End government schools

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

I'm actually joined this site just to respond and aqquire a little insight to the "IMO" of others about teaching. I going thru community college this year moving towards an AAS geared towards education and eventually a BS in Mathamatics and or Science. While I do agree that the Teachers' Union does need to regulate and implement a better system to oust sub-par teachers... to say that they are being paid well is ultimately laughing at your children's provider for the most crucial years of their life. A large majority of students will not move on to college and will thus end most of the "across the board" education they will recieve. Raising pay will not only make it a more lucrative choice for would be college students,.. but the ensuing raise in teacher population would allow to better select qualified teachers while baring ones that do not reach the mark. Further more.. if anyone has ever gone to a crappy school in the heart of low-income district finds that teachers are actually hard to come by and are replaced by subs (( which in some cases make up to 40% of full-time teachers )). Has anyone here actually talked to the teachers they loved from there high-school years. Most will find that they give their heart and soul to teaching. Going above and beyond the norm to reach out to sub-par students. If we continue to not recongize the fact that teachers are an extremely important part of a young adults education, by not raising salaires and contuining to force memorization of tests, then we will see the trend that is affecting all of us today. Plain and simple,.. affecting the pocketbooks of teachers results in decayed moral for doing their job.

Thou I personally am not worried about the pay((wife is studying to be a lawyer WOOT WOOT)) we can't expect every teacher to be a Mother Teresa

 

[roger2008]

Failure of government run schools to attract students and to stop them from dropping out means that the government will never succeed in fulfilling its obligation under Article 45 and education to all children up to the age of 14 will always remain a dream as it has remained even after 55 years of attaining freedom. It happened due to government politics
____________________________________________________________
http://www.florist-flowers-roses-delivery.com/california/los_angeles_ca.html]Los Angeles Online Florist low rate loans pisos vilafra

 

[n0spam4me]

Its a Sick Sad World!
Given that the way that the system is currently set up.
Wealthy districts have all sorts of $ from the well off parents (& taxes on those expensive homes) so their schools have all the latest gear for their labs (etc...) and really dirt-poor districts get Federal assistance to outfit computer labs (etc..) however, there is a space in the middle, where a district is not poor enough to rate Federal assistance, and not rich enough to provide for their students very well.
So the system has HUGE problems. I'm not qualified to fix it, but I will offer up an opinion and that is PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT will go a LONG way to make things better.
When I was attending a public school, there where parents who got involved and really wanted to know what sort of homework (etc...) was being assigned and then there where some of the brats of parents who thought that since the kids where getting an education at public expense, they didn't have to do ANYTHING (except provide a roof and the basics like food and clothes) HOWEVER, as an adult now, I've met parents who send their kids to PRIVATE school, and no its not impossibly expensive. The family has a very small, old TV and they live in an apt. not a house and they drive an old car, but the kids are getting a proper education, and thats really cool!

Just my $0.02 worth ....

 

[Libsmasher]

If one subscribes to the adage that education is a RIGHT, not a privilege, then the most logical step for government is to provide it for free.

Understand that knowledge is the patrimony of mankind - not a commodity to be bartered with those who can afford it.

You apparently can't read - I just said poor children's education should be paid for by taxes. Also the idea that education is a right is without foundation. Education costs money - to say some people have a claim on the money of people who don't have children, even middle lass or rich people, is a very corrupt notion.

 

[Libsmasher]

Part of the problem was the revolt against property taxes. That meant that other funds had to be provided for schools. Who ever pays will decide how the money is spent. If you don't want the federal government telling you how to run your local schools, the solution is simple. Don't take their money.

That is correct. By taking government money, parents make a pact with the devil, and their children pay dearly for the "free education".

It has been part of the right-wing Republican agenda since day one to destroy the public school system.

That's baloney - few conservatives call for the overthrow of the failed government schools - it's mostly a libertarian idea.

And vouchers is their solution. Most people, even with vouchers, could not afford private schools for their children.

Not a problem at all - conservatives advocate taxes to provide for poor children's vouchers. You sound like you're taking all the standard propaganda distortions from the teachers union playbook.

What they will be able to afford is religious schools. This is a recruiting tool for them. "Give me a child until he is eight, and he is mine forever." That is a Christian proverb

.

Nonsense, and what government schools with their lib teachers do is exactly that - brainwash them in the liberal-left world view, with their PC, anti-americanism, anti-religion, and all their other assorted crap.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Government run schools are a terrible thing because they allow governments to channel thier propaganda into vulnerable young minds. But private-run schools allow the super-rich to channel thier propaganda. The only other option is to have the people run the schools, which is a great idea.

 

[PLC1]

Government run schools are a terrible thing because they allow governments to channel thier propaganda into vulnerable young minds. But private-run schools allow the super-rich to channel thier propaganda. The only other option is to have the people run the schools, which is a great idea.

In the US, the government is by the people, so aren't government schools run by the people?

 

[dahermit]

In the US, the government is by the people, so aren't government schools run by the people?

In the U.S., the local people elect school boards, who in turn hire a superintendent who runs the schools. There are some requirements set by the state, and some from the Federal Government ("No Child Left Behind") and some "incentives" (extra money if the school provides things like breakfast, etc.) but "running" the schools is not any "government", either state or Federal's job.

There is no propaganda that is mandated to be taught from the federal level. Any text books (History, etc.) are usually chosen by the individual teacher (as in the school system from which I retired), the department, or in some cases, the school board must approve all text books...not the federal government.

 

[PLC1]

In the U.S., the local people elect school boards, who in turn hire a superintendent who runs the schools. There are some requirements set by the state, and some from the Federal Government ("No Child Left Behind") and some "incentives" (extra money if the school provides things like breakfast, etc.) but "running" the schools is not any "government", either state or Federal's job.

There is no propaganda that is mandated to be taught from the federal level. Any text books (History, etc.) are usually chosen by the individual teacher (as in the school system from which I retired), the department, or in some cases, the school board must approve all text books...not the federal government.

In California, it is the state government that approves text books, not the individual teacher.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

In the US, the government is by the people, so aren't government schools run by the people?

Our people elect representitives, who then lie and steal. The corporations fund the lies so that the representives can get elected.

 

[PLC1]

Our people elect representitives, who then lie and steal. The corporations fund the lies so that the representives can get elected.

Then it's up to us to find out who is lying and stealing, and not vote for them.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Then it's up to us to find out who is lying and stealing, and not vote for them.

OR we can make our own decisions by popular vote instead of state delegates.

 

[PLC1]

OR we can make our own decisions by popular vote instead of state delegates.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to the electoral college? We do choose representatives and senators by popular vote.

Maybe it is time to do away with the electoral college, come to think of it, or how about having the Senate choose a president, to be sustained by the House, or maybe vice versa?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you referring to the electoral college? We do choose representatives and senators by popular vote.

Maybe it is time to do away with the electoral college, come to think of it, or how about having the Senate choose a president, to be sustained by the House, or maybe vice versa?

Or we can try direct democracy. No senate, no house, no white house, no commitees, just the people.

 

[PLC1]

Or we can try direct democracy. No senate, no house, no white house, no commitees, just the people.

Can you imagine what a circus that would be? Every issue decided by a vote of the people. We'd have elections every day practically, and the ads to sway public opinion would take up every channel 24-7.


I'm afraid a direct democracy isn't practical on a large scale.