| Blogs > micronesia |
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
I'm just curious to know who exactly buys into this... Poll: The policy linked to above is: (Vote): Bullshit (Vote): Perfectly Reasonable (Vote): Not too good not too bad (Vote): I am not sure (Vote): I didn't read it Any explanations/criticisms/etc are welcome.  | ||
|
kpcrew
Korea (South)1071 Posts
parents are just going to choose all the good schools, meaning that the bad schools will have few students and the good students will get swamped with too many kids, becoming "bad" with unruly kids does this policy include magnet schools as well? i dont think it said | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 10 2008 12:20 kpcrew(Gg) wrote: does this policy include magnet schools as well? i dont think it said I could be wrong, but I think the Magnet program operates independently for the most part. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
To be fair, it doesn't really change anything. Parents are already living at places where they will be able to allow their child better education, should they be able to afford it, and in some cases even when it is above their means. If he fleshes this out some more, we would be able to make better judgments. EDIT - I guess if I have to say something, in comparison to what Obama has suggested, this feels much more reasonable even if I don't know what the heck McCain plans to do. I guess it is a case where something I don't know the exact contents of turning out to be more appealing than something I know has some aspects that I dislike. Not particularly sound logic, but can't be avoided. It won't do for McCain to flesh out a ton of plans that will ultimately be creating a larger federal government, and it seems rather that the responsibilities will diffuse down to the lower state level for the most part. | ||
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
| ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
1. Move 2. Pay for a private school This isn't much of a policy, especially considering that it contains absolutely no details on how it would be implemented. | ||
|
kpcrew
Korea (South)1071 Posts
1. earn money 2. marry 3. buy house | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
How people can call a policy that doesn't contain any statement specific enough in execution to be bullshit is rather odd to me, anyone care to explain? | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Sounds more like "John McCain's empty promise on education policy" | ||
|
kpcrew
Korea (South)1071 Posts
| ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 10 2008 12:35 Ecael wrote: How people can call a policy that doesn't contain any statement specific enough in execution to be bullshit is rather odd to me, anyone care to explain? Let me clarify. I don't mean his entire policy is bullshit (since it isn't clear what it is). I mean, the information on that page (henceforth referred to as his policy on education) is bullshit. Edit: Then again, I'll probably label anything pro-NCLB as bullshit at this point without even reading it because of how charged that term is for me  | ||
|
Kwidowmaker
Canada978 Posts
Bullshit over here. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On August 10 2008 12:50 micronesia wrote: Let me clarify. I don't mean his entire policy is bullshit (since it isn't clear what it is). I mean, the information on that page (henceforth referred to as his policy on education) is bullshit. Edit: Then again, I'll probably label anything pro-NCLB as bullshit at this point without even reading it because of how charged that term is for me If memory serves, you teach Physics right? Must be tough working with that. That said, far as I can tell, he isn't pro-NCLB per se, but took a stance to "draw upon the lessons of NCLB". What does that mean? Who knows. The press release linked at the bottom provided better information, I guess the first page was closer to a mission statement than a policy. That said, that press release was still fairly vague, and avoided much of the details. Odd though, the site focused way more on the parental power than the press release, which glossed over it in like two paragraphs max. | ||
|
talismania
United States2364 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 10 2008 12:59 Ecael wrote: If memory serves, you teach Physics right? Must be tough working with that. That said, far as I can tell, he isn't pro-NCLB per se, but took a stance to "draw upon the lessons of NCLB". What does that mean? Who knows. The press release linked at the bottom provided better information, I guess the first page was closer to a mission statement than a policy. That said, that press release was still fairly vague, and avoided much of the details. Odd though, the site focused way more on the parental power than the press release, which glossed over it in like two paragraphs max. Note bolded segment above. I agree with what you are saying for the most part. My issue is the assumptions and conclusions regarding NCLB that are implied. Generally what I've observed is politicians and bureaucrats make claims about education that are completely wrong, and then preach this to the general public. But this only works to an extent since there are many teachers and students in the USA. Most of what NCLB has done is find excuses to place blame (where it isn't even due). | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 10 2008 13:01 talismania wrote: I'm still not convinced there's a framework in place for government at the federal level to really really really significantly impact the quality of education in the US. So much of the money for our schools and teachers comes from local property taxes, the school boards are all locally elected, etc. Maybe if the US dumped a shit-ton of cash into incentives for teachers and pell grants and stuff like that, but I can't see that happening either. You are right that it's very difficult for the federal government to improve education, given its constitutional role in education. However, it's very easy for the federal government to screw up education, as has been occurring for several years (on a wide scale) | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
As for NCLB, well, I don't know. It has been used as a method of shifting blame around rather than something that actually mattered. Neither candidate were willing to make much of anything of this, it just got glossed over. An initiative like NCLB is going to be around for a while, and I highly doubt that either candidates will be able to do anything on the matter before more [un]favorable results come to light. | ||
|
kpcrew
Korea (South)1071 Posts
its simple supply and demand, speculators have little to do with higher food prices demand for oil up, food costs more to transport, higher prices etc. but then again barack obama acting like a real politician himself, unlike the image he presented before the dnc | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
EDIT - Besides, he can't feasibly blame it on anything else, lol. Any politician would take the free scapegoat offered to them in speculators, and financial regulators are only too happy to join in the ass covering. | ||
|
Underwhelmed
United States207 Posts
If a school will not change, the students should be able to change schools. John McCain believes parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children. Translation: LET RICH PEOPLE PICK BETTER SCHOOLS AND THE POOR CAN FUCK THEMSELVES | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 10 2008 13:31 Underwhelmed wrote: Translation: LET RICH PEOPLE PICK BETTER SCHOOLS AND THE POOR CAN FUCK THEMSELVES Well the current system in the USA is: Richer school = smarter students Poorer school = poorer students Sounds like it's already favoring the rich... But the first thing that came to mind when reading about the school choosing suggestion (which is not an unprecedented suggestion of course) was a thought experiment similar to this: There are 100 students, and five schools that each can house 20 students. School 1 produced A students. School 2 produces B students, etc. It's unfair to the people zoned for School 5, so give them a choice. How do we choose which of the 100 people can go to school 1? This silly example has glossed over an issue: School 1 doesn't produce A students simply because it's a better school. School 1 produces better students because the circumstances surrounding its students are superior (and because the school is probably good in addition). I wouldn't be surprised if a study showed that most of the parents in School 1 give a crap about their kids' education, and the parents of school 5 either couldn't care less, or were too poor/busy to take an active role. | ||
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Well we can start by making teaching actually monetarily rewarding... idk -_- always had an issue with how little teachers make in general. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 10 2008 13:47 thedeadhaji wrote: Btw the page states something along the lines of "our kids deserve the best education adn the best teachers yadayada" Well we can start by making teaching actually monetarily rewarding... idk -_- always had an issue with how little teachers make in general. Haji why the hell did you rate this blog a 1? + Show Spoiler + To be fair, teachers get paid better in places where kids do well. However, as much as we'd like it to be that good teaching leads to best educational results... it seems to work backwards. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
I'm not very well informed on this topic, but I agree with what's been written before. It isn't just the system that's the problem, it's the socioeconomic circumstances of the students. I live close to one of the top public high schools in the nation (Mission San Jose). Let me tell you, it is no coincidence that this school has the highest percentage of asian students in California. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
The really smart. This is like the top 10% or so of each class. They get all the AP and IB and special fancy language/money classes, and they get off pretty well from our school with routinely 20+ kids to Ivies. The special needs kids: These kids get like 5x the money of the top 10%, and we actually have one of the best special needs educations in the state, let alone the overrall region. The average: They get screwed up the butthole. Seriously, I went from my AP Statistics class after having a great time doing stats stuff, and I went to pick up books from the regular Statistics class. Do you know what the teacher was making them do? She was making them READ NUMBERS FROM THE RANDOM DIGIT TABLE. I kid you not. It's clearly not fair for kids that are just under that 10% threshold, for instance, because it just might be that all of the kids this year are super geniuses. They should have the right to go to other public schools if they want to to get the "top 10%" also. I mean, all they do right now is busy work, why should they care about education? At the same time, Mccain's policies are bs. He says nothing but stuff that's already there. If anything, hard working teachers should get merit pay, and rubber room teachers should be fired instead of maintained to chill at the taxpayer's expense. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 10 2008 14:50 Caller wrote: How do you determine which teachers deserve this?At the same time, Mccain's policies are bs. He says nothing but stuff that's already there. If anything, hard working teachers should get merit pay, and rubber room teachers should be fired instead of maintained to chill at the taxpayer's expense. If you mean teachers are overprotected even if they do a horrible job, then you are probably right but I don't think this is currently a major issue, as compared to other ones. | ||
|
Jathin
United States3505 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 10 2008 16:25 Jathin wrote: We can pay teachers according to performance results on standardized test scores!!! Yay then our entire curriculum can be surrounded by teaching towards a test. I wish all idealists would watch The Wire You make it sound like this isn't almost exactly what's happening XD | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
| ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
As for teachers getting paid better...say aren't both sides trying to say that as a method of appealing to voters? I am not sure what is refered to exactly with rubber room teacher, but if that's Special Ed, then anything suggesting a policy remotely close to that will probably lead to public outrage. | ||
|
Underwhelmed
United States207 Posts
On August 10 2008 13:43 micronesia wrote: Well the current system in the USA is: Richer school = smarter students Poorer school = poorer students Sounds like it's already favoring the rich... But the first thing that came to mind when reading about the school choosing suggestion (which is not an unprecedented suggestion of course) was a thought experiment similar to this: There are 100 students, and five schools that each can house 20 students. School 1 produced A students. School 2 produces B students, etc. It's unfair to the people zoned for School 5, so give them a choice. How do we choose which of the 100 people can go to school 1? This silly example has glossed over an issue: School 1 doesn't produce A students simply because it's a better school. School 1 produces better students because the circumstances surrounding its students are superior (and because the school is probably good in addition). I wouldn't be surprised if a study showed that most of the parents in School 1 give a crap about their kids' education, and the parents of school 5 either couldn't care less, or were too poor/busy to take an active role. Pretty much. What McCain is suggesting is applying free market concepts to schools (Replace schools with businesses and children with money). So lets say you allow parents to choose what school their kids go to by giving them vouchers (Which is almost certainly McCain's plan, even if he doesn't explicitly say it. Republicans want to privatize everything). Those parents take their children out of that school - if this happened in a business, they'd run out of money and have to close, leaving only the more profitable - and presumably efficient - businesses behind. But replacing the school with another is simply not a solution because your school has to remain in the same area. Schools are not fast food chains. You can hire people capable of flipping burgers pretty much anywhere, but training good teachers is much harder. Food at every location tastes pretty much the same, but a school's effectiveness is largely dependent upon how many good teachers are in the area. And a school in a poor, inner city area is inherently going to have a harder time attracting competent teachers than a high-class suburb. Even the best administrator can only do so much with a certain pool of resources. You can't move the school, because that goes against the fucking point of the school, which is to educate students in the local area. A school doing poorly needs MORE resources to improve, not less. But thanks to No Child Left Behind, the schools that need the help most actually get less, since funding is based upon "performance" (But that's for another thread) | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
| ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
| ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 10 2008 16:02 micronesia wrote: How do you determine which teachers deserve this?If you mean teachers are overprotected even if they do a horrible job, then you are probably right but I don't think this is currently a major issue, as compared to other ones. I am not really an expert in any field of education, so I have no idea how they would do this.. If anything, one thing that needs to be done is to weaken the teacher's union. They can ostracize certain teachers that may oppose their policies, and oppose merit pay and want to lower class sizes to increase teaching jobs to increase their own power. It's basically a closed shop employment, you can't really work without being part of the union. Firing an incompetent New York teacher, for instance, is nearly impossible without their having committed major felonies. As for merit pay, perhaps some district-wide pre-test to post-test could be used, and the top 10% average in difference of scores, maybe mix up the questions or something, I have no idea. If I had any idea, I would be in education administration. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 10 2008 23:15 Ecael wrote: Caller, how are you going to target such a group? What if the school just increases funding so that they can increase it to 15%? 20%? How are you going to able to determine where it cuts off? There aren't really any good solution to this outside of the US being able to just improve its education system across the board. As for teachers getting paid better...say aren't both sides trying to say that as a method of appealing to voters? I am not sure what is refered to exactly with rubber room teacher, but if that's Special Ed, then anything suggesting a policy remotely close to that will probably lead to public outrage. There is no statsistical correlation between money and improvement of kids. And funding is not as easy to get as one would think. If you pay teachers for being very good, I do not understand why they would not try to improve your kids, aside from maybe discouraging cheating. A rubber room teacher is basically a teacher that gets put into a reassignment center, where they drink, chill, and get paid for not teaching. This is a practice mostly in New York City, and sometimes teachers that are not used by the union are placed in there as well. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 11 2008 01:38 Caller wrote: I am not really an expert in any field of education, so I have no idea how they would do this.. If anything, one thing that needs to be done is to weaken the teacher's union. They can ostracize certain teachers that may oppose their policies, and oppose merit pay and want to lower class sizes to increase teaching jobs to increase their own power. It's basically a closed shop employment, you can't really work without being part of the union. Firing an incompetent New York teacher, for instance, is nearly impossible without their having committed major felonies. As for merit pay, perhaps some district-wide pre-test to post-test could be used, and the top 10% average in difference of scores, maybe mix up the questions or something, I have no idea. If I had any idea, I would be in education administration. District-wide pre-test to post-test? What do you mean? If I'm understanding this idea, it's basically making the same mistake that NCLB makes. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
Sounds retarded, give more funding to poor schools instead. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
Ooh, those teachers, I've heard of them back in my HS days. Yeah, that's a pretty screwed up practice, I have absolutely no idea how the heck that is still happening when NYC always looks so desperate in looking for working teachers. A balance between Union and Management has always been a problem in the balance of power. Though in the example of a NY teacher, it is closer to like we have absolutely no teachers, it becomes nearly impossible to fire one that's actually teaching, crappy or not :p That said, there aren't really any ways to analyze how well the teachers are doing their job outside of a standarized test, at best we can compliment the results with other factors, even if they are biased and should be corrected for location. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 11 2008 03:21 Ecael wrote: That said, there aren't really any ways to analyze how well the teachers are doing their job outside of a standarized test, at best we can compliment the results with other factors, even if they are biased and should be corrected for location. The problem is how brutally misused standardized tests are when evaluating teachers. Hell, my class's performance is compared the performance of the physics classes at another school.... and of course if I have a lower passing percentage then I'm a worse teacher, right? It has nothing to do with the fact that half of my students are being forced to take physics against their will, and almost none of his students are. | ||
|
Underwhelmed
United States207 Posts
On August 11 2008 01:46 Caller wrote: There is no statsistical correlation between money and improvement of kids. And funding is not as easy to get as one would think. Merely throwing money at schools won't solve the problem, but I guarantee you a lack of money will hurt schools. And I wish people would stop touting "PRIVATIZE IT" as the solution to everything. Sure worked out well for our Healthcare, eh? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 11 2008 06:24 Underwhelmed wrote: And I wish people would stop touting "PRIVATIZE IT" as the solution to everything. Sure worked out well for our Healthcare, eh? Haha I had a specific example the other day... Hofstra University's Bookstore is now a Barnes and Noble. They sold back all the textbooks for our course before everyone even had a chance to pick it up and the professor said something like "well, when you have a Republican run campus, they want to privatize everything, and this is what happens." | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On August 11 2008 06:19 micronesia wrote: The problem is how brutally misused standardized tests are when evaluating teachers. Hell, my class's performance is compared the performance of the physics classes at another school.... and of course if I have a lower passing percentage then I'm a worse teacher, right? It has nothing to do with the fact that half of my students are being forced to take physics against their will, and almost none of his students are. I understand, thus the suggestion that other factors and corrections are to be included rather than having us look at only the standarized test, which is what we do now. I agree that the way that standarized tests are now used is pointless, mandatory physics is never about to turn out many students that care enough to pass the subject. I certainly can attest for how a ton of people in my HS either failed physics or purposely did bad with chemistry as to get into earth sciences. However, without standarized tests, how exactly are we to distiniguish the results put forth by teachers? The only solution I see is interpretation needs to be taking in context of far more things rather than simply taking upon the score itself, but a colossal task like that is likely to be frowned upon. Relating this back to the policies of the candidates though, neither of them provided any real solution to it. McCain ignored the topic, Obama proposed we improve the test, how? Who knows, magical revisions will make it better I guess. So would shutting one's eyes to it. On August 11 2008 06:24 Underwhelmed wrote: Merely throwing money at schools won't solve the problem, but I guarantee you a lack of money will hurt schools. And I wish people would stop touting "PRIVATIZE IT" as the solution to everything. Sure worked out well for our Healthcare, eh? Are you going to claim that universal healthcare is the way to go? The American healthcare system is anything but privatized, the amount of government regulation as to how it is to be provided as well as the legalities surrounding it makes it impossible to be called upon as an example of privatization. I merely suggested that privatization is probably more effective than what we have been doing all this time, which is floundering about shifting blames from one to another. EDIT - lol at the example, efficiency can be too much? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 11 2008 06:50 Ecael wrote: Er, what?EDIT - lol at the example, efficiency can be too much? | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
Don't mind the Republican  Was going with the idea of inventory being a horrible thing at this time and is to be reduced as soon as possible. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
1.) the schools that cost the most will have the best teachers. 2.) what about transportation to and from schools? 3.) poor kids will have to go to worse schools. the problem with our schools is: 1.) lack of funding. duh 2.) administrators who are REALLY bad at their jobs and make too much money. 3.) focus on irrelevant bullshit. we need to be focused on teaching our kids, not on standardized testing. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On August 11 2008 07:53 travis wrote: privatization of the school system will not work, it doesn't make sense. people ignore several key points. 1.) the schools that cost the most will have the best teachers. 2.) what about transportation to and from schools? 3.) poor kids will have to go to worse schools. On August 10 2008 13:43 micronesia wrote: Well the current system in the USA is: Richer school = smarter students Poorer school = poorer students Sounds like it's already favoring the rich... But the first thing that came to mind when reading about the school choosing suggestion (which is not an unprecedented suggestion of course) was a thought experiment similar to this: There are 100 students, and five schools that each can house 20 students. School 1 produced A students. School 2 produces B students, etc. It's unfair to the people zoned for School 5, so give them a choice. How do we choose which of the 100 people can go to school 1? This silly example has glossed over an issue: School 1 doesn't produce A students simply because it's a better school. School 1 produces better students because the circumstances surrounding its students are superior (and because the school is probably good in addition). I wouldn't be surprised if a study showed that most of the parents in School 1 give a crap about their kids' education, and the parents of school 5 either couldn't care less, or were too poor/busy to take an active role. While I don't think privatization solves any issues already present, I do believe that it can at least lessen the scale of them. That said, it might as well as be impossible, too many interest groups would prefer to keep schooling a government managed affair. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
this would solve the problem and make the terrible administrators focus on what their actual job is also the schools just plain need more funding | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32044 Posts
Anyway, yeah, McCain's idea sucks. I can't see how vocuhers will work at all. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 11 2008 10:21 Hawk wrote: Tenure is the worst thing to happen to schools ever. Almost every shit teacher is locked into tenure, and therefore impossible to remove. That's the biggest problems with schools now. That is definitely not the worst thing to happen to schools, but I do think the power of tenure is a bit too much. The way it works right now is, you are more or less treated like crap until you get tenure, if you can manage to get it. I'd rather there be a bit more protection for nontenured teachers, and a bit less protection for tenured teachers. | ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32044 Posts
On August 11 2008 10:26 micronesia wrote: That is definitely not the worst thing to happen to schools, but I do think the power of tenure is a bit too much. The way it works right now is, you are more or less treated like crap until you get tenure, if you can manage to get it. I'd rather there be a bit more protection for nontenured teachers, and a bit less protection for tenured teachers. Maybe the worst thing is a bit of an overstatement (ok, it is =p) but it's still a bad system. What other job do you get security like that after 5 years or whatever? All it does is keep crappy teachers in place. The good ones aren't going to get fired, so what's the point? | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 11 2008 06:24 Underwhelmed wrote: Merely throwing money at schools won't solve the problem, but I guarantee you a lack of money will hurt schools. And I wish people would stop touting "PRIVATIZE IT" as the solution to everything. Sure worked out well for our Healthcare, eh? I'm not saying a lack of money will not hurt schools, but I am saying that giving schools more money isn't going to do anything-they'll just build new swimming pools and whatnot. My school just got a recent boost in their budget and instead of hiring better teachers or improving the science department they're building a bigger auditorium and football field. Yeah, there's my money at work. Privatizing schools is probably not a great idea, however. And for the record, the reason we got into this healthcare mess in the first place was because a certain federal government decided to a) require all employers to purchase insurance for their employees and b) decided to give aid money to HMOs in the form of grants to encourage that industry. Of course, now everybody relies on insurance, so why should doctors bother lowering a "market price." This is, again, not "free market" at work, but rather fascism, where companies basically run the government and get money from it at the taxpayer's expense. Not to mention the US, unlike other countries, requires 8 years of college/medical school + all sorts of other crap, because we regulate everything, whereas in the UK for instance they only need 4 years as a medical major. Not to mention that drugs are cheaper in other places partly because their regulations for testing are basically a) see if US FDA approves it b) PROFIT. I dunno about you, but if the government is paying me shit, I have no idea why I would put myself 500,000$ in debt and make zippo for 16 years when I could work at a fastfood joint for 16 years and make enough to buy a good house. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24637 Posts
On August 11 2008 23:30 Hawk wrote: Maybe the worst thing is a bit of an overstatement (ok, it is =p) but it's still a bad system. What other job do you get security like that after 5 years or whatever? All it does is keep crappy teachers in place. The good ones aren't going to get fired, so what's the point? Well ideally only good teachers get tenure, but I know it's impossible to always make the right decision. However, "the goon ones aren't going to get fired" seems obvious but isn't necessarily true. Tenure often protects those who need to be protected for one reason or another. School involves a lot of politics. | ||
| ||
|
|
Online Event
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
Road to EWC
Road to EWC
BSL Season 20
Bonyth vs Doodle
Bonyth vs izu
Bonyth vs MadiNho
Bonyth vs TerrOr
MadiNho vs TerrOr
Doodle vs izu
Doodle vs MadiNho
Doodle vs TerrOr
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Bellum Gens Elite
The PondCast
Bellum Gens Elite
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
