Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Public education in this country (and this state) started going downhill when publicly-funded education became thought of as a right and not a privilege--a privilege earned by a student achieving at least minimal educational standards and by maintaining acceptable social behavior in school. Instead, our public schools have morphed into a day-care center where scholastic failure and abhorrent social behavior is tolerated.
Want to make public schools successful again? Here are some ideas:
Permanently expel students that repeatedly exhibit serious anti-social behavior in school and hold their parents responsible for serious anti-social behavior that occurs inside or outside the school.
Bar students with criminal records from attending the public schools.
Tie getting a driver's license to minimum scholastic performance in school. Failing grades equals no driver's license for teens.
There are more things that could be done, but you get the idea. Make parents and kids take responsibility for getting a good education. Take all the extraneous "noise" from disruptive and non-performing students out of the classroom, then expect the teachers and school system to deliver quality education to kids that are motivated to learn. That pretty much worked in this country for the better part of one-and-three-quarters of a century--until parents began shirking their parental responsibilities and the public schools had to shoulder a "parenting" function for which they never were designed. Small wonder that a lot of the best teachers have abandoned the profession--when teaching took a back seat to essentially baby-sitting a bunch of brats, many of whom had no interest in obtaining an education.
The argument against public schools and public school teachers are so contradictory that it is not even funny. Add to this the fact that since everybody has been to school, they feel like they are experts. Just because I know how to drive, doesn't mean that I can design a car. Everyone has anecdotal evidence that they apply to the education, but anecdotes are not solid evidence. You say you have seen poor teachers protected by the unions, but how do you know the union stepped in? Most likely the reason the teacher stays in his or her job is because of administrative apathy.
Teachers can be fired, but they must be fired using the due process set forth in the contract that was agreed to by the district and the union.
It is quite easy to fire a teacher for misconduct.
Teachers in Colorado are on probation for 3 years during which time his or her contract may not be renewed for any cause. Failure to get rid of a bad teacher during this time is evidence of poor school management.
If a teacher consistently underperforms in his or her job, it is up to the administration to document the shortcomings and build a case for firing the teacher. Failure to take the steps necessary to fire an underperforming teacher is negligence on behalf of the administration.
The main reason why poor teachers are retained in schools is because the management cannot be bothered to take the necessary steps to replace them. How is that the fault of the teacher or the union?
Secondly, the party that advocates for personal responsibility, throws that responsibility out the window when it comes for holding kids accountable. Standardized tests are used to measure the teacher more than the student. There are no consequences for the students if they do poorly. Put in accountability for students, and you will see test scores rise.
so a teacher is only bad if they are bad in the 1st 3 years? Do you seriously think that? Listen most teachers work very hard 8 months out of the year, the time off they get they need and deserve. But working as hard as they do for those 8 months, they get burned out, like anybody who works 60+ hours a week. some teachers get burned out after a couple of years, some last 5 years, some last 10 years, some even last 20 years, and some never really burn out, but many of those teachers who have been teachers for 10-20 years before deciding they hate it, quickly realize that they cannot find a job with comparable pay and benefits, so often they stay teachers hurting the schools and the students as they wait for retirement.
Now the problem is once those 3 years are past, those teachers are not so easy to get rid of, of course that could is because of the contracts that the unions have put in place, and that is the problem that I and many others have with the school systems. You see at the end of the day, the politicians are often forced to give into the teacher cartel because the teachers and their union have turned the debate into an argument of what's best for the kids if they do not get what want it only hurts the kids, yet when the government officials use that against them, they cry broke. At the end of the day the politicians are using our money, and not theirs, so they cave and continue to give teachers what they want, to the point that it is out of hand.
At the end of the day I am personally tired of hearing how the students are not held accountable for test and that teachers are required to teach to the tests. I will give you that some students just do not care, but a majority of students are there to learn, it is partially up to the teacher to keep them interested and get them to learn. But when you have students that have a hard time doing simple math, or writing a complete sentence, yet they graduate high school that is the teachers and schools fault why are they giving them a diploma? Back when I was a kid if you could not pass your tests you were failed you took the grade or the class over again until you learned what you were supposed to, now the teachers would rather blame the kids and the parents while passing them along to the next teacher, of course back then it was also required that you learn your history, math, science, a writing/reading skills, they emphasized them and did not have this crap of trying to indoctrinate these kids.
Public education in this country (and this state) started going downhill when publicly-funded education became thought of as a right and not a privilege--a privilege earned by a student achieving at least minimal educational standards and by maintaining acceptable social behavior in school. Instead, our public schools have morphed into a day-care center where scholastic failure and abhorrent social behavior is tolerated.
Want to make public schools successful again? Here are some ideas:
Permanently expel students that repeatedly exhibit serious anti-social behavior in school and hold their parents responsible for serious anti-social behavior that occurs inside or outside the school.
Bar students with criminal records from attending the public schools.
Tie getting a driver's license to minimum scholastic performance in school. Failing grades equals no driver's license for teens.
There are more things that could be done, but you get the idea. Make parents and kids take responsibility for getting a good education. Take all the extraneous "noise" from disruptive and non-performing students out of the classroom, then expect the teachers and school system to deliver quality education to kids that are motivated to learn. That pretty much worked in this country for the better part of one-and-three-quarters of a century--until parents began shirking their parental responsibilities and the public schools had to shoulder a "parenting" function for which they never were designed. Small wonder that a lot of the best teachers have abandoned the profession--when teaching took a back seat to essentially baby-sitting a bunch of brats, many of whom had no interest in obtaining an education.
I would agree with those they would help, but I also think you have to get education back to the basics, while my son is only 6 years old he tells me he spends half of his day learning about eating healthy, taking care of the environment, how to respect his classmates and teachers, and about differences in families and how not to judge those differences. the teacher has told me they spend more time on that then they spend on reading, writing, and basic math skills.
None of you apparently were around back in the 60s and 70s or you have very short memories, but I can recall when the Republican party was a lot more radical than Pres. Obama and today's Democrats. Just go back and take a look at all the Federal programs that Nixon and Ford signed into law or expanded, including the EPA, Earned Income Tax Credit, Amtrak, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Betty Ford was pro-choice and supported the ERA. G.H.W. Bush signed into law the ADA. This is why many people my age or older don't understand the current Republican outrage. It just doesn't square with the history of the mainstream Republican party.
Public education in this country (and this state) started going downhill when publicly-funded education became thought of as a right and not a privilege--a privilege earned by a student achieving at least minimal educational standards and by maintaining acceptable social behavior in school. Instead, our public schools have morphed into a day-care center where scholastic failure and abhorrent social behavior is tolerated.
Want to make public schools successful again? Here are some ideas:
Permanently expel students that repeatedly exhibit serious anti-social behavior in school and hold their parents responsible for serious anti-social behavior that occurs inside or outside the school.
Bar students with criminal records from attending the public schools.
Tie getting a driver's license to minimum scholastic performance in school. Failing grades equals no driver's license for teens.
There are more things that could be done, but you get the idea. Make parents and kids take responsibility for getting a good education. Take all the extraneous "noise" from disruptive and non-performing students out of the classroom, then expect the teachers and school system to deliver quality education to kids that are motivated to learn. That pretty much worked in this country for the better part of one-and-three-quarters of a century--until parents began shirking their parental responsibilities and the public schools had to shoulder a "parenting" function for which they never were designed. Small wonder that a lot of the best teachers have abandoned the profession--when teaching took a back seat to essentially baby-sitting a bunch of brats, many of whom had no interest in obtaining an education.
I don't understand what's motivating you to say this. If anything parents are more involved to the point of being branded "helicopters" compared to the hands-off approach most of our parents (assuming you're a boomer) took with our educations.
so a teacher is only bad if they are bad in the 1st 3 years? Do you seriously think that? Listen most teachers work very hard 8 months out of the year, the time off they get they need and deserve. But working as hard as they do for those 8 months, they get burned out, like anybody who works 60+ hours a week. some teachers get burned out after a couple of years, some last 5 years, some last 10 years, some even last 20 years, and some never really burn out, but many of those teachers who have been teachers for 10-20 years before deciding they hate it, quickly realize that they cannot find a job with comparable pay and benefits, so often they stay teachers hurting the schools and the students as they wait for retirement.
If you go back to my original post, you will see that I never said this, but maybe I phrased it in a way that made you misunderstand my meaning.
In the first three years, poor teachers have no protection, therefore they should be let go by the school district if they are that bad. End of story.
There is not a teacher I have ever seen that has "decided" that he or she hates her job after 10-20 years. For teachers, the classroom is our refuge. After 10-20 years teachers get worn down from the constant barrage of negative attacks, always changing policies, and negativity from the public. Teachers are respected by few people as professionals. In 20 years of education, I have seen exactly one teacher who hated the job and was hanging on the 3 years until retirement. He taught 27 years before he was assaulted by a student (who got a slap on the wrist). No one wants to change careers at age 62.
And, if I wanted to change jobs, I could find one with better pay and benefits easily, and I have been working for 15 years in the same district.
FWIW: teachers work at school (with some breaks thrown in) from August until June. A total of 10 months. Some of us (yes, I am a teacher) have a calendar that has us working from August until early June. During any break while school is in session, teachers are expected to work at home. So while they may have two weeks off at Christmas, they are working at least part-time most days (and without pay, I may add.) The same is true for Thanksgiving and Spring Break as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwiley
Now the problem is once those 3 years are past, those teachers are not so easy to get rid of, of course that could is because of the contracts that the unions have put in place, and that is the problem that I and many others have with the school systems. You see at the end of the day, the politicians are often forced to give into the teacher cartel because the teachers and their union have turned the debate into an argument of what's best for the kids if they do not get what want it only hurts the kids, yet when the government officials use that against them, they cry broke. At the end of the day the politicians are using our money, and not theirs, so they cave and continue to give teachers what they want, to the point that it is out of hand.
How are teachers not fired? Is it because an administrator cannot take the time to document the poor performance of the teacher? All it really takes is documentation and a little time. There is no magic protection in the contract that keeps teachers from being fired. If they are that bad, then it is up to the administrator to take the steps necessary to fire the teacher. Quite frankly, I have met few administrators with the cajones to step up and document poor performance. That is not a union protection, that is a failure of leadership.
What exactly is out of hand? While I admit there are few professions with pensions any more, that is the only perk that I get which is better than the private sector. Even then, I contribute way more to my retirement than the average person does (I am required to contribute nearly 10% of my salary to PERA). I get more, because I contribute more. My health benefits are much worse than most in private business. This year I will contribute about $12k out of pocket to pay my family's health insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwiley
At the end of the day I am personally tired of hearing how the students are not held accountable for test and that teachers are required to teach to the tests. I will give you that some students just do not care, but a majority of students are there to learn, it is partially up to the teacher to keep them interested and get them to learn. But when you have students that have a hard time doing simple math, or writing a complete sentence, yet they graduate high school that is the teachers and schools fault why are they giving them a diploma? Back when I was a kid if you could not pass your tests you were failed you took the grade or the class over again until you learned what you were supposed to, now the teachers would rather blame the kids and the parents while passing them along to the next teacher, of course back then it was also required that you learn your history, math, science, a writing/reading skills, they emphasized them and did not have this crap of trying to indoctrinate these kids.
Kids are the masters of learning material for the test and then forgetting what was taught. I know that those students that you see that can't do simple math or write well were taught how to do those things, and maybe even performed well on a test of those skills and materials. Maybe the kids got Ds in those classes, but kids who get Ds can still get a diploma. You can idolize your youth as much as you want, the fact is that you have forgotten much of the material that you were taught. Maybe there should be a high school exit exam.
As for indoctrination, I take offense to that statement. I ask that you back up your statement with something more than anecdotal evidence.
Public education in this country (and this state) started going downhill when publicly-funded education became thought of as a right and not a privilege--a privilege earned by a student achieving at least minimal educational standards and by maintaining acceptable social behavior in school. Instead, our public schools have morphed into a day-care center where scholastic failure and abhorrent social behavior is tolerated.
Want to make public schools successful again? Here are some ideas:
Permanently expel students that repeatedly exhibit serious anti-social behavior in school and hold their parents responsible for serious anti-social behavior that occurs inside or outside the school.
Bar students with criminal records from attending the public schools.
Tie getting a driver's license to minimum scholastic performance in school. Failing grades equals no driver's license for teens.
There are more things that could be done, but you get the idea. Make parents and kids take responsibility for getting a good education. Take all the extraneous "noise" from disruptive and non-performing students out of the classroom, then expect the teachers and school system to deliver quality education to kids that are motivated to learn. That pretty much worked in this country for the better part of one-and-three-quarters of a century--until parents began shirking their parental responsibilities and the public schools had to shoulder a "parenting" function for which they never were designed. Small wonder that a lot of the best teachers have abandoned the profession--when teaching took a back seat to essentially baby-sitting a bunch of brats, many of whom had no interest in obtaining an education.
The Colorado constitution gurantees a free public education.
Well things have changed. This isn't the old days with old school Democrats that veered into socialist programs but were still very much pro American. Those days are gone and the Democrats have morphed into a party of radicals that are anti American and with a celebrity President that describes the murder of our Ambassador and 3 other Americans as "a few bumps in the road". He's busy on Letterman and The View talking about his favorite colors and he blows off leaders of other countries.
You add in trillions added in debt, trillions added in regulatory costs and compliance, coming tax increases, unemployment up, people permanently out of work or not working as much as they want, energy prices up and so on and there are a lot of angry people out there not happy that we have a very smug statist ruining the country. And they have every right to be. This is a government that is fundamentally altering the USA and it's history and removing freedom by imposing it's will on everything from school lunches to healthcare to toilets to washing machines to big soda cups. People are tired of it and tired of the people that mindlessly support that totalitarian control creeping in.
I've reached my limit and while I don't get in people's faces, if prompted I let the obama lovers have an ear full in a rational, friendly way. A lot of people don't have the patience I do and I can't blame em. So you got the bird flipped at you, I might get there myself. It's crunch time for the country, there needs to be some urgency there. Don't expect it to get nicer.
And the other thing is people need to grow a backbone. Some of these people act like these politicians are God and they are these feeble little children. They work for us, we don't work for them. People are not always going to validate your beliefs or support you or give you a thumbs up. I have been called every name in the book, including on this forum. I've also had people give me their opinion when I have not asked for it. It is what it is. So what, you got the finger, you don't think I have? You don't think I've had raving loon leftists in my face before?
The funny thing about all this is you would never see a Romney for President ad like this and if you did he would be completely savaged in the media.
I should probably make one myself with me boo hoo hooing and in tears about the one time at a roundtable with obama he told me to shut up and then he ran my dog over and laughed.
1. Yes, there was a period when the Democrats went wildly liberal -- as in George McGovern. Just as there was a period when the Republicans went wildly conservative with Barry Goldwater. Both parties have had their lousy presidents, as well -- for our Jimmy Carter there was your George Bush (the latter). I used to be a Republican, when the party had the likes of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. And, from time to time since I became a Democrat, I've voted for Republicans for Senate and House vacanices and governorships. But never again.
2. The "few bumps in the road" comment was reasonable when you are talking about the history of the mid-east in the last 50+ years. Naturally, Mr. Obama didn't mean the murder of the ambassador and 3 other Americans was a bump in the road, as he made clear at the ceremony when their bodies were returned or at the U.N. speech.
3. What's wrong with Obama appearing on "The View"? After all, it was just a few days ago when we suffered through Mr. Romney telling us -- on another television show -- that he sleeps in as little clothing as possible.
4. In terms of adding to the debt, apparently you missed where this nation's budget was under Clinton, as well as the Bush's wars that led us to the budget bust we had a little over 3 years ago.
5. As far as the size of the soft drinks you can buy...that gem came from a former Republican who became an independent. Bloomberg is not a Democrat. And every Democrat I know personally thinks the idea is dumb.
Most of your paragraph is your own words, so lets keep that in mind.
The truth of the matter is that 50% of households in the US receive some kind of federal assistance and the bottom 50% of all taxpayers pay 2% of the entire federal income tax burden. 50 million people alone are on food stamps. A lot of people with all of the tax credits and deductions they get, such as the earned income credit, don't pay a dime and actually get money back.
If you recall what Romney was talking about in the "secret tape" was that his message of lowering taxes and getting people back to work is probably not going to appeal to those people. Which is true, many of those people are not interested in that. I've talked to several obama lovers recently who are going to vote for him because they want more programs to add to the ones they already have. Why work when you can get years of unemployment, welfare, healthcare, food stamps, utility assistance, rent assistance, FHA loans? I know of a couple that proudly gets WIC and other benefits, despite the fact they make $85K a year and drive a $50K BMW X5. How they did it was they put down the husbands base income of $30k and ignored the overtime and bonuses he gets. The WIC office even knowingly did it. They don't want Romney because it might eventually mean they will have to pay for groceries at the supermarket the old fashioned way, with cash.
If social security was a private program, whoever was running it would be in jail because it is a bernie madoff type scheme and it's going to run out of money. There is no "social security trust fund". All social security taxes go into the general fund and get paid out that year for whatever the governments obligations. Whatever people paid in the past went to those people on benefits at the time. The problem is the number of people on the program and government obligations in general, way exceed what they take in these days, so the government needs to prioritize it's finances, which clearly it is not doing if you look at the federal budget. It is predicted by the CBO if things continue as they are, the entire US economy will cease to function by 2028.
Ultimately you run out of people's pockets to pick, so things have to change and clearly a lot of people are willing to ride the bandwagon right over the cliff. Some of us are not interested in taking that ride with you.
I don't know how old you are, but when you reach the mid-60s and are eligible for social security, I'll bet you take it. You could have the social security administration calculate what you have put into the system, figure in a fair amount of compounded interest, accept that amount of social security, and turn everything in excess of that amount back to the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
