education and how horrible it is.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Krieger]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 



Originally posted by TheOracle
you see all McCain and this administration wants, is separating the rich from the poor even more.
It is up to the government to enforce the standards, dont let the schools run themselves like corporations.

I hope more people would understand this.


The fact is, the rich send their children to private schools and are largely unaffected by gov't policies and funding decisions.

Pouring more money into failing schools has been tried for years, with no change in results. Why not give kids the opportunity to succeed in a better school? Competition works in real life and competition for the best teachers should be the strategy we employ in the schools.






top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join