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.
It's about the common usage and how Trump uses it to his advantage.
I don't see how it's wrong to name the school from which one earned their degree. I gave you another example, in Journalism. Doing so is commonplace. I have NO idea why you believe otherwise. Perhaps living in a thick bubble?
Quote:
But it is worrisome that he lies about his honors status and class rank.
Did Trump really say that? Or was that the MSM reporting fake news again? I would call that lazy, sloppy journalism. It's been known since at least 1984 that Trump wasn't listed in the 1968 commencement program as receiving honors.
Also, your example is exactly how I would expect a person to state where they got their BA. Trump got his BA from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business.
He shortened it to Wharton. No big deal. The exact same thing can be said of those who earn advanced degrees from the same school. They earned it from Penn, but they say Wharton.
You've already been proven wrong (read the TIME article I linked), so stop repeating misinformation.
It is not misinformation. Read the actual NAEP report which adjusts for socioeconomic levels. I have merely cited facts from the actual report, not cherry picked data to suit my own agenda. Again, the report can be found here
Quote:
Nope. If all of our public school kids went to religious order private schools, which have the best results regardless of socioeconomic level, scores in every area would improve.
Untrue. Read the above report.
Quote:
Again, because you seem to be having a very difficult time comprehending this: the TYPE of private school matters. The EVIDENCE is that religious order private (Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, etc.) parochial schools educate students the best, regardless of socioeconomic level.
I am sorry but it is not I who am having difficulty comprehending anything.
Quote:
Possibly, but that still doesn't go far enough unless schools also achievement/ability group students. What we have now is teachers teaching to the bottom level while using smart kids as unpaid teacher's aides to teach their classmates what they already know. Both of those double down on smart kids learning literally no new material for several years.
You clearly have no idea about what the German model entails.
At the age of 10, children's abilities are assessed (with considerations made for the child's achievement between the ages of 6 and 10) and they are then placed into one of the three 'tiers' of school.
Quote:
My kids were the latter kids. The kids reading at a 7th grade level in 2nd grade. Utter nightmare. They were miserable. There were a few slight accommodations made for them at my insistence, but read my post on the Illinois legislation I had passed and enacted into law to see the rest of the story.
THAT'S what public schools did to my kids. All because they cater to the lowest common denominator and don't give a damn about the smart kids.
I am genuinely sorry that your public schools for your children are not up to par. As it stands, I wouldn't send my children to schools in my district either. I agree that they are in dire need of improvement. However, I believe in reinvesting and restructuring our existing public system as opposed to moving towards a more heavily privatized system.
It is not misinformation. Read the actual NAEP report which adjusts for socioeconomic levels. I have merely cited facts from the actual report, not cherry picked data to suit my own agenda. Again, the report can be found here
They do not break out private schools into types. There is no data on religious order private schools compared to other private schools. That's the problem. As such, the data is worthless.
Quote:
I am genuinely sorry that your public schools for your children are not up to par. As it stands, I wouldn't send my children to schools in my district either. I agree that they are in dire need of improvement. However, I believe in reinvesting and restructuring our existing public system as opposed to moving towards a more heavily privatized system.
Do you have any idea how many parents have tried, myself included? They don't have to do anything. Public schools get money from the taxpayers, regardless, so they won't budge. There's no accountability whatsoever. Now if the money followed the student and many opted to leave, then they might start to think about making changes.
You clearly have no idea about what the German model entails.
At the age of 10, children's abilities are assessed (with considerations made for the child's achievement between the ages of 6 and 10) and they are then placed into one of the three 'tiers' of school.
Actually, I do. As a US teen, I attended Gymnasium in Laatzen. And age 10 is too late. Students need to be ability/skill grouped from day 1. Flexible groupings, in which students can move up or down, as needed.
They do not break out private schools into types. There is no data on religious order private schools compared to other private schools. That's the problem. As such, the data is worthless.
No, it isn't worthless. They did break it down into Catholic, Lutheran, Christian and Secular.
However, you are correct in that Jesuit schools are marginally better, at least according to the CEP study.
Directly from the CEP study:
The study found that low-income students from urban public high schools generally did as well academically and on long-term indicators as their peers from private high schools, once key family background characteristics were considered. In particular, the study determined that when family background was taken into account, the following findings emerged:
1. Students attending independent private high schools, most types of parochial high schools, and public high schools of choice performed no better on achievement tests in math, reading, science, and history than their counterparts in traditional public high schools.
2. Students who had attended any type of private high school ended up no more likely to attend college than their counterparts at traditional public high schools.
3. Young adults who had attended any type of private high school ended up with no more job satisfaction at age 26 than young adults who had attended traditional public high schools.
4. Young adults who had attended any type of private high school ended up no more engaged in civic activities at age 26 than young adults who had attended traditional public high schools.
Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that students who attend private high schools receive neither immediate academic advantages nor longer-term advantages in attending college, finding satisfaction in the job market, or participating in civic life.
This study did identify two exceptions to this general finding. The primary exception is that students who attended independent private high schools had higher SAT scores than public school students, which gave independent school students an advantage in getting into elite colleges. (These independent private schools enroll many students from affluent families and are often expensive and fairly elite themselves, with tuitions as high as $30,000 a year.) This finding suggests that while these schools are no better at teaching the subject matter, they may provide students with test-taking skills that help them further their education, or they may enroll students with higher IQs (aptitude tests like the SAT are a better measure of IQ than achievement tests are).
A second exception is that one special type of private school, Catholic schools run by holy orders (such as Jesuit schools), did have some positive academic effects. There are very few such schools, however; most Catholic schools are run by their diocese, not by
an order (Meyer, 2007).
As I said earlier, Jesuit schools make up only about 25% of the approx 1200 Catholic schools in the country. That is hardly enough schools to make a significant impact or alternative.
Do you have any idea how many parents have tried, myself included? They don't have to do anything. Public schools get money from the taxpayers, regardless, so they won't budge. There's no accountability whatsoever. Now if the money followed the student and many opted to leave, then they might start to think about making changes.
I am sorry that your efforts were in vain. I truly am. I hope things have since worked out for your children.
However, I believe that the changes need to be made at a national or at least state level - grass roots or district level isn't enough for the kinds of shifts I would like to see within our education system.
I as the taxpayer am the purchaser of the product--an educated populace. I don't consider the parents or students to be the primary purchasers, but rather the beneficiaries of the schooling. For people who opt out of public education, the cost should be entirely on them. That includes homeschooling and private school.
My,my, my, just a bit elitist aren't you? ALL taxpayers are purchasers of the educational product and, sorry to break the news to you it includes the parents. Those are who should have the most say in this as THEY are the ones most affected.
Why are you so afraid to let parents have a choice? Afraid they might put you and the public school monopoly out of business?
so after all this time your best answer is a random sampling of non-sense. How do vouchers handle special ed students? As this is where bulk of public education spending and resources go. How do we ensure vouchers solve problems for parents if they don't cover full cost of education (again as most private schools lack resources to deal with special ed/needs students. How is home schooling valid more any family where both parents work? How do we ensure homeschooling meets any basic let alone rigorous standards? Unless you love freedom so much you're fine with home schools that teach XBOX and Jesus? You've literally got nothing, just buzzwords and overly simplistic fairy tails...
Another member of the monopoly that's afraid of losing their job to competition.
My,my, my, just a bit elitist aren't you? ALL taxpayers are purchasers of the educational product and, sorry to break the news to you it includes the parents. Those are who should have the most say in this as THEY are the ones most affected.
Why are you so afraid to let parents have a choice? Afraid they might put you and the public school monopoly out of business?
All these discussions ignore the fact that there should not be failing schools in the first place. Since we are all taxpayers, we should be demanding a better product for our money. Unfortunately, few want to pay what it would take to get all schools up to snuff.
I disagree that the parents should have the most say, as they are not the ones charged with running the schools, but rather ensuring that their own children do well. The taxpayers, through their representatives, should have the most say, whether or not they have school-aged children. Parents have their avenues to influence their children's schooling through the local school boards and Parent-Teacher Association.
Rather than creating a parallel educational system, our resources should be going into ensuring that every child receives a quality school experience. I am a parent, a taxpayer, and a teacher. I am invested heavily in ensuring that every child gets the kind of school experience that my children had. I'm so elitist that I have spent most of the last three decades working with the poorest of the poor to try to make that happen.
Why are you so reluctant to admit that having failing schools is abhorrent in our nation? Because you know that there are children whose parents are so uninvolved that they would never go out of their way to get their child into a non-public school. Are you okay with consigning those children to a poor education just so a few can get into alternative placements? Afraid they might grow up and compete with your children/grandchildren for jobs?
I am actively trying to develop more taxpayers. I see that as a good thing. Many of my students come from homes where no one has ever really worked and where nearly all expenses are paid by taxpayers. Why would you want to impede that?
Another member of the monopoly that's afraid of losing their job to competition.
I guess reading comprehension is out of grasp in your world. I’ve already stated I have no role in education outside of being a parent and someone who believes in value of educated population. Please continue with your straw man arguments with yourself. It does a great job of showing how hollow your “argument” is.
I should add that our district has a shortfall of nearly 200 teachers that has persisted now for over two school years. There is a shortage of people willing to do the job. That won't change unless salaries increase dramatically and working conditions improve. There is no danger that any licensed teacher will lose a job outside of extreme circumstances.
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.
