The "New Math" More liberal "touchy-feely" (expletive deleted)

[Kelzie]

In traditional high schools they give you until 18-19 to graduate. After that you have to go to a high school for 18-19 to 21. Thats what its like here at least. Honestly I think they would grasp the curriculum pretty well. It should require some degree of difficulty.

Do you know many kids? I'm the oldest of six. I help my younger siblings with their homework on a regular basis. My little sister reads a grade ahead, so she's in an advanced reading class, but her math skills are right on par with her grade. She certainly can't skip one grade or even two.

My little brother is in fourth grade, and he is struggling with the concept of area. There is no way he could skip to sixth grade, where they learn elementary algebra. His mind is just not that developed. I really think the people that create these lesson plans know what they are doing, and how far they can push a certain age group.

 

[IndiConservative]

Do you know many kids? I'm the oldest of six. I help my younger siblings with their homework on a regular basis. My little sister reads a grade ahead, so she's in an advanced reading class, but her math skills are right on par with her grade. She certainly can't skip one grade or even two.

My little brother is in fourth grade, and he is struggling with the concept of area. There is no way he could skip to sixth grade, where they learn elementary algebra. His mind is just not that developed. I really think the people that create these lesson plans know what they are doing, and how far they can push a certain age group.

Well then instead of just a full thrust ahead you could move each subject up and down like a sliding scale. Like say you have a 4th grader that can do 8th grade math but only 3rd grade english. That could let the kids who grasp the concept better move up faster as long as they retained the knowledge and could show on tests that they are proficiant in those skills.
Adjust for the needs of each student then?

 

[galenrox]

Well then instead of just a full thrust ahead you could move each subject up and down like a sliding scale. Like say you have a 4th grader that can do 8th grade math but only 3rd grade english. That could let the kids who grasp the concept better move up faster as long as they retained the knowledge and could show on tests that they are proficiant in those skills.
Adjust for the needs of each student then?

they do that in a lot of schools. They did that in mine.

 

[shuamort]

Tell me again why we have a bloated Department of Education? And who pushed for that department anyway? (If this is so local?)

I didn't know. So I did some research:

Congress established the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on May 4, 1980, in the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88 of October 1979).

Unlike the educational system of many other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curriculum or educational standards. Rather, the primary function of the United States Department of Education is to administer federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws involved with privacy and civil rights. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal process known as accreditation which the Department of Education has no direct control over.

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867, but was soon demoted to an Office in 1868. Its creation a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as unwanted federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. Throughout the 1980s, the abolition of the Department of Education was a part of the Republican Party platform, but several Republican administrations declined to implement this idea, and by the 1990s there was bipartisan support for the continuation of the department.

Bills like GW Bush's 2002 No Child Left Behind Act would support the fact that the republicans are now supporting federal involvement in the education process and de facto support of the DoE.

I can tell you for a fact that we have had some seven or so "special sessions" down here in Texas to come up with plans to fund public education. And they are still fighting about it. It is NOT a local matter.

Texas, although they occassionally think themselves to be a country, is a local and not federal matter. Texas does not have the federal government coming down to Rick Perry and telling him how to pay for education by taxing this and not taxing that. This is Texas' problem and thusly is a local problem. If you're reading what's going on, you'll see that the Dems and Reps down there seem to be united against Gov. Perry and his veto which has caused the special session.

It is an outrage of the first degree. I don't know what they have where you live but where I live we are having our pockets picked in our sales and real estate taxes to fix a bankrupt education system. I'm sure they will find money to pay their grossly overpaid administrators and other special interests and build those fancy sports facilities. They always find money for those "important" things. And the book manufacturers are stealing the public blind with their outrageously expensive and politically correct textbooks. It stinks to high heaven. Junk it.

Yeah, I live in Minnesota, we've ranked in the top 10 places for public school ever since I was in school. We're at 7 right now and I see Texas is in a tie with West Virginia for 33 here. (Here's another link that ranks Minnesota as number 1 ). Given our success, do you think it would behoove Texas to use Minnesota as an example and rebuild it like ours?

 

[HTColeman]

Why don't you tell me? And while you are at it, why don't you tell me how and why my tax dollars are earmarked to pay for the public school system and how a market based school system could possibly work? We have a monopoly on public education that is replete with inefficiencies, incompetent teachers, wasted money out the gazoo and never ending demands for more money for "teacher's pay", blah, blah, blah.

Get rid of the current system and let the market determine the value of people's efforts. I'll bet it'll be a lot better. And let's not forget the fact that home schooled children do significantly better than public school students. What's wrong with this picture?

What about the students that can't pay for pencils, much less a market based school system? Or do you even care? While you are talking about the democratic party's "corruption", what about the republicans? Lets rag on them, their tendency to ignore those in need of help, their tendency to make the rich, richer and care mostly for the filthy rich and big businesses. Home schooled children live with their teachers (parents), it is one on one, and can go at any speed they like, maybe that is why they do better. Home-schoolers tend to rich, or well off, as well, maybe that is why you prefer them so much...

 

[Mikkel]

How about we just junk the public school system and let a market based school system work? Oh, no we can't do that. The NEA won't approve since they exist almost entirely to protect incompetent teachers from getting fired. And they are a core of the corrupt Democratic party. So that won't happen and we'll just keep graduating nincompoops that can't add 2 and 2 and don't even know who the president was during the Civil War. That's your public school system today. A waste of money, a fraud and a waste of taxpayer money. Junk it.

How about we discuss a market based school system, apart from the fact that it will never happen. Why isn't it good? Because if all schools become private, then people will have to pay to send their children to school. If people have to pay to send their children to school, then those less fortunate than you or I will not send their children to school at all. What is the result? More stupid people for you to complain about.

If you actually stopped to think about your solution to your problem, then you'd realize that it isn't a solution at all, just you spewing capitalist ideology for the hell of it. Besides, if we didn't crank out high school grads like we do, we wouldn't have any troops to fight our wars... your wars.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I didn't know. So I did some research:

Congress established the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on May 4, 1980, in the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88 of October 1979).

Unlike the educational system of many other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curriculum or educational standards. Rather, the primary function of the United States Department of Education is to administer federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws involved with privacy and civil rights. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal process known as accreditation which the Department of Education has no direct control over.

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867, but was soon demoted to an Office in 1868. Its creation a century later in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as unwanted federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. Throughout the 1980s, the abolition of the Department of Education was a part of the Republican Party platform, but several Republican administrations declined to implement this idea, and by the 1990s there was bipartisan support for the continuation of the department.

Bills like GW Bush's 2002 No Child Left Behind Act would support the fact that the republicans are now supporting federal involvement in the education process and de facto support of the DoE.


Texas, although they occassionally think themselves to be a country, is a local and not federal matter. Texas does not have the federal government coming down to Rick Perry and telling him how to pay for education by taxing this and not taxing that. This is Texas' problem and thusly is a local problem. If you're reading what's going on, you'll see that the Dems and Reps down there seem to be united against Gov. Perry and his veto which has caused the special session.


Yeah, I live in Minnesota, we've ranked in the top 10 places for public school ever since I was in school. We're at 7 right now and I see Texas is in a tie with West Virginia for 33 here. (Here's another link that ranks Minnesota as number 1 ). Given our success, do you think it would behoove Texas to use Minnesota as an example and rebuild it like ours?

Oh, I think the funding for Texas schools are a mess. I'm not Rick Perry fan. I'll probably vote for Kinky Friedman. The Democratic party has ceased to exist in Texas except around Austin. There is a way to fix the school funding but every time I bring it up it gets shot down. But my point is still this. We have two kinds of taxes in Texas, sales taxes (among the highest in the country) and real estate taxes. I live in a town of 18,000 people. How much "local" control do I personally have over the enactment of those taxes. Zero, nada, none. If I had my way, here in Palestine, Texas I could fix the schools and funding in a heartbeat. But I don't have local control. That resides in Austin, Texas and that most definitely not "local." When I say "local" I mean it literally. That does not include the whole state; a state that can take three days to cross by automobile.

 

[Mikkel]

Oh, I think the funding for Texas schools are a mess. I'm not Rick Perry fan. I'll probably vote for Kinky Friedman. The Democratic party has ceased to exist in Texas except around Austin. There is a way to fix the school funding but every time I bring it up it gets shot down. But my point is still this. We have two kinds of taxes in Texas, sales taxes (among the highest in the country) and real estate taxes. I live in a town of 18,000 people. How much "local" control do I personally have over the enactment of those taxes. Zero, nada, none. If I had my way, here in Palestine, Texas I could fix the schools and funding in a heartbeat. But I don't have local control. That resides in Austin, Texas and that most definitely not "local." When I say "local" I mean it literally. That does not include the whole state; a state that can take three days to cross by automobile.

Then why the hell are you complaining about the department of education, when all of your real problems lie in texas?

 

[HTColeman]

Oh, I think the funding for Texas schools are a mess. I'm not Rick Perry fan. I'll probably vote for Kinky Friedman. The Democratic party has ceased to exist in Texas except around Austin. There is a way to fix the school funding but every time I bring it up it gets shot down. But my point is still this. We have two kinds of taxes in Texas, sales taxes (among the highest in the country) and real estate taxes. I live in a town of 18,000 people. How much "local" control do I personally have over the enactment of those taxes. Zero, nada, none. If I had my way, here in Palestine, Texas I could fix the schools and funding in a heartbeat. But I don't have local control. That resides in Austin, Texas and that most definitely not "local." When I say "local" I mean it literally. That does not include the whole state; a state that can take three days to cross by automobile.

The problem with texas is that it is such a large state with varying incomes. I live in North Texas in a fairly wealthy area, but go 30 minutes south, into Dallas, and the schools are dirt poor. Go a little east, and you have places like Trophy Club that are filthy rich. We have so much variety, it is hard to accomodate, but how does this have anything to do with the democratic party?

 

[Missouri Mule]

How about we discuss a market based school system, apart from the fact that it will never happen. Why isn't it good? Because if all schools become private, then people will have to pay to send their children to school. If people have to pay to send their children to school, then those less fortunate that you or I will not send their children to school at all. What is the result? More stupid people for you to complain about.

If you actually stopped to think about your solution to your problem, then you'd realize that it isn't a solution at all, just you spewing capitalist ideology for the hell of it. Besides, if we didn't crank out high school grads like we do, we wouldn't have any troops to fight our wars... your wars.

Your post is kind of silly, but I'll address it anyway. (Actually it is downright bizarre.) Next time why don't you actually check out what is paid to send one child to school around the U.S? And I suppose you believe that money is plucked from some "money tree." Now think about that and look at the amount of taxes that are paid in to support the present system. I'll bet the farm that private business could turn out a far better product with a lot less revenue. The current system just encourages sloth, waste, and bureaucratic boondoggles. The students who attend these institutions of "learning" never see the bottom line. They still believe that money grows on trees; like most liberals do. And most teachers are virtually certain to be part of the "vast left wing conspiracy." When's the last time you ever hear a teacher (any teacher) say "don't vote for higher taxes."

It's always easiest for someone else to say increase the other guy's taxes to pay for someone else's goodies. When we have to pony up for our own indulgences it is amazing how we develop an appreciation for our own money. Liberals have never learned that lesson and never will. It isn't in their genes.

 

[HTColeman]

Your post is kind of silly, but I'll address it anyway. (Actually it is downright bizarre.) Next time why don't you actually check out what is paid to send one child to school around the U.S? And I suppose you believe that money is plucked from some "money tree." Now think about that and look at the amount of taxes that are paid in to support the present system. I'll bet the farm that private business could turn out a far better product with a lot less revenue. The current system just encourages sloth, waste, and bureaucratic boondoggles. The students who attend these institutions of "learning" never see the bottom line. They still believe that money grows on trees; like most liberals do. And most teachers are virtually certain to be part of the "vast left wing conspiracy." When's the last time you ever hear a teacher (any teacher) say "don't vote for higher taxes."

As Bush continues to spend trillions of dollars, we are the ones who think money grows on trees...

It's always easiest for someone else to say increase the other guy's taxes to pay for someone else's goodies. When we have to pony up for our own indulgences it is amazing how we develop an appreciation for our own money. Liberals have never learned that lesson and never will. It isn't in their genes.

The fact of the matter is, if you had your way, inner city students would not be educated, at all.

 

[Missouri Mule]

The problem with texas is that it is such a large state with varying incomes. I live in North Texas in a fairly wealthy area, but go 30 minutes south, into Dallas, and the schools are dirt poor. Go a little east, and you have places like Trophy Club that are filthy rich. We have so much variety, it is hard to accomodate, but how does this have anything to do with the democratic party?

I didn't say it did. The Democratic party is virtually dead in Texas and I'm sure you are aware of that fact. Actually, I will reveal my plan. Lower the outrageous sales and real estate taxes. But enact a state income tax. That would fix the problem if we are going to have Texas as a state calling the shots and funding the school systems. I would still have "local" control on a true level and not this "local" in name only fantasy. A "poor" district could receive revenue sharing from the collection of state taxes to even out the education system. But it would be up to the local officials to see that it is spent wisely. This would be up to the collaboration of the officials, teachers, parents and any other people living within that local area to ensure it is spent wisely. What we have right now is the worst of all possible worlds.

And one final thing. No way in the world would anyone graduate high school unless they were literate and knew how to add 2 plus 2 and knew the names of the presidents and the time they served in offices. If they can't do this, they have no business with a high school diploma.

 

[shuamort]

Actually, Texas isn't even in the top ten percent of sales taxes. There are five states ahead of you that have higher ones:
MN=6.5%
NV=6.5%
WA=6.5%
MS=7.0%
RI=7.0%

 

[HTColeman]

I didn't say it did. The Democratic party is virtually dead in Texas and I'm sure you are aware of that fact. Actually, I will reveal my plan. Lower the outrageous sales and real estate taxes. But enact a state income tax. That would fix the problem if we are going to have Texas as a state calling the shots and funding the school systems. I would still have "local" control on a true level and not this "local" in name only fantasy. A "poor" district could receive revenue sharing from the collection of state taxes to even out the education system. But it would be up to the local officials to see that it is spent wisely. This would be up to the collaboration of the officials, teachers, parents and any other people living within that local area to ensure it is spent wisely. What we have right now is the worst of all possible worlds.

Yea, there is no democratic party in TX... But one point I agree with you on, you said it a while back, sports and how the schools are spending the money given to them. My school payed close to a million dollars for new turf on the football field...we don't even use the field for football games b/c there isn't room for stands. They practice on the field and have soccer games, and they paid nearly a million dollars! As a result, they cut the academic club budgets by more than 50%, including debate. School spending needs to be regulated.

 

[HTColeman]

Actually, Texas isn't even in the top ten percent of sales taxes. There are five states ahead of you that have higher ones:
MN=6.5%
NV=6.5%
WA=6.5%
MS=7.0%
RI=7.0%

Sales taxes are by county though, in my county, sales tax is 8.25%, in Tarrant county(south of us) it is 7.25%.

 

[shuamort]

Sales taxes are by county though, in my county, sales tax is 8.25%, in Tarrant county(south of us) it is 7.25%.

Thanks, I didn't know that, I pulled my info from a website that lists Texas with a 6.25% sales tax. Is that an average or what's with that number?

 

[Mikkel]

I didn't say it did. The Democratic party is virtually dead in Texas and I'm sure you are aware of that fact. Actually, I will reveal my plan. Lower the outrageous sales and real estate taxes. But enact a state income tax. That would fix the problem if we are going to have Texas as a state calling the shots and funding the school systems. I would still have "local" control on a true level and not this "local" in name only fantasy. A "poor" district could receive revenue sharing from the collection of state taxes to even out the education system. But it would be up to the local officials to see that it is spent wisely. This would be up to the collaboration of the officials, teachers, parents and any other people living within that local area to ensure it is spent wisely. What we have right now is the worst of all possible worlds.

And one final thing. No way in the world would anyone graduate high school unless they were literate and knew how to add 2 plus 2 and knew the names of the presidents and the time they served in offices. If they can't do this, they have no business with a high school diploma.

What happened to your market based school system? I admit that there is some wasteful spending going on in education, but do you think that your plan would really influence it all that much?

I don't see how my earlier post was "bizzare", but I find your response to be equally insubstantial.

"Now think about that and look at the amount of taxes that are paid in to support the present system. I'll bet the farm that private business could turn out a far better product with a lot less revenue."

No doubt, but you'd lose 'consumers' and wasn't that the reason this thread was started to begin with? Because you ran into a stupid person?

You keep assuming that government programs are working to keep 'incompetent' teachers in the classrooms. Well here's a fact. My aunt is a teacher who taught in inner city cleveland schools a few years ago. Now she's working at the Home Depot. She teaches middle school science, and has a masters degree in environmental science from OSU. I'd hardly qualify her as incompetent. A couple of years ago, cleveland had to lay off hundreds of teachers to meet budget restrictions. Now they have overcrowded classrooms with an appauling student to teacher ratio of 100-1.

This doesn't even come close to the type of job that these teachers have to face, that they're fighting to get. If my aunt does get a job teaching again, she'll be going back to rotten kids with even worse parents, and she'll be dealing with them in a classroom full of other kids that are just the same.

You have no connection to how things really are for teachers. You can say stuff like, "they chose to teach" and other crap like that, but you don't realize what it is actually like for them.

I don't think your income tax plan is a horrible one, in fact I think it could help. But to say that educational tax increases is merely pandering to the teacher's union is an ignorant and innacurate statement.

 

[Missouri Mule]

As Bush continues to spend trillions of dollars, we are the ones who think money grows on trees...

The fact of the matter is, if you had your way, inner city students would not be educated, at all.

Now you have gone off the deep end.

First of all, I didn't even vote for Bush. You implied that I did.

Secondly, my main beef is that the inner city students ARE not being educated. It's not an "at all" situation. It's a fact.

The problem that I have with liberals is that they are supremely naive and incapable of critical thinking. During the Great Depression "relief" came to the people who were on the verge of starvation. We had something on the order of 1/3 of the working people out of work and people were barely able to survive. My own family lived in southeast Missouri as sharecroppers and didn't have a pot to **** in. They had to eat the bark off of trees and in bad times had to boil their shoes to have something to eat. A good day's pay was a $1 a day if you could find work. But then the war came along with it and with it came relative prosperity.

Moving right along, things progressed until the LBJ came up with his "Great Society." He had great power with both the presidency, and huge majorities in Congress. They went hog wild with all of these liberal programs. If I recall correctly the national budget didn't exceed $100 billion unitl the mid or late 60's. It is now $2.8 trillion dollars. We have NOT had 2,800 % inflation since then. Maybe 500-600% inflation but not 2,800% inflation. Meanwhile all of this tax money has gone in to fund the schemes the government bureaucrats could concoct and to buy the continued votes of the constituents of Congress to where they now have virtual lifetime employment in D.C. That's where we are today.

When I began school in 1949, I went to a one room school house on a hill about a mile from where I lived. I walked to school as did all my classmates. There were eight grades in that school house. We took our lunches to school in our lunch boxes and ate in the basement. We had our recesses where we played on the swings and softball in the adjoining field. There were no sports programs that needed funding. We didn't have school "counselors" and all of that liberal mumbo-jumbo crap that passes for education today. And if one stepped out of line, the teacher rapped our knuckles or called the parents to take their brats home. Later on, I attended an area wide school district and rode a school bus 12 miles to the high school I attended. I was kicked off the bus and made to walk to and from the school to my home for pulling a girl's hair on the bus. The principal walked the halls with a paddle in his hand and woe to anyone stepping out of line. One time a made a wisecrack in class and the teacher slapped me in the face. That got my attention.

What we have today are glorified day care centers for the kids to get them out of the house so the parents can do their thing. Then the kids come home and do their thing. Our prisons are filling up with these kids who can't do fundamental skills to hold a job so instead they hold up liquor and convenience stores. One of the growing industries in Texas is our ever increasing prison system. That's the net result of the failing education system of today. Why would anyone, liberal or conservative, want to preserve that system? Beats the hell out of me.

 

[galenrox]

Your post is kind of silly, but I'll address it anyway. (Actually it is downright bizarre.) Next time why don't you actually check out what is paid to send one child to school around the U.S? And I suppose you believe that money is plucked from some "money tree." Now think about that and look at the amount of taxes that are paid in to support the present system. I'll bet the farm that private business could turn out a far better product with a lot less revenue. The current system just encourages sloth, waste, and bureaucratic boondoggles. The students who attend these institutions of "learning" never see the bottom line. They still believe that money grows on trees; like most liberals do. And most teachers are virtually certain to be part of the "vast left wing conspiracy." When's the last time you ever hear a teacher (any teacher) say "don't vote for higher taxes."

It's always easiest for someone else to say increase the other guy's taxes to pay for someone else's goodies. When we have to pony up for our own indulgences it is amazing how we develop an appreciation for our own money. Liberals have never learned that lesson and never will. It isn't in their genes.

actually I heard it quite consistantly, and I'm assuming that I was in high school a little more recently than you. And actually our school made regular mention of how much it cost for each student for one year. The number was indeed ridiculously high, but then you need to factor in the fact that we had a good 50 security guards each making a very decent salary, and over 100 teachers, not to mention all of the administrators, the sports teams, the 4 computer labs, the 4 libraries, the av lab, text books, construction, so on and so forth, you can see how it all adds up.

 

[Missouri Mule]

actually I heard it quite consistantly, and I'm assuming that I was in high school a little more recently than you. And actually our school made regular mention of how much it cost for each student for one year. The number was indeed ridiculously high, but then you need to factor in the fact that we had a good 50 security guards each making a very decent salary, and over 100 teachers, not to mention all of the administrators, the sports teams, the 4 computer labs, the 4 libraries, the av lab, text books, construction, so on and so forth, you can see how it all adds up.

In my ideal school we don't have security guards and all of that other stuff. It's either shape up or ship out. You could put a security combination lock on the front door or some other kind of security system to keep out the bad ones. The school children are there to learn; period. The trouble makers are outta there. The bad ones can be sent to reform school like they did in the old days. In those days the judges told these delinquents to go to jail or into the military. A lot of these punks actually went on and became national heroes in the old days and onto good productive lives. There wasn't any of that touchy-feely nonsense back then. And it didn't cost much either.

 

[Mikkel]

Now you have gone off the deep end.

First of all, I didn't even vote for Bush. You implied that I did.

Secondly, my main beef is that the inner city students ARE not being educated. It's not an "at all" situation. It's a fact.

The problem that I have with liberals is that they are supremely naive and incapable of critical thinking. During the Great Depression "relief" came to the people who were on the verge of starvation. We had something on the order of 1/3 of the working people out of work and people were barely able to survive. My own family lived in southeast Missouri as sharecroppers and didn't have a pot to **** in. They had to eat the bark off of trees and in bad times had to boil their shoes to have something to eat. A good day's pay was a $1 a day if you could find work. But then the war came along with it and with it came relative prosperity.

Moving right along, things progressed until the LBJ came up with his "Great Society." He had great power with both the presidency, and huge majorities in Congress. They went hog wild with all of these liberal programs. If I recall correctly the national budget didn't exceed $100 billion unitl the mid or late 60's. It is now $2.8 trillion dollars. We have NOT had 2,800 % inflation since then. Maybe 500-600% inflation but not 2,800% inflation. Meanwhile all of this tax money has gone in to fund the schemes the government bureaucrats could concoct and to buy the continued votes of the constituents of Congress to where they now have virtual lifetime employment in D.C. That's where we are today.

When I began school in 1949, I went to a one room school house on a hill about a mile from where I lived. I walked to school as did all my classmates. There were eight grades in that school house. We took our lunches to school in our lunch boxes and ate in the basement. We had our recesses where we played on the swings and softball in the adjoining field. There were no sports programs that needed funding. We didn't have school "counselors" and all of that liberal mumbo-jumbo crap that passes for education today. And if one stepped out of line, the teacher rapped our knuckles or called the parents to take their brats home. Later on, I attended an area wide school district and rode a school bus 12 miles to the high school I attended. I was kicked off the bus and made to walk to and from the school to my home for pulling a girl's hair on the bus. The principal walked the halls with a paddle in his hand and woe to anyone stepping out of line. One time a made a wisecrack in class and the teacher slapped me in the face. That got my attention.

What we have today are glorified day care centers for the kids to get them out of the house so the parents can do their thing. Then the kids come home and do their thing. Our prisons are filling up with these kids who can't do fundamental skills to hold a job so instead they hold up liquor and convenience stores. One of the growing industries in Texas is our ever increasing prison system. That's the net result of the failing education system of today. Why would anyone, liberal or conservative, want to preserve that system? Beats the hell out of me.

And did you have to walk uphill in the snow both ways? It seems to me like you resent your childhood so much that you convince yourself that you won't be happy until you ruin the lives of today's children. I thought the purpose of having children was so that they could have BETTER lives than we do.

You claim that crime is a result of poor education. No argument here. But if schools are so 'easy' on children these days, then why is it that the majority of criminals are high school drop outs or those that fail to succeed? Perhaps the reason we're trying to 'leave no child behind' is so that they don't go into crime, so that they have some motivation to succeed. Perhaps the educational system is less to blame than you think.

 

[Kelzie]

And you still ignore the facts. Can't deal with them? Leave you with nothing but "my school sucked, I want everyone else's to". Kids are doing BETTER. Deal with it.

From the National Center for Education Statistics:

"The average reading scores of students at ages 9 and 13 were higher in 2004 than in 1971"

"The average mathematics scores of students at ages 9 and 13 were higher in 2004 than in 1973."

Now, shall we see if you are going to ignore this a THRID time because you can't face reality?

 

[Missouri Mule]

And did you have to walk uphill in the snow both ways? It seems to me like you resent your childhood so much that you convince yourself that you won't be happy until you ruin the lives of today's children. I thought the purpose of having children was so that they could have BETTER lives than we do.

You claim that crime is a result of poor education. No argument here. But if schools are so 'easy' on children these days, then why is it that the majority of criminals are high school drop outs or those that fail to succeed? Perhaps the reason we're trying to 'leave no child behind' is so that they don't go into crime, so that they have some motivation to succeed. Perhaps the educational system is less to blame than you think.

It's the politics of education -- the politics!! Follow the money.

 

[Missouri Mule]

And you still ignore the facts. Can't deal with them? Leave you with nothing but "my school sucked, I want everyone else's to". Kids are doing BETTER. Deal with it.

Now, shall we see if you are going to ignore this a THRID time because you can't face reality?

I graduated in 1961 and can assure you that all of us in our class of 150 can add 2 plus 2 and know the presidents. I can't speak for the kids of 1971. I guess that's the time that the liberals took over things which happens to be the time that LBJ's "Great Society" came into being and the money vaults were thrown open to the greedy and corrupt. And education went into the toilet.

I've not studied your numbers. Let me say this. I spent the last years of my working life working with statistics. I know how easily they can be manipulated. Don't be so sure how accurate they are. As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics." Remember that always if you don't agree with anything else I say.

 

[Mikkel]

It's the politics of education -- the politics!! Follow the money.

I see the problems, I follow the money. The problem isn't the source, it's the fact that there isn't enough money to begin with.