No Child Left Behind Is NOT Good.

At least, I don't think so.

Think about it. NCLB is a program started by the Bush Administration, to help children- Mentally Handicapped, especially. It teaches them on a same level as the other children, but with more time devoted to them.

I'm not going to gloss over the good things- Student testing, teacher quality. Yes, that's good. But this detail is what I find bad. Don't think I'm some richboy genius- I struggled in school, for sure. Got kicked out of my fair share. But I made it. I know what it feels like.

First of all, taking time away from other children is bad. I understand that the handicapped people need some level of understanding, yes. But when you take time away from the children who can really understand it, the people of the future.

Second- Most of the handicapped have an incurable disease. I see no reason to teach them anything they frankly won't use it. They can't understand it. Why bother to teach them complicated stuff such as high level math?

I guess I sound pretty bad saying this, but it's my opinion.

I completely agree. Its really annoying to think that more money is being spent on a handicaped kid than there is being spent on me, just because i'm not handicaped! I know that they deserve and equal chance, but by doing this its not equal.

It will leave more children behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

I completely agree. Its really annoying to think that more money is being spent on a handicaped kid than there is being spent on me, just because i'm not handicaped! I know that they deserve and equal chance, but by doing this its not equal.

It will leave more children behind.

---

Yeah, because again, what are they really going to use it on? I'd think that math skills and reading is all that you can really give them that they'll put to use. They're going to live a sheltered life, face it, and telling them they're not is only hurting them more.

While some people need more attention to do as well as others, and while I do believe they deserve that extra attention if there is a possibility, what I absolutely deplore is when they lower the bar. "I have a learning disorder, so it should take less to pass." No.

No child left behind act. Um...I didn't hear of it being mainly for mentally handicapped children. The standards are raised for everyone...I fail to see how mentally handicapped people are brought into the equation for this subject. It is the personal responsability of each individual to do what you can for yourself. This country was built on the idea that if you have a dream, and you work hard, you can accomplish it. I really wish you would take a second back and remember that those who CAN NOT do for themselves must be taken care of. So many people have got this idea that other people must take care of them, that is why so many people are dependent on well-fare and other types of government provided care. If you have the capability to be great, then it is your duty to get there on your own. I truly understand where your coming from though, it seems unfair that one is valued less than those who, in a very sad, and very real way, have less value in society. Although, take a moment to think of this example. You are a child. You and your sibling both want new shoes. You both got shoes at the same time last year. For whatever reason your parents can only afford to get one of you new shoes. Your shoes aren't all that fancy, but they are infact not that depreciated in value. However your sibling's shoes have holes in them, have shoelaces falling apart at their aglits(the plastic tip), and their feet are in far worse pain than yours. Who deserves to get new shoes?

However, you inadvertantly brought up a very important subject. Corruption in standards such as medical schools most importantly. In our universities of medical care, where we hone the skills of our valued doctors, if you have a handicap due to another group of people under a disabilities act, you have extra time to take tests, and do "in lab" activities. Since many of the people attending universities like this have family already in practice of medical fields, they can have them say they have certain disabilities that they do not have, which gives them an unfair advantage. Also, I can not help the cards that people are dealt, if you have a REAL handicap, then I suggest you stick to passive medical professions please, do not work in a situation where a persons life is on the "immediate" line.

While this is not the only case where over sensitivity is rather overbearing, it is the only case I can actually say that I have active experience with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

No child left behind act. Um...I didn't hear of it being mainly for mentally handicapped children. The standards are raised for everyone...I fail to see how mentally handicapped people are brought into the equation for this subject. It is the personal responsability of each individual to do what you can for yourself. This country was built on the idea that if you have a dream, and you work hard, you can accomplish it. I really wish you would take a second back and remember that those who CAN NOT do for themselves must be taken care of. So many people have got this idea that other people must take care of them, that is why so many people are dependent on well-fare and other types of government provided care. If you have the capability to be great, then it is your duty to get there on your own. I truly understand where your coming from though, it seems unfair that one is valued less than those who, in a very sad, and very real way, have less value in society. Although, take a moment to think of this example. You are a child. You and your sibling both want new shoes. You both got shoes at the same time last year. For whatever reason your parents can only afford to get one of you new shoes. Your shoes aren't all that fancy, but they are infact not that depreciated in value. However your sibling's shoes have holes in them, have shoelaces falling apart at their aglits(the plastic tip), and their feet are in far worse pain than yours. Who deserves to get new shoes?

However, you inadvertantly brought up a very important subject. Corruption in standards such as medical schools most importantly. In our universities of medical care, where we hone the skills of our valued doctors, if you have a handicap due to another group of people under a disabilities act, you have extra time to take tests, and do "in lab" activities. Since many of the people attending universities like this have family already in practice of medical fields, they can have them say they have certain disabilities that they do not have, which gives them an unfair advantage. Also, I can not help the cards that people are dealt, if you have a REAL handicap, then I suggest you stick to passive medical professions please, do not work in a situation where a persons life is on the "immediate" line.

While this is not the only case where over sensitivity is rather overbearing, it is the only case I can actually say that I have active experience with.

---

Like I said, I understand the good things, but I draw the line at a mental handicap that CANNOT be cured. They WILL be taken care of, naturally get welfare checks... His shoes might be riddled with holes, but he doesn't have to walk on the hot sand. :D

And yes, that's another thing, having more time to take tests and more room for error isn't proving that they are good for the job, it only proves that when given tons of time and more room for error that they can succeed.

It's bad because the federal government is involved. It's not their business. Schools should be administered locally. It's just more that they want to control.

The free market does better with just about every single thing you can possibly imagine. Every time the government gets involved in things you can count on things, not only NOT getting better but, actually getting worse, less efficient and more cumbersome.

If you want to understand why these laws are in place, you might have to look at it from a handicapped person's parents' perspective. They love their child very much and won't settle for anything less than the best they can give them, including education. They might be driven by some hope that their child can indeed learn to live a normal life, which is what all parents desperately want.

Having said that, there was a handicapped employee at our local Petsmart for many years. The only reason he got hired is because our high school had some agreenment with the store. This person could not do the job. Not only would he not assist customers, not do any of his assigned duties... but he would swear at and disrespect other employees in front of customers. He did things that would have gotten a "normal" person fired ages ago. But, because he was handicapped, no one had the balls to complain about him for fear of looking like the bad guy. Now that is just wrong. If you can't do the job, your ass is fired, like the rest of us.

I say get handicapped kids into the IT industry, you hardly ever have to move!! :D

But really, if you were handicapped, would you like to be considered, not part of the worlds future? Thats a pretty harsh statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSturm

But really, if you were handicapped, would you like to be considered, not part of the worlds future? Thats a pretty harsh statement.

---

Every one has their place. That place isn't always where you want to be or where you think you should be.

The no child left behind act is, like all other things Bush puts out, heavily funded by corporations to help it pass. The fact is nothing goes through congress unless businesses are willing to put a lot of money into lobbying it. No Child Left Behind makes tests the absolute decider of how well a school is doing. Tests? That's so last century. A good teacher does not teach to the test, a bad teacher does, so No Child Left Behind has reverse effects. It teaches people to be schooled like the Chinese do, meanwhile the Chinese are trying to liberalize their system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSturm

I say get handicapped kids into the IT industry, you hardly ever have to move!! :D

But really, if you were handicapped, would you like to be considered, not part of the worlds future? Thats a pretty harsh statement.

---

If I was handicapped I wouldn't want to be lied to, to tell the truth. I'd rather, if possible, work my way, not be told 'YOU RULE AND WILL BE PRESIDENT'.

anyways I've always considered the reason why republicans don't seem to want a good education system is for votes. Conservatism is strongest where education is the weakest. they just want to get reelected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shark!

anyways I've always considered the reason why republicans don't seem to want a good education system is for votes. Conservatism is strongest where education is the weakest. they just want to get reelected.

---

Not only is that incorrect but it's completely opposite reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shark!

anyways I've always considered the reason why republicans don't seem to want a good education system is for votes. Conservatism is strongest where education is the weakest. they just want to get reelected.

---

Republicans have the answer to education problem in the U.S. The schools need to be privatized but paid for with government money through vouchers. If the public schools were competing with each other for students, they would be run worlds better. As it is, too many school workers do a half ass job because the government gives the administrators flat, guaranteed salaries. Somebody at the top needs to be losing pocket money when his school sucks. That has a way of lighting fires under people's asses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Not only is that incorrect but it's completely opposite reality.

---

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shark!

?

---

See Universal Mind's post for a good head start of where I'm coming from.

Conservatism is the exact opposite of what you portrayed it to be. Conservatives believe that the way to empower people is to encourage and expect them to improve themselves.

Conversely, the Liberal ideology thrives on the heels of keeping people dependant on government and the social programs.

Conservatism is based on the principals of independence and understands that private entities almost always handle almost everything far better and more efficiently than government ever dreamed of.

Conversely, Liberals get their power from dependence. Liberals believe that government is the answerer of all prayers and that people are NOT (edit) smart enough to handle their own destinies.

Conservatives believe that each individual has the potential to make something of himself.

Conversely, Liberalism is an ideology of victimisation. Every one is a victim in their eyes. Victim mentality is very self-destructive and does not allow the "victim" to make things better because, after all, "it's some one else's fault."

Conservatives believe that each person is responsible for their own actions and that this is what keeps order and causes people to strive to be their best

Conversely, Liberals believe that no one should be held accountable for the things they do because it's not their fault. It's the fault of society's woes and that to enforce rules and expect people to be responsible is wrong.

That's a quick overview to illustrate that you are uninformed about what Conservatism is all about. In fact, as I said, you are completely inverted in your impressions. Liberalism is the seed-planter of poor education, lax learning and teaching, and cookie-cutter mistakes by local and national governments/school boards in the form of allowing the quality and expectation imposed upon students and teachers to fall lower and lower.

After all, if we expect little Tommy to actually pass his classes then it may make him feel bad about himself when he fails. So, rather than push him to be his best, we'll just excuse not trying. See the fallacy of that kind of thinking? That's Liberalism for you: enjoy being pampered into failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

See Universal Mind's post for a good head start of where I'm coming from.

Conservatism is the exact opposite of what you portrayed it to be. Conservatives believe that the way to empower people is to encourage and expect them to improve themselves.

Conversely, the Liberal ideology thrives on the heels of keeping people dependant on government and the social programs.

Conservatism is based on the principals of independence and understands that private entities almost always handle almost everything far better and more efficiently than government ever dreamed of.

Conversely, Liberals get their power from dependence. Liberals believe that government is the answerer of all prayers and that people are smart enough to handle their own destinies.

Conservatives believe that each individual has the potential to make something of himself.

Conversely, Liberalism is an ideology of victimisation. Every one is a victim in their eyes. Victim mentality is very self-destructive and does not allow the "victim" to make things better because, after all, "it's some one else's fault."

Conservatives believe that each person is responsible for their own actions and that this is what keeps order and causes people to strive to be their best

Conversely, Liberals believe that no one should be held accountable for the things they do because it's not their fault. It's the fault of society's woes and that to enforce rules and expect people to be responsible is wrong.

That's a quick overview to illustrate that you are uninformed about what Conservatism is all about. In fact, as I said, you are completely inverted in your impressions. Liberalism is the seed-planter of poor education, lax learning and teaching, and cookie-cutter mistakes by local and national governments/school boards in the form of allowing the quality and expectation imposed upon students and teachers to fall lower and lower.

After all, if we expect little Tommy to actually pass his classes then it may make him feel bad about himself when he fails. So, rather than push him to be his best, we'll just excuse not trying. See the fallacy of that kind of thinking? That's Liberalism for you: enjoy being pampered into failure.

---

This may be the best explaination of liberalism i have ever read. These beliefs they hold extend to far more than just education, too.

Its because of these ideologies, especially victimization, that has and will continue to dilude American culture. Everything in your explaination shows how liberals are forcing us away from Individualism and leading us toward Socialism. Trying to make everbody happy will only have disasterous effects, and feeling sorry for people will only make them soft.

I also wonder if liberals really care about other people, or if they just try to appeal to everybody to get more votes. The best way to get people on your side is to portray them as victims and then say you are going to help them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

This may be the best explaination of liberalism i have ever read. These beliefs they hold extend to far more than just education, too.

Its because of these ideologies, especially victimization, that has and will continue to dilude American culture. Everything in your explaination shows how liberals are forcing us away from Individualism and leading us toward Socialism. Trying to make everbody happy will only have disasterous effects, and feeling sorry for people will only make them soft.

I also wonder if liberals really care about other people, or if they just try to appeal to everybody to get more votes. The best way to get people on your side is to portray them as victims and then say you are going to help them.

---

Thank you, it's nice to be in good company. You know, the masses think Liberalism is all about good-hearted, feel-good, let-me-prop-up, I-really-care "-ness". But if you look past the surface you start to learn that Liberalism is really another name for "defeatism".

That defeatism spill over into the every pore of Liberal philosophy. Look at the war we're fighting in Iran/Iraq. The United States has far more power than necessary to squelch the enemy. We don't because we're engaged in an even larger battle with our own frickin' people. The Liberals think that we can solve the world's problems by simply sitting down and playing footsies with those who've explicitly said - repeatedly - that they won't rest until we're all either dead of under their oppression.

Alright, I'm off topic here. But, yeah, don't fall for the deceptive allure of Liberalism; it's not what it appears to be on the surface. Trust me, I've been an observer of this for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

The no child left behind act is, like all other things Bush puts out, heavily funded by corporations to help it pass. The fact is nothing goes through congress unless businesses are willing to put a lot of money into lobbying it. No Child Left Behind makes tests the absolute decider of how well a school is doing.

---

I must agree with this sentiment. I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of NCLB, but I am absolutely against the idea that getting more students to pass tests should be the end goal of our education system.

If higher test scores is the number one goal, lowering the tests' standards is the easiest way to acheive it. It's much simpler (and cheaper) to move the passing score lower than to actually teach. Carry this to the extreme, and eventually we'll just be telling children they all pass and stop bothering to make them actually attend class at all. Think of all the money we'll save!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Thank you, it's nice to be in good company. You know, the masses think Liberalism is all about good-hearted, feel-good, let-me-prop-up, I-really-care "-ness". But if you look past the surface you start to learn that Liberalism is really another name for "defeatism".

That defeatism spill over into the every pore of Liberal philosophy. Look at the war we're fighting in Iran/Iraq. The United States has far more power than necessary to squelch the enemy. We don't because we're engaged in an even larger battle with our own frickin' people. The Liberals think that we can solve the world's problems by simply sitting down and playing footsies with those who've explicitly said - repeatedly - that they won't rest until we're all either dead of under their oppression.

Alright, I'm off topic here. But, yeah, don't fall for the deceptive allure of Liberalism; it's not what it appears to be on the surface. Trust me, I've been an observer of this for a long time.

---

In a recent conversation with my old man, he told me I hated liberalism since I was a child. I would always get worked up when people "got offended". In those days, it was political correctness that got to me, and it still gets to me. I almost threw a hissy fit when England was up in arms because South Park offended the Queen. Some "African Americans" get pissed when i call them "black", when "white" and "cracker" are basically perfectly acceptable words. Now I'm getting off topic.

Along with being defetist, the liberal movement seems evasive as well. Problems are avoided rather than confronted. It just complicates everything. I would also like to add that the right not to be offended doesnt exist. The right not to be offended is currently favored over free speech.

Anyway, NCLB was still a disaster. I struggle with it really. I mean, should those schools who do a bad job be punished? I really dont think they should, but they definately shouldnt be rewarded. God, its such a complicated problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

I must agree with this sentiment. I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of NCLB, but I am absolutely against the idea that getting more students to pass tests should be the end goal of our education system.

If higher test scores is the number one goal, lowering the tests' standards is the easiest way to acheive it. It's much simpler (and cheaper) to move the passing score lower than to actually teach. Carry this to the extreme, and eventually we'll just be telling children they all pass and stop bothering to make them actually attend class at all. Think of all the money we'll save!

---

I believe that was sarcasm. If so then bravo. It really does demonstrate just how foolish it is to try to improve people by lowering standards. It simply does not work.

I love it, it's so pathetic and pitiful but you can't help but laugh at the squabblings of political radicals. I'll admit I used to think that Republicans were selfish and Democrats actually believed in helping people, but now I know really, they're all just deuche-bags using their platform to unite people that hate the other platform so people feel like they're picking the better of two filthy rats and they make their own money and their contributors money at our expense.

All this arguing is fueling that purpose. It's like none of you realize that they have different platforms but do the exact same thing once they get into office.

So here, to set the record straight, the democrats do NOT want us to be dependent on social programs, they just don't want us to be dependent on greedy pigs. The conservatives do NOT want to sell off our education to greedy pigs, they just don't want us to rely on social programs that will be end up as a badly managed tax problem.

Schools need to remain socialized because otherwise we're just going to get our healthcare fiasco delivered back to us as an education fiasco. We cannot sell our education off to men who care only about money, or they will work their asses off to manipulate the system to fuck people over so they can keep getting rich. Fuck the industry, it's the root of all evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

I love it, it's so pathetic and pitiful but you can't help but laugh at the squabblings of political radicals. I'll admit I used to think that Republicans were selfish and Democrats actually believed in helping people, but now I know really, they're all just deuche-bags using their platform to unite people that hate the other platform so people feel like they're picking the better of two filthy rats and they make their own money and their contributors money at our expense.

All this arguing is fueling that purpose. It's like none of you realize that they have different platforms but do the exact same thing once they get into office.

So here, to set the record straight, the democrats do NOT want us to be dependent on social programs, they just don't want us to be dependent on greedy pigs. The conservatives do NOT want to sell off our education to greedy pigs, they just don't want us to rely on social programs that will be end up as a badly managed tax problem.

Schools need to remain socialized because otherwise we're just going to get our healthcare fiasco delivered back to us as an education fiasco. We cannot sell our education off to men who care only about money, or they will work their asses off to manipulate the system to fuck people over so they can keep getting rich. Fuck the industry, it's the root of all evil.

---

The privatization of school would be nothing like our healthcare problem. The problem with helthcare stems from how expensive it is. Privatized schools would solve a lot of the problems with our education system. I mean, private schools in the US are incredible. I know its not the same, but the privatization of all schools could be accomplished.

Rich people arent as evil as you think. They will not jepordize the education of an entire country to put pennies in their pockets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

All this arguing is fueling that purpose. It's like none of you realize that they have different platforms but do the exact same thing once they get into office.

---

With that I agree - especially these days. They've all become politicians in the dirtiest sense of the word.

Quote:

---

So here, to set the record straight, the democrats do NOT want us to be dependent on social programs, they just don't want us to be dependent on greedy pigs.

---

First of all, I specifically said "Liberals" NOT Democrats, even though most of the Democrat party is left-leaning.

However, I stand by my assessment. It's not like that's their conscious objective but that's exactly where their philosophies lead.

Quote:

---

The conservatives do NOT want to sell off our education to greedy pigs, they just don't want us to rely on social programs that will be end up as a badly managed tax problem.

---

I, for one, never said they do want to sell it off. What I did say is that the Conservative philosophy believes that private hands are more suited for the task

Quote:

---

We cannot sell our education off to men who care only about money, or they will work their asses off to manipulate the system to fuck people over so they can keep getting rich. Fuck the industry, it's the root of all evil.

---

But see, that's another misconception. Money is the driver of progress: in all fronts and human social endeavors. That's the point. Competition is what makes business' improve their product. That's also another huge error in the Liberal mindset.

Liberals believe that inequality and businesses are bad because some people get ahead and others don't. But, by some people getting ahead, every one reaps the rewards.

Think of how much better schools will be when people have the right to choose where to send their children. When the pocket book takes a beating, people change their ways real quickly. Competition makes businesses lower their prices and it makes learning institutions improve their product.

Money speaks in ways you seem to be unaware of.

oneironaught, swing and a miss![/INDENT]



ps. i wasn't adding to the thread, or anyhting about privitising education, I was mocking conservativism and being cynical about america's low ranking of public education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shark!

oneironaught, swing and a miss![/indent]


ps. i wasn't adding to the thread, or anyhting about privitising education, I was mocking conservativism and being cynical about america's low ranking of public education.

---

We have a trash element that screws up the averages in places where it exists.

Our private schools are awesome. Do you know why? It's because they are PRIVATE and not under the stagnant control of government socialist style patheticism. Competition works miracles. That is the secret behind capitalism.

Oneironaught, the fact is we have lot's of subsidized things, like Police, Firemen, the military, prisons... no matter how much you argue it Free Market is not a universal principle. In certain aspects the private sector has helped us rise to the top as a nation, but in other areas I feel like money should not be the bottom line. Health should be the bottom line of Healthcare, and yet HMOs screw as many people as they can in order to save money. Learning should be the bottom line of education but test scores do not record the progress of learning, there are countless studies to prove that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Oneironaught, the fact is we have lot's of subsidized things, like Police, Firemen, the military, prisons... no matter how much you argue it Free Market is not a universal principle. In certain aspects the private sector has helped us rise to the top as a nation, but in other areas I feel like money should not be the bottom line. Health should be the bottom line of Healthcare, and yet HMOs screw as many people as they can in order to save money. Learning should be the bottom line of education but test scores do not record the progress of learning, there are countless studies to prove that.

---

I understand what you're saying in that some things should be government controlled. I actually believe that most schools should be public as well. My point is that - when money acts as an incentive for schools to be in top form - more schools are at the top of their game.

We don't need competing Police depts.; that's not wise. That's only asking for trouble. Same goes for the prisons, fire depts., etc... But you can't compare upholding law and order with education. They aren't in the same class.

My only point was that the free market is not a universal law to follow in this country. And I agree money is an incentive to put out the best product but standardized tests do not rate the best schools. All schools need to be public, it's the teachers, not the schools, that should be competing to be the best. Private schools widen the gap between the rich and the poor, which is an indicator of a society in decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

My only point was that the free market is not a universal law to follow in this country. And I agree money is an incentive to put out the best product but standardized tests do not rate the best schools. All schools need to be public, it's the teachers, not the schools, that should be competing to be the best. Private schools widen the gap between the rich and the poor, which is an indicator of a society in decline.

---

Private schools widen the gap between the rich and poor only because they excell the rich. I want the poor to excell too. The success of our private schools is proof that financial competition makes schools work better than they do without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Private schools widen the gap between the rich and poor only because they excell the rich. I want the poor to excell too. The success of our private schools is proof that financial competition makes schools work better than they do without it.

---

My private school cost $12,500 a year. I think this may be the reason for its excellence.

But, then again, if we put the public school taxes pack into the pockets of the tax payers, they could afford to pay tuition.

That brings up a good question. How much of a tax payer's money goes to public schooling yearly?

Correct me if I'm reading into this too much but it seems like you guys see a choice between total free market and communism.

Certain democratic candidates are pro-big government (in fact most of them) which means a strong centralized government. However, they suck.

A strong centralized government is not what our schools should rely on, nor should they rely on private schools to leave students out of the loop (or have them at all because they're unfair). The local government should be in charge of our schools, duh. Money should be given to schools based on student populace, and if the rich kids were going, too, parents could donate money.

What you're saying is schools need competition to be better, I understand that completely, but like I was saying you can't judge learning with standardized tests so until you come up with a real method to judge how much students are learning that point is pretty worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

My private school cost $12,500 a year. I think this may be the reason for its excellence.

But, then again, if we put the public school taxes pack into the pockets of the tax payers, they could afford to pay tuition.

That brings up a good question. How much of a tax payer's money goes to public schooling yearly?

---

I was going to ask just that. I'm pretty sure it isn't some high number like 12,500. While I think a private "component" to schools is fine, full privatization leads to the ridiculous tuition fee you quoted. I went to high school in Montreal. It was a private school, but still partially funded by government. There was a clear distinction between my school and what some public schools I've seen look like. My yearly tuition was about 10% of the number you quoted, and I don't think the quality was all that bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

I was going to ask just that. I'm pretty sure it isn't some high number like 12,500. While I think a private "component" to schools is fine, full privatization leads to the ridiculous tuition fee you quoted. I went to high school in Montreal. It was a private school, but still partially funded by government. There was a clear distinction between my school and what some public schools I've seen look like. My yearly tuition was about 10% of the number you quoted, and I don't think the quality was all that bad.

---

Now, I'll admit I haven't thought the following idea through thoroughly so there may be holes:

I think there should be a balance between "private" and "public", meaning that taxes pay for it but it's run by private entities with government oversight. After all, most taxes are spent to private businesses in the end.

I believe in the voucher system I talked about, not the complete privatization of all schools, at least at this point in time. We can hopefully evolve into complete privatization, but I don't think we should suddenly dive into it. $12,500 a year is a whole lot to pay per year to go to a private school. Not all private schools will be as good as one that charges that, but they will all be better than the lowest level of government schools we have right now. And we can give government funds to people who truly can't afford to go anywhere with their parents' money or their own.

My private school was extremely high end, though. And yea, 12 5 is a hefty check. Now that I think about it, I really don't remember what was so great about it. Fancy looking buildings was about it.

I think competition within individual schools would be a a great solution. Real, tangible benefits students see for good grades and good behavior.

Why must I continue to digress...

How are schools supposed to compete when there's no way to measure how effective they are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Why must I continue to digress...

How are schools supposed to compete when there's no way to measure how effective they are?

---

I went to a private school, and I know first hand that everybody in the private school community knows the heirarchy. That knowledge has to do with PSAT and ACT scores, plus how the graduates turn out in the work world. When a school relatively sucks, it becomes the butt of jokes. When a school kicks the most ass, that school charges the most tuition and the richest people send their kids there. So the better a school does, the more money they make. That knowledge has the administrators and/or shareholders working hard to make sure the schools are run as well as they can be run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Why must I continue to digress...

How are schools supposed to compete when there's no way to measure how effective they are?

---

Thats why I propose competition within individual schools, not between schools. That would take care of the extremely poor grades and extremely bad disciplinary problems with schools. But, that doesnt take care of funding.

We didn't have the ACT/SAT/TLA as a mandatory thing in Canada, and in Montreal, I went to cegep after high school, from which you go to university. I asked the advisor about the lack of standard gov't testing. "If you're in a better school where an 85 is worth way more than a 95 in a shitty school, how do they do admissions based on marks", I asked. The answer I got involved some kind of gut feeling. Like, there's no formal way to do it, but really, the universities know the schools that get applicants, just based on long-term results. She said something like, "I know the brochure said you need a 90-95 average to get in, but they know us pretty well, and the 80-85 range is quite sufficient."

Also, as part of the application process, I had to write an essay about why I wanted to join, which also probably played a big part on how I got in. That, and reference letters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I went to a private school, and I know first hand that everybody in the private school community knows the heirarchy. That knowledge has to do with PSAT and ACT scores, plus how the graduates turn out in the work world. When a school relatively sucks, it becomes the butt of jokes. When a school kicks the most ass, that school charges the most tuition and the richest people send their kids there. So the better a school does, the more money they make. That knowledge has the administrators and/or shareholders working hard to make sure the schools are run as well as they can be run.

---

PSAT and ACT scores do not measure the learning taking place, only how well the teacher taught the test itself. There's a lot more useful ways to learn than just memorizing facts.

And half/dreaming, here's the best way to fund schools: Have all schools funded by their community's local taxes. That way each community is responsible for its own school. Oh yeah and private schools can't be allowed for this to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

PSAT and ACT scores do not measure the learning taking place, only how well the teacher taught the test itself. There's a lot more useful ways to learn than just memorizing facts.

---

Why do you think that? There is a ton of stuff you have to know to do well on those standarsized tests. It's not something that can be taught in a few weeks. It takes years of being in school to do well on them. The prep courses are mainly for learning test taking strategies and getting a helpful but not comprehensive overview of what students have already covered. There is a very high correlation between a school's ranking and the career successes of its graduates. Jackson Academy (private) does not have better standardized test turnout than Murrah High School (public) because they teach a better prep course. It's a much better school. That is known by the Northeast Jackson public.

Just because it takes time to prepare doesn't mean it's an adequate comparitive between schools. You're judging their prep courses, basically, when there is so much more to learning, and not only that but individual differences with a student's ability to demonstrate what they know vary as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Just because it takes time to prepare doesn't mean it's an adequate comparitive between schools. You're judging their prep courses, basically, when there is so much more to learning, and not only that but individual differences with a student's ability to demonstrate what they know vary as well.

---

I'm saying that standardized test scores reflect way more than differences in prep courses. Murrah (public) students could take Jackson Academy's prep course and vice-versa and Jackson Academy's scores will still be far better than Murrah's. It's because of the differences in years and years of learning. And like I said, career success is another indicator. There are reasons people who could send their kids to Murrah or whatever public school is in their region for free will pay $12,000 a year to send their kids to Jackson Academy or Jackson Prep or less money to send them to another private school in the area. It is knowable what schools are better than others. Do you really not have a sense of what schools are better than others in your area? Do you think there is no way to know?

That sounds a little judgmental to be honest. When I look at the schools in my area when I was in High School, I have to say that it's really only the teacher that makes the difference. As far as the schools go, it was really a matter of money and how well spent it is that made general differences. Like Marin Academy had the most money per student, and spent the most time preparing students for Standardized Tests so they looked much better on paper, thus driving up their tuition rates.

it really doesnt make much sense putting severley mentally handicapped people on the same level as normal students. there are a lot of tax dollars being spent on them and i dont mean to be offensive but, what kind of future do they really have ahead of them?

From what I see of the No Child left behind Act and its implementation in the local public school district, all it is is a method of dumbing down the people, and holding back those who do have the ability to achieve more.

It seems to be tied to money, I dont know for sure as the district refuses to provide firm answers. Seems after it was passed there were several learnig programs added to after school and summer time for students who were falling behind. My opinion( due to lack of answers) is that the school gets funding based on the numbers of students in thses programs. I note that recruitment efforts to put kids into these programs is contunually rising.
Another notation is that kids do not fail in school anymore. They might get D's and F's all through the year but at the end they always mysteriously just barely pass ( whether they know anything or not) .
Furthermore, I know of one family that was told that of ther child di not go to these auxillary classes their child would not pass. This went on for 3- 4 years, Finally they just said no to putting their kid in these programs. They didnt fail the kid, they just skated him on to the next grade with a mysteriously just passing grade in the last quarter of the school year.

All evidence here suggests the act is just a racket with no real basis in concern for education.