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.
Many teachers belong to a union. When are the teachers' unions going to stand up and go on record to say... "Teachers can't adequately educate students when they are forced to teach a single class containing students who are functioning anywhere from 3+ years below grade-level to 5+ years above?"
Take some big unions like NYC and Chicago.
Sadly they embraced Common Core because the state took the Race To the Top money and now they are stuck with it.
Part of what the strike in Chicago by the teachers was about them being held responsible for the students that fail as part of their performance. They lost because that is what they agreed to when they took the money.
This goes I think to the heart of why pouring money into failing districts, well, fails. If you have one classroom with one teacher, you also have one pace of instruction, and kids who are too far from that pace one way or the other are poorly served. Failing districts have such a concentration of students on the low end that the pace ends up geared to them, which is fine for them (makes them less likely to fail out entirely) but leaves the kids who would be better served with a faster pace of instruction not getting a decent education either. No one has a good proven answer as to how to get the kids for whom the pace of instruction is appropriate to be able to absorb a faster one, but we sure as heck do know we can help those sitting in the class bored and passing notes but still getting A's, and how.
They got rid of tracking because they didn't want the slower learners to have low self esteem.
So they mixed the classes and now the slow learners are your trouble makers or they don't utter a word because of looking stupid in front of the smarter kids.
And they will all get pushed ahead because the school will lose Fed dollars for not making "adequate progress".
They got rid of tracking because they didn't want the slower learners to have low self esteem.
So they mixed the classes and now the slow learners are your trouble makers or they don't utter a word because of looking stupid in front of the smarter kids.
And they will all get pushed ahead because the school will lose Fed dollars for not making "adequate progress".
And this is where the left wingers who oppose vouchers get hypocritical.
We're told non stop that its governments job is to help those who are less fortunate and unable to get ahead, but when it comes to vouchers, the argument isnt that its governments job to help those less fortunate by giving them a helping hand up, but its the governments job to keep everyone else down..
Why on gods earth would ANYONE support keeping people down?
k12 is a massive social experiment gone amuck. i know of no better cost cutting measure than subcontracting. it has consistently proven #1 best method-- usually called managed competition-- or some other positive phrase-- but it boils down to subcontracting.
the bottom line if you cant fire or terminate or renegotiate contract, you cant improve service or reduce cost.
k12 is a massive social experiment gone amuck. i know of no better cost cutting measure than subcontracting. it has consistently proven #1 best method-- usually called managed competition-- or some other positive phrase-- but it boils down to subcontracting.
the bottom line if you cant fire or terminate or renegotiate contract, you cant improve service or reduce cost.
So long as the government funds something it will influence it. It is incredibly naive to think that private schools wont turn into the same "social experiment gone amok" once the flow of govt subsidies and hand outs find their way into the school budget.
And expect tuitions to rise at private schools once a third party (govt) stars paying.
Dont believe me? Look at the modern university system
So long as the government funds something it will influence it. It is incredibly naive to think that private schools wont turn into the same "social experiment gone amok" once the flow of govt subsidies and hand outs find their way into the school budget.
And if parents dont like what the schools turn into, they can leave and go to another school
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
And expect tuitions to rise at private schools once a third party (govt) stars paying.
Dont believe me? Look at the modernt university system
I agree with you here. Any school thats tuition is $6K, will suddenly go up to $7K if the voucher is $7k, or $8K etc..
But right now, K-12 education is actually more costly than some universities on a per student basis in some areas, which I think is utterly ridiculous. We just dont notice it because the costs are spread out among those who dont have children.
I can appreciate the idea of having choice, but I think the voucher system falls short in some respects:
School vouchers don't address the problem of the overabundance of disengaged parents.
School vouchers don't provide the guarantee of an educational atmosphere tailored to student abilities, which may relegate such a program to being merely a means of 'shuffling the problem around.'
An increasing number of parents object to the mandatory religious indoctrination found in most private school environments; and the shifting of public funds to such organizations is a legitimate 1st Amendment concern.
I can appreciate the idea of having choice, but I think the voucher system falls short in some respects:
School vouchers don't address the problem of the overabundance of disengaged parents.
And not having vouchers doesnt get parents engaged either, not a valid point
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala
School vouchers don't provide the guarantee of an educational atmosphere tailored to student abilities, which may relegate such a program to being merely a means of 'shuffling the problem around.'
And once again, the public school system doesnt tailor to students abilities either. In fact a voucher program would remove those from the public system who are capable of working within the system, leaving more money, and less students so the classes left could be tailored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala
An increasing number of parents object to the mandatory religious indoctrination found in most private school environments;
There is no mandatory religious indoctrination taking place, even if tehre was a voucher system. You would CHOOSE to send your kids to a school, YOU WANT TO..
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpinionInOcala
and the shifting of public funds to such organizations is a legitimate 1st Amendment concern.
Completely ridiculous. The 1st Amendment ensures freedom of religion, it doesnt forbid any money going towards them. When the Constitution was written, there were numerous government established churches.
If you agree that govt money taints the carriculum, why would any school that takes it be exempt?
I'm not in a better position to dictate to you what school your kids should attend. If you choose to send your kids to a school thats tainted more than others, thats YOUR CHOICE..
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.
