Fore!!!

[moondog]

Jan 28, 2009 11:56:46 GMT -5 subdjoe said:

Don't forget the intentional dumbing down of education to make it both easier to teach the kids, and to supposedly build the self esteme of those who can't or won't learn. Yes, some kids need special help, but it is no service to anyone to put them in with everyone else and then teach to the slowest.

I've see, and used to sort of gather (can't call it collecting since I didn't really have a system) old text books. The grade school and junior high texts from the 20s, 30s, and 40s would be deemed too difficult for high school today. Too many words, note enough pictures. Actual problems to solve in the math and english books. Nothing spoon fed. And, the kids were held accountable. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar counted not just in English classes, but in any class in which one had to write. Bring back some class room discipline, hold the students accountable again, allow the teachers to restore order, get the social engineering out of the text books, and maybe our schools will get better.

Martin L. Gross did a study of the education system and found that a majority of the teachers who only have a degree in "education" rather then a specific discipline, come from the bottom of their high school graduating classes. They have the lowest SAT scores. He concluded that education is being dumbed down because the teachers can only teach to the level they understand, which is a diminishing return because they have no real specific discipline to teach. In other words, you have C average students teaching our kids.

[moondog]

Jan 28, 2009 12:28:40 GMT -5 JustMyOpinion said:

TNG, on average private schools do a better job of getting academic results. I often wonder if it's because they can directly control the assests, or if the kids that go to private schools have a head start coming from families that place a high value on education. Maybe it's a little of both.

If public schools raise money to improve dilapidated classrooms, and offer cash in hand to teachers for supplies how is it that more money is the wrong answer? As I see it for now anyway maybe that is the best solution.

Simple. Because we pay to much to an excessive number of administrators and the money is not getting to the class room. Too many hands dipping into the pot before we pay for the real education. The liberal way.

[JustMyOpinion]

subdjoe, I'm not sure what it is with you, but it seems you really take issue with children that have self esteem problems.

I can tell you from EXPERIENCE that many kids need help with feeling good about themselves because they don't get it anywhere else.

Our system SUCKS as it is. Did you know that the so called testing for a child that has "issues" is substandard in public schools? Why f-ing bother at all as far as I'm concerned. If a child shows signs of learning disabilities and the parents cannot afford testing, like it or not public schools are obligated to provide education and are supposed to get to the bottom of the learning discrepancy. So, why not do it right the first time around, hire people with stellar qualifications, offer the best tests and then address the problems appropriately. Oh no, it's too expensive. Let's do piece meal work and spend money over years and years as a result of misdiagnosing the child and throw money at him/her long term.

There's a small window of time to really change a learning path of a child and afterward it is much more difficult. Why? Their brains are still forming while very young (pathways etc) and once they doubt themselves or feel bad about their capabilities (low self esteem) they find clever ways to avoid trying to succeed and as a result they view themselves as stupid, not normal, weird, and reversing that type of self talk is very difficult.

There's a test that is VERY helpful to children that struggle, it helps to determine if the child has a learning disorder, or if the learning problems stem from a mental health disorder (and more, see link)

Here's a link to demonstrate my point:

www.brainsource.com/nptests.htm

Testing can last 9-10 hours (over a period of three days, different weeks) depending on how many tests are necessary (everyone is different). Cost? That depends, but it can vary from $2500-$5500 for initial testing plus additional costs for follow up. Now, I'm sure that seems expensive, but really it is much cheaper than paying for long term treatment for a child that becomes a chronic drain on the system. Some children process differently, and if that can be determined and appropriate teaching methods are in place, what do you think the outcome would be?

Autism, and learning disorders are on the rise in addition to families changing. We need to wake up and do a better job for our children, self esteem and all.

[JustMyOpinion]

Jan 28, 2009 12:43:25 GMT -5 @moondog said:

Jan 28, 2009 9:46:51 GMT -5 JustMyOpinion said:

digger, didn't you post months ago that your wife purchased classroom supplies out of her own pocket?
How many public schools in SOCO have fund raisers similar to private schools? I know in Marin a small part of what makes their public schools so successful is fund raising to offset the lack of direct funding by the state. The schools can control where the money goes and you can bet there is accountability for it.

Look, this is BS. First, this is entire system has been in a shambles since the 1960's, when the NEA first went to Union status. It got worse when they endorsed their first Presidential Candidate in 1976 for the first time in 119 years since they were conceived. Ever since it has been pork barrel money sent to the NEA. The education system has been broken by liberal do-gooders who will not admit they broke the system

[/size].

[/quote]

moondog, I don't get it. What is BS? I know liberal this and that, but how does that apply to my post?

[The Avenger]

Because for decades liberals have been throwing money into the education system. They keep saying they need more and more money to fix it but after all this time it is only become WORSE.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this trend. More money won't help. There is no other nation on earth that I am aware of that spends so much on education with such POOR results.

[subdjoe]

JMO, the problem I have is the idea that everyone has to feel good about everything they do all the time. You SHOULDN'T feel good if you screw up. You SHOULD feel bad and try harder, or ask for help. But when kids are praised no matter what they do, that creates a false sense of accomplishment and self esteme. When a kid knows he or she has lived up to, or exceeded, a standard, then they know that they have done something of which they can be proud.

Also, some accountability helps. If a kid knows that no matter what, nothing bad will happen, then why bother putting out the effort? If they know that something unpleasnt will happen if they don't measure up, they try harder.

On the public v. private schools, yes, private schools get better results mostly because the schools and the parents hold the kids accountable. And have standards that must be met. Plus the teachers usually have the ability to control their classrooms without having parents screaming at them for daring to hold their 'little angel' accountable.

[The Big Dog]

Jan 28, 2009 9:46:51 GMT -5 JustMyOpinion said:

The schools can control where the money goes and you can bet there is accountability for it.

And there you have hit the nail on the head. The school districts, abetted by the state's Superintendent of Education office, dictate where the money is spent. As pointed out earlier, K-12 is funded from 50% of the state general fund budget, no matter how big or small that is. Last year that was something north of $60 billion dollars. And that figure does not include lottery money, federal block grants, local bond issues and whatever else they can finagle or raise. The public school system in this state is absolutely swimming in money.

The real issue is just exactly how all that money is spent. And there is the rub. It's being spent, in no small part, on layer upon layer of administration. Every single, last "program" has to have an administrator... and those jobs generally run to six figures per year. Just look at the various districts around SoCo for examples.

And I'd be careful in making wagers about accountability. It has been proven in district after district around the state that there is little to no accountability to where the money is going. Google the Oakland Unified School District and see just how bad a worse case example is. The Los Angeles Unified School District is another example... they passed a bond issue last year and are on their way back to the voters with another one, crying poor mouth every step of the way.

Public education in this state is an absolute mess, but not for want of money. The California Teacher's Association has become next to CAHP, CCPOA, and SEIU, the most powerful public employee union in the state. While unions still have some value in this day and age, the public employee unions are wholly and completely out of control.

Take anything a school or district, or the CTA for that matter, says concerning funding with a healthy dose of salt. They've managed to build a huge and overblown bureaucracy that isn't about teaching our kids... it's about furthering each and every employee's personal "rice bowl", exactly what bureaucracy does when it becomes self sustaining.

I mean this not as a rebuke but as a cautionary statement.... do some serious research on where the money really is going before joining the bandwagon cry of "we need more money". We've pumped at least a couple of trillion dollars into K-12 education in this state over the past decade or so, and our kids are doing worse with each passing year.

[moondog]

First, 39.5% of the General Fund Expenditures went to education in the 2006-2007 school year. And of all school funding, California paid for 62.1% of it with state taxpayer money. The General Fund Budget was $101,413,000,000, which means we paid $40,058,135,000 in California taxes alone to support education. Which in turn means that California schools were funded at a level of x * 0.621 = $40,058,135,000, or x = $40,058,135,000 / 0.621, or x = $64,505,853,462. So, if California schools are being funded at nearly $65 billion, why are they performing so badly?

Well, one recent report I read seems to hit the nail on the head. You can read the report here. It essentially places the blame squarely on our government. Our school system is being mismanaged by the state. We have such a heavy-handed bureaucracy that nothing is being done. Over regulation and not enough local say on how money is spent. We are number one in teacher’s salaries and well below the national average on per student spending, excluding teacher and administrator salaries. And teacher salaries are not performance based, as they should be.

Now, you can blame whom ever you like, but there is an inescapable fact here. The Democrats have controlled this state since the 1970’s and their stink is all over the way our education system is run. It is all over the funding mechanisms as well and the evaluation methods or lack of. Yep, if you can not see the failures of the progressive policies in the way our education system works then you are not only blind you are ignorant as well.

[moondog]

And, to answer or address the statement, "the schools can control where the money goes and you can bet there is accountability for it."

Well, you would not say that after reading the report. Local school districts have little to no say in where the money is spent. As to accountability, well it is time for that. We should immediately vote out every Democrat in California government and replace them with new people, the best people, regardless of party.

And, if you are interested, this site has a document showing school expenditures for the state. More then four fifths of California Statewide school spending was spent on salaries and benefits for teachers and administrators, with only 5.5% being spent on books and supplies.

This site is very comprehensive as well. This is where the previous document came from. It is a very well done site.

[JustMyOpinion]

TBD/moondog:

Ok you two, do you think I drive a Volkswagen bus with pretty flowers, and a peace sign on it?

How many public schools in SOCO have fund raisers similar to private schools? I know in Marin a small part of what makes their public schools so successful is fund raising to offset the lack of direct funding by the state. The schools can control where the money goes and you can bet there is accountability for it.

Private schools have parent run board members that work with the school's administration to help to decide where money is spent. SO, if that model is successful, and if PUBLIC schools were to operate the same way AFTER generating additional income from fund raisers far from the reach of the bureaucratic fat cats, wouldn't that be a helpful solution, at least for now? Especially since money isn't trickling down to the children where it is needed. Marin offsets their public schools budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, do you think they have dilapidated classrooms? Or, poor academic results? I'm just sayin...

[JustMyOpinion]

To add:
I read one of your links moondog and see that CA teachers make more (I don't have a problem with that), cost of living is higher here...

I get it that money is being siphoned from where it is really needed by wasteful spending. So, what do we do about it? Let the state slide into 50th place? Blame the Democrats and gloat that "they" are jerks, ignorant... Education is so critical to the well being of this state, and country for that matter. It is so upsetting to be a native Californian (as you are) and watch this state go down the toilet. Flush...

[JustMyOpinion]

Jan 28, 2009 13:56:45 GMT -5 subdjoe said:

JMO, the problem I have is the idea that everyone has to feel good about everything they do all the time. You SHOULDN'T feel good if you screw up. You SHOULD feel bad and try harder, or ask for help. But when kids are praised no matter what they do, that creates a false sense of accomplishment and self esteme. When a kid knows he or she has lived up to, or exceeded, a standard, then they know that they have done something of which they can be proud.

Also, some accountability helps. If a kid knows that no matter what, nothing bad will happen, then why bother putting out the effort? If they know that something unpleasnt will happen if they don't measure up, they try harder.

First of all, not all kids can function like a "normal" child and need the "atta-boy" to gain confidence and become independent.. I know you can't believe it, but it's true. I don't think anybody (that I know) ever said kids shouldn't have accountability, maybe it's the method of accountability that we differ.