Philadelphia student says teacher mocked her for wearing Romney shirt - Philly.com (http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-05/news/34261316_1_t-shirt-republican-shirt-teacher)


Guess it is only OK, if it is the Democratic view point talked about in schools.
I guess by controlling the teachers union you teach the kids only what you want them to know, so they will be your future voting block.

Makes me glad that we don't do public schools.

Yes, your entire school system sucks. We're happy with ours. Good luck.

Hello Padre:

I can't speak for that teacher, but she doesn't represent a liberal viewpoint. A true liberal invites ALL views.

excon

One teacher can't represent all teachers. There are loonies on both sides.

In order to have a fair and balanced education system, you need to have an education system, not a work place ruled by teachers

This is an insane situation and that teacher should have been removed right away pending further review.

In order to have a fair and balanced education system, you need to have an education system, not a work place ruled by teachers

So we should let the kids run the class room?


This is an insane situation and that teacher should have been removed right away pending further review.

Agreed!!

Tal why would my comment elicit a ridiculous comment from you. No, the kids don't run the classrooms, that is the problem now, they know too much about their rights and not enough about anything else. The system needs to go back to teaching useful stuff equiping kids for the work force. What you have now is a workplace ruled by teachers, but this doesn't benefit the kids. Teachers need to be held accountable, fired if needs be, and certainly not allowed to display ridiculous or political attitudes

rediculous (http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/rediculous.html)

Hello Padre:

I can't speak for that teacher, but she doesn't represent a liberal viewpoint. A true liberal invites ALL views.

Excon

Yeah right.



Liberals Admit to Discriminating Against Conservative Academicians
(http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/liberals-admit-to-discriminating-against)
Ronald Bailey|Oct. 3, 2012 9:46 am

When social psychologist Jonathan Haidt famously polled his fellow academics for their political leanings at the 2011 convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, only 3 hands out of a thousand were raised in response to his query about conservative leanings. Just three. As the New York Times reported:


“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity," Dr. Haidt concluded.... "Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert very open-mindedly generated one such alternate explanation for the paucity of conservative social psychologists:


[L]iberals may be more interested in new ideas, more willing to work for peanuts, or just more intelligent, all of which may push them to pursue the academic life while deterring their conservative peers.

Well, yes that is one possibility. However, a new study, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology," by Dutch psychologists finds that overt discrimination against conservatives (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf) [PDF] likely plays a role. The researchers surveyed several hundred social psychologists, most of them American, and found that 6 percent identified as "overall conservative" - certainly better than 3 in a 1,000 but nowhere near being representative of the larger population. The researchers then ask:


Why, then, did Haidt have such difficulty finding more than a handful of conservative colleagues? The current results suggest one answer: Members of the conservative minority are reluctant to express their political beliefs publicly. Survey 2 shows why: Hostility toward and willingness to discriminate against conservatives is widespread. One in six respondents said that she or he would be somewhat (or more) inclined to discriminate against conservatives in inviting them for symposia or reviewing their work. One in four would discriminate in reviewing their grant applications. More than one in three would discriminate against them when making hiring decisions. Thus, willingness to discriminate is not limited to small decisions. In fact, it is strongest when it comes to the most important decisions, such as grant applications and hiring.

This hostile climate offers a simple explanation of why conservatives hide their political opinions from colleagues. Given that all academics depend on the opinions of their colleagues—who judge their papers, grants, and job applications—and given that such judgments are typically made by multiple reviewers (most of whom are liberal), this means that outspoken conservatives face a very serious problem. Hence, the more conservative respondents are, the more they hide their political opinions.

Conservatives stay quiet (or stay out of academic psychology altogether) because they don't want the thundering herd of independent minds to stampede their careers into the dust.

Ah yes, the persecution complex again.

Hello again, Steve:

You guys don't know what liberal means, so it's not surprising that others don't either... I stand by my answer... A TRUE liberal is open to ALL viewpoints... Plus, we're extremely good dancers.

excon

Ah yes, the persecution complex again.

Ex made a claim, I countered with research. That's not a persecution complex, it's a facts-based response. Try and keep up.

A TRUE liberal is open to ALL viewpoints... Plus, we're extremely good dancers.
Dear excon:

All librarians in the world are true liberals, even the ones constrained by community voices to the contrary.

With great feeling,
WG

In the US do students go around screaming out their political affiliations? Because I have no idea what was political affiliation of any of my university friends.

Yep, here's some amazing liberal dancers.

E9gDroj3YYw#!

In the US do students go around screaming out their political affiliations? Because I have no idea what was political affiliation of any of my university friends.

The kid wore a T-shirt. Try and keep up.

The kid wore a T-shirt. Try and keep up.
That's one kid. Easy with the condescending comments please.

That's one kid. Easy with the condescending comments please.

LOL, getting under your skin?

So who's screaming?

Hello again, Steve:

Since you're painting with a broad brush, I suppose I could say ALL conservatives are science deniers like the two congressmen serving on the congressional science committee.

But, I wouldn't do that, because it would be STUPID.

excon

You painted the broad brush, true libs are "open to ALL viewpoints" (not so much according to the research) and "extremely good dancers." Maybe it's just the vagina costumes.

Since you're painting with a broad brush, I suppose I could say ALL conservatives are science deniers like the two congressmen serving on the congressional science committee.That would explain why conservatives cannot make any changes to the educational system, it's because their distrust of science and anything that's under Liberal Arts means that very few of them attend higher education. I guess when you believe that all you need to know comes from the bible and your priest then that's the results you get. Of course it doesn't stop from whining about persecution in the school system.

Hello again, Steve:

Try as you might to equate US with the underhanded and misguided techniques your side employs, just ain't going to work.. We're better people than conservatives are, and that's just so.

excon

PS> (edited) As an example, on the other site I work on, in response to a question about the twin towers, one respondent said, "kill all muslims".

Liberals don't say sh1t like that. Now, I'm sure you're going to fire up your Google and find one who does, but it won't change what is.

That would explain why conservatives cannot make any changes to the educational system, it;s because their distrust of science and anything that's under Liberal Arts means that very few of them attend higher education. I guess when you believe that all you need to know comes from the bible and your priest then that's the results you get. Of course it doesn;t stop from whining about persecution in the school system.

Talk about painting with a broad brush and moving the goalpost. Prove it. Any of it.

Hello again, Steve:

Try as you might to equate US with the underhanded and misguided techniques your side employs, just ain't going to work.. We're better people than conservatives are, and that's just so.

Yeah, referencing actual research showing libs intentionally discriminate against conservatives is certainly underhanded.


PS> (edited) As an example, on the other site I work on, in response to a question about the twin towers, one respondent said, "kill all muslims".

Liberals don't say sh1t like that. Now, I'm sure you're going to fire up your Google and find one who does, but it won't change what is.

And so if both sides have a few wackos (or just people who like to instigate on the internet), what's your point? Kind of hard to admit I'll find a few wackos on your side while saying libs are better people because of one idiot's remark.

PS> (edited) As an example, on the other site I work on, in response to a question about the twin towers, one respondent said, "kill all muslims".

Liberals don't say sh1t like that. Now, I'm sure you're going to fire up your Google and find one who does, but it won't change what is.

Stacey Dash found out how tolerant libs (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/10/08/actress-stacey-dash-hit-with-racially-charged-attacks-after-endorsing-romney/#ixzz28oeeMtos) are when she tweeted her support Romney...


Clueless” star Stacey Dash recently tweeted her support for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, accompanied by a patriotic swimsuit picture of herself.

But now her political viewpoint has become the subject of online attacks, with many expressing crude distaste that she isn’t endorsing President Obama – and race has become a key motivator behind the digital abuse.

“You’re an unemployed black woman endorsing Mitt Romney. You’re voting against yourself thrice. You poor beautiful idiot,” one Twitter user wrote, while @Black Voice wrote, “Stacey Dash had a perm since birth. I knew I couldn’t trust her.. lol.”

Others accused the actress of “voting for white supremacy,” claiming she “is white with a dark tan,” and calling Dash a slew of offensive names.

Several other Obama supporters even went as far as to encourage “the old hag” to “kill herself.” One suicide encourager is listed as a doctor and politically active Democrat in Washington D.C., and although he reportedly has deleted the inflammatory “kill yourself” tweet, it was captured (http://twitchy.com/2012/10/07/civility-alert-obama-supporters-urge-stacey-dash-to-kill-herself/) by social media news site, Twitchy.com.

Yep, all viewpoints welcome... especially if you're black.

Yep, all viewpoints welcome...especially if you're black.Hello again, Steve:

I think I said something about you rummaging around till you found a lib who you could throw in my face... You did good.

excon

No need to rummage, just current events.

That would explain why conservatives cannot make any changes to the educational system, it's because their distrust of science and anything that's under Liberal Arts means that very few of them attend higher education. I guess when you believe that all you need to know comes from the bible and your priest then that's the results you get. Of course it doesn't stop from whining about persecution in the school system.

It's because teacher's unions and school boards are afraid to compete with the private sector and don't want any dollars funneled from their failing schools toward something that works.


Gov. Bobby Jindal's voucher program that uses tax dollars to send students to private schools was ruled unconstitutional Friday by a state judge (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/30/state-judge-rules-louisiana-school-voucher-program-unconstitutional/#ixzz2E1vBul5E) who said it's improperly funded through the public school financing formula.

Judge Tim Kelley sided with arguments presented by teacher unions and school boards seeking to shut down the voucher program and other changes that would funnel more money away from traditional public schools.

More than 4,900 students are enrolled in 117 private schools with taxpayer dollars, in one of the largest voucher programs in the nation.

The judge said the method the Jindal administration, state education leaders and lawmakers used to pay for the voucher program violates state constitutional provisions governing the annual education funding formula, called the Minimum Foundation Program or MFP.

"The MFP was set up for students attending public elementary and secondary schools and was never meant to be diverted to private educational providers," Kelley wrote in a 39-page ruling.

These kids are escaping schools graded as a C or worse, from families with a household income less than 250% of the federal poverty line, but we can't have that can we? Better that students fail together than actually go to school and get an education.

Schools shouldn't compete like a business. And that's exactly what the for profit charter schools (some of them any way, and their effectiveness is still unclear) have become using students as a means to make money.

Kids are not a commodity.

Schools shouldn't compete like a business. And thats exactly what the for profit charter schools (some of them any way, and their effectiveness is still unclear) have become using students as a means to make money.

Kids are not a commodity.

I totally agree with you...

It's interesting to hear excon state that a true liberal listens to all points of view. Interesting given that on another thread I shared my conservative leaning (but still quite moderate) view on your political question about the great political divide of the country, and you derisively dismissed my comments as, I believe you called it, conservative "claptrap".

As a moderate conservative, I actively seek out all points of view and seriously try to consider their merit with an open and willing intention to change my mind if I should. Among the many liberals I know, none can even listen to an alternative point of view without wanting to change the subject or getting angry or calling names in response.

I left the democratic party because I found it so narrow and closed-minded.

It's because teacher's unions and school boards are afraid to compete with the private sector and don't want any dollars funneled from their failing schools toward something that works.



These kids are escaping schools graded as a C or worse, from families with a household income less than 250% of the federal poverty line, but we can't have that can we? Better that students fail together than actually go to school and get an education.

Your Federal government doesn't fund 'private' schools??


Tut

The world is vast place Tut and our ideas have yet to take on, like democracy it takes time

the world is vast place Tut and our ideas have yet to take on, like democracy it takes time


Yes, I guess you are right. It is obvious that no one is interested in any Aussie ideas.

Tut

Trouble is, Tut, we have given so much, the world just has to catch up, Trade Unions, Women's Suffrage, Secret Ballots, Compulsory Voting, Compulsory Education, the stump jump plow, wifi, to name a few, it's just too much for some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_inventions

In our system there is no place for federal funding of school systems ,private or public. That the Federal Government has interposed itself into that doesn't make it constitutional .

Schools shouldn't compete like a business. And thats exactly what the for profit charter schools (some of them any way, and their effectiveness is still unclear) have become using students as a means to make money.

Kids are not a commodity.

These schools are not "for profit" entities so that's a straw man. They are only in existence to educate and they do it well. You're just afraid public schools CAN'T compete with private schools to continue their liberal indoctrination.

If anyone is treating kids as commodities it's the public schools, fighting for every tax dollar they can get to continue the status quo with entrenched union teachers that you can't fire no matter how bad they are. We saw on it display in the Wisconsin when teachers were more concerned with grabbing fraudulent doctor's notes so they could protest while calling the governor Hitler than teaching the kids. But they did it for the kids, right? Bwa ha ha!

Your Federal government doesn't fund 'private' schools???


Tut

As always strings come attached to federal dollars. Why would they want to be constrained by the feds?

Hello again, Don't:


and you derisively dismissed my comments as, I believe you called it, conservative "claptrap".I appreciated your post. But, after all the flowery talk about being a "moderate" it WAS the same right wing claptrap I hear from the OTHER conservatives here, who DON'T flower up their posts...

I meant NO disrespect. I'm sure you're a wonderful fellow, and I'll NEVER insult YOU. But, your views are fair game. I INVITE your participation... The other wingers here need all the help they can get.

Excon

PS> (edited) By the way, I've been arguing politics with these guys for YEARS, and I AM quite fond of them.

It's interesting to hear excon state that a true liberal listens to all points of view. Interesting given that on another thread I shared my conservative leaning (but still quite moderate) view on your political question about the great political divide of the country, and you derisively dismissed my comments as, I believe you called it, conservative "claptrap".

Ex derisively dismisses everything, but he grows on you (like a fungus).

Just kidding, he's harmless.

Time for a funguside

As always strings come attached to federal dollars. Why would they want to be constrained by the feds?


A National curriculum would be one reason. Do all schools over there follow a national curriculum?


Tut

A National curriculum would be one reason. Do all schools over there follow a national curriculum?


Tut

In theory yes they do. But it is up to the States to set the goals. So if a child is in one state they may be working on something different in another. But in the end the same goals that were set forth are achieved.

Example: The government (federal) sets the standard goal to be A B C D.

States can make their own choices as to how to accomplish the goals and when.

State 1 might work with CDAB. State 2 might do it ACBD.

In the end it is the same but the brush is narrowed when painting the picture of education as a whole.

In theory yes they do. But it is up to the States to set the goals. So if a child is in one state they may be working on something different in another. But in the end the same goals that were set forth are achieved.

Example: The government (federal) sets the standard goal to be A B C D.

States can make thier own choices as to how to acomplish the goals and when.

State 1 might work with CDAB. State 2 might do it ACBD.

In the end it is the same but the brush is narrowed when painting the picture of education as a whole.

I don't know how Tut can be proposing a national cirriculum when it is only recently standardisation has occurred to us as a means to solve certain problems. The problem is always to get the teachers on the same page as far as achievement is concerned. We have recently found there is a problem with keeping certain senior students in the school system and ways must be found to prevent them from degrading the performance of others

I don't know how Tut can be proposing a national cirriculum when it is only recently standardisation has occured to us as a means to solve certain problems. The problem is always to get the teachers on the same page as far as achievement is concerned. We have recently found there is a problem with keeping certain senior students in the school system and ways must be found to prevent them from degrading the performance of others
And I think that mainstreaming disabled students "degrades" the performance of others, although it does offer advantages to the students that are not curriculum related. And standardized tests have their place, but they also dumb down teaching. No longer are students taught how to think. There's no time in the school day for that because the students have to be taught all the trivia so they will pass the standardized test.

And I think that mainstreaming disabled students "degrades" the performance of others, although it does offer advantages to the students that are not curriculum related. And standardized tests have their place, but they also dumb down teaching. No longer are students taught how to think. There's no time in the school day for that because the students have to be taught all the trivia so they will pass the standardized test.

BAM ! Love it when we agree on something. Standard tests are lazy ways to evaluate teacher's performance. But I think where the system errs is in automatic tenure . But I do think those days are coming to an end.

A National curriculum would be one reason. Do all schools over there follow a national curriculum?

Tut

They all use the same alphabet and numbers? Pretty much the whole point of being a private school is to be free to do things differently.

And I think that mainstreaming disabled students "degrades" the performance of others, although it does offer advantages to the students that are not curriculum related. And standardized tests have their place, but they also dumb down teaching. No longer are students taught how to think. There's no time in the school day for that because the students have to be taught all the trivia so they will pass the standardized test.

Not really the point I was making, disabled students need to be dealt with in appropriate facilities so as not to disturb the progress of others but this shouldn't mean isolation. No I was speaking about those older students who have no real interest because for various reasons they don't really see their future being benefited and so they become disruptive, even aggressive. We have a lot of these in our school system, they are not allowed to drop out, legally they must attend to a certain age, but probably they have reached their potential shortly after attending high school for the first time. They know school attendance isn't going to lead to that good job.

Evaluating teacher performance cannot rely on test outcomes although the number of passes or failures may be indicative of the quality of teaching. There must be a way of weeding out the teachers who have lost their passion and are just doing a job

they don't really see their future being benefited and so they become disruptive, even aggressive.
I'm so out of the loop now, but I'm thinking we offer alternative schools for these young people who have aged out and may be behavior problems, are segregated from the rest of the students for everyone's benefit. Teacherjenn would know.

Yes we have them, they are called reform schools or juvenile detention centres

You have to do more than just teach, as some students have other issues to be addressed. The earlier and quicker those issues are effectively addresssed the better.

Schools are not the place to address social issues, while they might be a point of first contact they have a specific role to play and that is delivering education, anything beyond life skills training should be delivered by someoneelse. This is the mistake government makes, it tries to make existing services responsible for delivering new initiatives. This is the result of trying to minimise government spending and services

Schools are where social skills and interactions take place and are also the only safe haven many kids have. Adults are not perfect and since most of the day is spent at school there have to be programs that enhance and teach those coping skills and give positive direction to young minds to go along with the ABC's.

In the ideal world parents, teachers and the adminitration works together, but that's not always the case, but why should kids suffer for adult flaws, or the lack of funds for a balanced education and learning experience?

Everybody isn't going to business school or be lawyers, or scientist. Nor are there enough alternatives or charter schools for everyone either.

Schools are where social skills and interactions take place and are also the only safe haven many kids have. Adults are not perfect and since most of the day is spent at school there have to be programs that enhance and teach those coping skills and give positive direction to young minds to go along with the ABC's.

In the ideal world parents, teachers and the adminitration works together, but thats not alway the case, but why should kids suffer for adult flaws, or the lack of funds for a balanced education and learning experience?

Everybody isn't going to business school or be lawyers, or scientist. Nor are there enough alternatives or charter schools for everyone either.

So you think government programing is the answer ? We all have flaws and almost nobody had a perfect childhood. It is part of what makes us who we are. That shouldn't require government intervention.

It's and old but flawed argument, Tal, that schools should do more than educate. The right place to impart social skills is in the home, schools can do little more than introduce the student to the idea.

This is not an ideal world, teachers have a specific role to play and if they do that well, the students leave the school with some important skills which might make them employable or able to handle higher education. We are now in an era when few chilrdren might be able to pursue a favoured career path. To suggest they address social issues as well is one reason why schools don't achieve the purpose they are provided for.. You cannot turn the school into a quasi family, to do so sends the child the wrong signals, piting child against family because the teacher becomes the primary authority figure. I have seen it myself, a child bursting into tears with frustration when they find the information given to them by a teacher was wrong. Let teachers teach the subjects they are qualified to teach and let other's interact to deliver the services they are trained to deliver

The right place to impart social skills is in the home ... Let teachers teach the subjects they are qualified to teach and let others interact to deliver the services they are trained to deliver
But parents aren't imparting skills in the home. And those "others" are who?

I never said anything about social issues, but kids do have personal issues and the school does have to at least work with parents and local officials to address them whatever they may be.

Federal and state have to support those efforts with resources and options to help the locals. No one raises and educates kids in a vacuum, it's a collective effort.

Kids have personal issues because boundries are not implemented in the home and disciple is all but non existent. The child is not the centre of everything and the sooner children are taught they have a place by parents the sooner schools can get back to doing what they are supposed to do. Parents aren't imparting skills because they were not taught them in the first place by their parents. The namby pamby ideas implemented over the years have only left parents powerless to implement discipline.

The vacuum exists now because of wrong policies, particularly discipline policies. And lack of self discipline is at the root of these issues we think children have. I put it to you ADHD was unknown before junk food and the permissive society

The reality is there are problems to solve with our kids and the schools whether parents are doing the right thing or not for whatever reason.

You can't just discard the kids becaue the adults are whack. That's a lousy way to raise kids or run a society.

kids have personal issues because boundaries are not implemented in the home and disciple is all but non existent. The child is not the centre of everything and the sooner children are taught they have a place by parents the sooner schools can get back to doing what they are supposed to do. Parents aren't imparting skills because they were not taught them in the first place by their parents. The namby pamby ideas implemented over the years have only left parents powerless to implement discipline.
What will change that? How can we get parents back to properly parenting their kids?

Stop letting them cop out, make them personably responsible for their children's behaviour and fine them if necessary, the hip pocket nerve does wonders. Immediate suspension of the child in school for any bad behaviour so that the parent becomes part of the solution from the start

stop letting them cop out, make them personably responsible for their childrens behaviour and fine them if necessary, the hip pocket nerve does wonders. Immediate suspension of the child in school for any bad behaviour so that the parent becomes part of the solution from the start
Who's going to oversee this? The schools? I don't believe that's their job, although they would be the ones closest to the situation. And what about all those parents who are just good enough, who just scrape by in parenting and whose kids are just barely making it but could do so much better?

At the library I worked at (and at many other libraries), there was/is a weekly parenting session. Mothers brought their young children and were taught how to cuddle with their kids and read to them and talk about counting and colors and shapes in the books and learn how to ask questions to stimulate their kids' interest in what was being read. These moms were taught things you and I wouldn't think twice about doing, but we had good moms to teach us, whereas these moms had no one to teach them how to be good mothers.

It seems like schools and libraries and maybe churches and local volunteer groups and village organizations all need to work together even more closely to get parents on the right track in knowing how to parent.

Who's going to oversee this? The schools? I don't believe that's their job, although they would be the ones closest to the situation. And what about all those parents who are just good enough, who just scrape by in parenting and whose kids are just barely making it but could do so much better?

At the library I worked at (and at many other libraries), there was/is a weekly parenting session. Mothers brought their young children and were taught how to cuddle with their kids and read to them and talk about counting and colors and shapes in the books and learn how to ask questions to stimulate their kids' interest in what was being read. These moms were taught things you and I wouldn't think twice about doing, but we had good moms to teach us, whereas these moms had no one to teach them how to be good mothers.

It seems like schools and libraries and maybe churches and local volunteer groups and village organizations all need to work together even more closely to get parents on the right track in knowing how to parent.

No bleeding heart solutions here please, there are plenty of resources and yet despite that our societies are going to hell in a hand cart and it is all becuause of lack of discipline and responsibility.

Enforcement comes through the courts but the instigators of action must come from the teachers where the problem is identified in the school and the police where it is identified on the street and from social workers where it is identifed else where. I know the cry is resourcing and lack of funds but look where this lack gets us. It is not less expenditure that is needed but expenditure in the right places.

I understand that a falling back in faith leaves many without the right contacts and leadership but there has been too much buck passing. It is a community problem but laws need to be changed so the community, in whatever form, can take action. Too much of this PC garbage and rights garbage. That hasn't taught anyone respect for anything. What is needed is some real action. It's not kid gloves that are needed in many instances, it is the birch and not just for the kids but for the parents. You don't see these problems in Singapore where community standards are enforced. Birch a few parents and you will see the kids come into line real quick

But I'm not looking at hardcore cases of families that groom young criminals. I'm as worried about the only barely adequate parenting. Then what?

As I said fine them make them take responsibility and resign yourself to the fact that some kids are already ruined and they might carry the problem to the next generation but modifying their behaviour will have an impact. There are ways to turn kids around but it takes resources and the will of the state to put those resources in place and keep them there. It has to be tough love, boundries and consequences. No more pats on the head and sympathy, that hasn't worked and yes, you might have to impinge on someone's liberty to make an @ss of themselves

They all use the same alphabet and numbers? Pretty much the whole point of being a private school is to be free to do things differently.


Lifting your standards of literacy and numeracy in schools won't work using a 'supermarket' approach to education.

Tut

It's not like the public school system uses tried and proven basal methods . What good is standardization of the methods if the ones they are using is the latest fad ? Better alternative would be to use a supermarket approach and find out which ones are effective.

it's not like the public school system uses tried and proven basal methods . What good is standardization of the methods if the ones they are using is the latest fad ? Better alternative would be to use a supermarket approach and find out which ones are effective.


Wrong choice of words on my part. By 'supermarket I actually meant 'fads'

Tried and true methods based on the best research would be the best approach in the public schools A national curriculum would allow the widespread allocation of resources that allow for the best outcomes when undertaking standardized tests. Best practice best outcomes.


Tut

I'm in Wondergirl's camp. There is way too much emphasis on standardized testing .The teachers know that the outcome of the tests are the measure they are judged on . So the teachers teach to the test and ignore every other aspect of teaching the subject to the students.

That's what a national cirruculum is for so certain subjects and content must be taught and standardised tests test the effectiveness of teaching that cirruculum by measuring the knowledge of the students. The questions should be taken randomly from the whole cirruculum just as any tests are designed. To narrow the tests to a small part of the cirruculum is to defeat the purpose of the tests and promotes opportunism. This is entirely different to measuring basic literacy and numeracy

I think it's pretty interesting that we keep changing to new methods of education and our kids are getting dumber. How about this -

Focus on reading, writing and math and have the children practice all of these skills also in learning addititonally American and World history, and basic sciences - biology, chemistry and physics. Teach them geography and spelling. When they get into middle school, add more literature, more challenging research and writing and technology. Offer courses in civics and study skills. Do this early and the kids will have the ability to learn whatever they need to learn and will have solid core knowledge.

We are so busy trying to cater to every culture and need, we've abandoned the basics. Children with special needs do need the same basics, perhaps just taught more slowly or in a different manner, relying on a different sensory focus - they might do better learning visually or orally or in a hands-on manner. But keeping it basic permits better assessment of what is working.

Here in my home city of Chicago, core problems are that the kids are hungry and unsafe. Some of our neighborhoods are war zones. I am in favor of bringing in the national guard until these neighborhoods are safe for average people, including kids going to and from school. When a neighborhood is under siege, people have to just accept the hassles of their streets being under patrols and curfews until the problem can be resolved. Unfortunately, this has been turned into a racial issue instead of a safety issue, which is kind of dumb. Black men are killing black men, women and children - how is it racist to patrol the neighborhood to protect the good black people from the criminal element among them?

I see all kinds of gimicks and gadgets used in school and so much time is a total waste. The kids do not learn basic information and skills well enough to apply what they know in new situations. In the days when I was in school it's true that some children with special needs were not adequately served, but the basic approach worked beautifully for the other kids. The problems were not with teaching method but with economics - kids being hungry, inadequately clothed, unrested and unsafe. Instead of changing our entire education approach in troubled schools, we should leave the educational process alone and address what's really at fault. Feed the kids, implement uniforms (and get subsidies if kids can't afford them). Offer breakfast and lunch so every child has at least two meals a day even if they get nothing at home. Beef up school counseling resources and coordinate with family services so that the approach is not to get parents "in trouble" if they are struggling, but rather get help.

And the politics - we need to keep it out of the classroom. Teach the kids how to think and core knowledge, not what to think.

Hard to concentrate on the basics when teachers have to teach the proper way to roll a condum on a cucumber .

Here in my home city of Chicago, core problems are that the kids are hungry and unsafe. Some of our neighborhoods are war zones. I am in favor of bringing in the national guard until these neighborhoods are safe for average people, including kids going to and from school. When a neighborhood is under seige, people have to just accept the hassles of their streets being under patrols and curfews until the problem can be resolved. Unfortunately, this has been turned into a racial issue instead of a safety issue, which is kind of dumb. Black men are killing black men, women and children - how is it racist to patrol the neighborhood to protect the good black people from the criminal element among them?

I.

You know that sort of thing has been tried back in 2007, we did what we called the intervention, to protect aboriginal kids from molestation and to improve health, education, etc.

A certain area of the nation was essentially cordoned off, invaded by the army, doctors, administrators, The welfare recipricants lost control of their income, some people just migrated but we are talking about a white community imposing its will on a black community. The intervention still isn't over years later and the general verdicit is it caused a lot of grief and it really hasn't made that much difference. Maybe some problems like alcohol have had some attention, kids have been forced to attend school, maybe at some level health and even housing have been dealt with but the basic problems remain, welfare dependence, drug dependence, squalor, low literacy, low school attendance, violence, unemployment. We had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to do it. In the process we have abolished peak aborigional organisations and haven't done much consultation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Territory_National_Emergency_Response

I guess what I am saying is that if you specifically target a race or even a district you will get allegations of racism and you may not succeed

You know that sort of thing has been tried back in 2007, we did what we called the intervention, to protect aboriginal kids from molestation and to improve health, education, etc.

A certain area of the nation was essentially cordoned off, invaded by the army, doctors, administrators, The welfare recipricants lost control of their income, some people just migrated but we are talking about a white community imposing its will on a black community. The intervention still isn't over years later and the general verdicit is it caused a lot of grief and it really hasn't made that much difference. Maybe some problems like alcohol have had some attention, kids have been forced to attend school, maybe at some level health and even housing have been dealt with but the basic problems remain, welfare dependence, drug dependence, squalor, low literacy, low school attendence, violence, unemployment. We had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to do it. In the process we have abolished peak aborigional organisations and haven't done much consultation
Northern Territory National Emergency Response - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Territory_National_Emergency_Response)

I guess what I am saying is that if you specifically target a race or even a district you will get allegations of racism and you may not succeed



Our police force and social service personnel are very well integrated in the Chicago area. As many as not serving in these occupations are the same race as the community they are serving. I don't think it's quite the same as white people taking over an aboriginal area. The division is not between races but between factions - one gang against another, and people who do not want gangs in their neighborhoods being intimidated by those in the gangs. Pretty much all of these people in the case of Chicago are black Americans, born and raised in the US. The people cannot help themselves without intervention by force because they are intimidated by violence.

Our police force and social service personnel are very well integrated in the Chicago area. As many as not serving in these occupations are the same race as the community they are serving. I don't think it's quite the same as white people taking over an aboriginal area. The division is not between races but between factions - one gang against another, and people who do not want gangs in their neighborhoods being intimidated by those in the gangs. Pretty much all of these people in the case of Chicago are black Americans, born and raised in the US. The people cannot help themselves without intervention by force because they are intimidated by violence.

Hey I know where you are coming from and I know you have a different level of violence over there but don't think we didn't have black police and automonous areas before the intervention.We are talking about indigenous people, equivalent maybe to your amerindians, territory is a big thing to them. The problem was a black community problem and don't think the people didn't know what was going on, and who was doing it. The nature of the problem was different, domestic violence, rape, incest, child molestation, violence, drunkenness and drugs. We just got to the point of saying there is a law, one law for the whole country, and it is going to be enforced, because what you are doing just isn't working. When you intervene you do more than kick some heads and show a presence on the streets because all those problems that were hidden will surface. If you make it hot for the gang bangers they will move and so it has to be tackled in more than a neighbourhood, maybe it has to become state wide, which is what we did. In your case they could just move across the border and then maybe it becomes a federal problem

Hello again, tom:


hard to concentrate on the basics when teachers have to teach the proper way to roll a condum on a cucumber .I'm beginning to think that you believe pregnancy is PUNISHMENT for screwing around, and an abortion EXCUSES it. Clearly, you're NOT interested in STOPPING unwanted pregnancies...

Excon

hard to concentrate on the basics when teachers have to teach the proper way to roll a condum on a cucumber .

Or sing odes to Obama.

Or sing odes to Obama.
I'd be willing to sing a duet with him. Great voice he's got (she said Yoda-like)!

I'd be willing to sing a duet with him. Great voice he's got (she said Yoda-like)!

Perhaps you could just sing to him. Something like "You're So Vain" or "You're No Good." :-)

Led Zepp was in the White House last week . Maybe he sang a duet of 'Dazed and Confused ' with them . Of course the more conspiracy minded would claim he sang 'The Immigrant Song '.

" Communication Breakdown" might be an appropriate theme for the fiscal cliff talks.

Hello again, Steve:

Frankly, I'm OK with going over the cliff, and STAYING over. The cuts combined with the tax increases WILL fix things rather quickly. What's wrong with that, right wingers?

excon

I'm OK with it too. But 1st the Repubics in the House should vote to extend all the Bush era tax rates ;and blame the President for the eventual tax increase on the "middle class" .
As far as the fiscal cliff... I think it's a bunch of scare tactics like Geithner and Paulson's chicken little act before TARP.

Hello again, Steve:

Frankly, I'm ok with going over the cliff, and STAYING over. The cuts combined with the tax increases WILL fix things rather quickly. What's wrong with that, right wingers?

excon

I'm not only OK with it I'm having a little fun watching Dems steer clear of the liberal agenda of tax increases and defense cuts like the plague.

Yesterday Mitch McConnell tried putting Obama's plan up for a vote but Harry Reid objected. How dare he ask for Dems to back their leader's carefully designed "balanced approach".

Hey what's the problem with a 4% tax increase anyway and a little less defense spending. It is like it's 100% either way. You get a movement in interest rates on the mortgage it is going to cost you more, and you get to put a little more into social security and a little less out of medicare. This is panic for panic sake. A little creative accounting and you should be able to keep your income below $200,000