What pisses me off most when I hear about "throw money (away) at education" is that it's based on this myth that teachers actually make that much of a difference. They don't. Maybe a 'good' teacher can improve a 'bad' (disinterested, unmotivated, disruptive) student's grades by 10%, which amounts to that student memorizing a few more factoids on a test (and school marketers/administrators pop the champagne), but he's basically the same unmotivated, distinterested and disruptive loafer he always was. (What a truly 'good' teacher does, in my opinion, is prevents the the 'bad' students from being such a disruptive force that the 'good' students can't learn.) A good education begins at home. Without that, forget it.
I have first hand experience of how a good teacher can improve a bad student. However, the biggest improvement comes from the involvement and interest of the parents. Without strong parental support and involvement money spent is usually money wasted. That is a fact from seeing it over and over.
Oh yeah, 'cos we all know that those "disciplined" and "competetive" sportsmen make for the best "students", don't we...
You put what I was trying to say in very clear language. I think one of the biggest improvements that could be made to the schools is to make it very easy to expell students for serious misconduct. Now thugs can sexually molest girls and the girl has to find another school. In the current climate teachers and administrators, no matter how highly paid or motivated, cannot counteract violent, disruptive students. They are not going to learn anyway, but it is a crime to let them steal the other kids' educations. This is typical liberalism on display. Sacrifice those who are motivated and obedient for the sake of those who are dysfunctional or irresponsible. Hey, if we can teach one gangbanger to read, isn't it worth 500 other poor kids getting cheated out of their education?
"Oh yeah, 'cos we all know that those "disciplined" and "competetive" sportsmen make for the best "students", don't we..." Looks like we all know who lost out in the Spelling Bee! :eek:
AAA makes a great point on classroom discipline. This is another area were unfortunately I have seen too many problems through experience. In the schools my kids go to as well as the schools where I have friends that teach the teachers are powerless to attempt to control an unruly student. Students can get away with just about anythingn but murder. To make the problem worse parents come down on the teachers for not taking control of the classroom but then turn around and sue the teacher and school district when their children are "mistreated". The best course of action that I have heard about is that a local school in another school district has a policy that if a student is causing a problem the teacher can issue a citiation for the student and his/her parents to appear before the local judge. Along with the citation comes about a $400 fine for court costs (which the parents are responsible for). I do not have enough information to comment on the positive or negative results of this system but it sounds good to me. I can guarantee that my children would not get more than one citation, not that they are discipline problems to bgin with.
My instincts on this, developed over living longer than you Mav, and also having a son and two step children, tell me that you will change your tune when the time comes. Your statement is based on your logic of today alone. When you have kids, logic goes out the window. Love takes it's place. There is nothing less logical in the world than love. Love for a child is the strongest love there is. Therefore the most illogical emotion. It is a very unusual parent that will not do everything in their power to make things as good as possible for their children. The stories you hear about single mothers working three jobs....scrubbing floors at 4 am to send their kids to college are very real. Happens all the time all over the world. Maverick, don't make promises to yourself you can't possibly know if you can keep or not. Don't make assumptions on how you will feel about issues you don't face until you do face them. You can tell us what you would or would not have done if you were the one making the decision to bomb Hiroshima. Or invade Iraq. But your were not, and will never be in those positions. Chances are (I hope for your sake) that you one day WILL be in the position to make the choice of whether to assist your progeny with their education. When that day comes, see how you really feel. Meanwhile, I think you should print out your post, put it in your safe deposit box, and in whatever number of years it is that the issue becomes relevant, take it out, look at it, and see if you find out that life changes as it goes on. Find out then if your attitudes change with a change of circumstances. My money is on you softening up. Hell, I would lay odds. Nothing to be ashamed of Mav. "Soft" is a four letter word, but not a dirty word. I know your militant conservatism tells you it is now, but give it some time. Or, ask around. Hapaboy, one of my other favorite "conservatives" just became a dad. Ask him what he would NOT do for his child. Fatherhood has no political boundaries. It is a true equalizer. Peace, RS
RS, Let me amend that statement. My kids will have to work for my help. Surely you help your kids, but I'm fairly certain it's not unconditional. I have no problem with meeting my kids half way. Example, my son wants to have a bike, he can save for half of it from his allowance, I'll pay for the other half. So forth and so on. I just don't like to hear people like Waggie use the phrase we'll give these people this and these people that. Whatever happened to earning your keep in this world? Sure, a parent will do anything they can to help their kids, but you can't have your children dependent on you or they will be for life. I'm sure your parents made you work for their help too. I feel sorry for kids that that never taught to fend for themselves in this world. They will be lost and alone when their parents die. Anyway I digress. As far as education goes, I do not want our government giving anybody anything. That was the context of my statement. Parents and government are not the same thing. If a parent works their butt off and wants to spoil their kids or help them, I have no problem with that, if they earned the money, they earned the right to do with it as they please. But having the government tax me so they can just GIVE to whoever who probably won't appreciate it, no way. Not on my watch.
It's not clear what you mean in practical terms. Do you mean the public education system should be abolished? If that's not what you mean, then do you mean government programs that fund certain educational programs and scholarships? And if you mean young people who won't appreciate it, how do you rule and administer that? Does that mean that there should be a decision maker who declares who would and would "probably" not "appreciate" public education or publicly funded educational programs? Do you see how silly and inane your ideas become when you try and put them into policy? Maybe you just meant stop giving the minorities all that tax money, because it's a waste of money anyway?