Not all students are capable of honors/AP work

Some comfort is drawn from assumin' your classroom time is thusly reduced, thereby lessenin' your opportunity to further perpetrate damage on buddin' minds.

Projecting, are we? It is the right that is far more apt to present a one sided argument or, more accurately, its own misconceptions. Most lefties bend over back wards to expose all sides of the argument.

Have you figured out why I gave you the salary comparison and just how meaningless your statement about teacher salaries in your area is?

Frankly, I don't see how either are particularly relevant. The example I cited was as much by way of "So what?" as in direct refutation to the unfounded allegation of yours which brought it forth.

T, you simply can not argue, period.

submit, POM, I specifically and repeatedly have called for restructurin' the existin' system from the top down, devisin' and institutin' uniform, reasonable but rigorous achievement standards, imposin' accountabilty, eliminatin' tenure, and rewardin' accomplishment, not political finesse. While you may not consider such to be concrete suggestions, I do.


If you think saying you are in favor of restructuring schools and think that is a plan that people can adopt, you are living in lala land. How? By eliminating the middle school and returning to the K-8 and 9-12; by bringing real job skill teaching into the high school; by lengthening the school day; by adopting the Montessori method to the public schools? Now, I have listed four CONCRETE notions that are things communities can act upon. I have not simply screamed restructuring as you do. You say nothing.

And from the top down will not work. All improvements have to come from the bottom up. Improvements never work otherwise.

As for standards, what do you suggest? Bringing Massachusetts down to the level of Georgia or Alabama or Alabama to the level of MAssachusetts?

There have been tests for years but they often are meaningless. For example, the teaching of English is notoriously bad in upstate New York, despite the long existance of the Regents' test.

Furthermore, many states do not have tenure. Massachusetts does not.

And what about evaluation? Here, a teacher is appraised for five years by the principal, assistant principal and department chair. But, what happens if the principal wants to get into the teacher's pants and is rebuffed? What happens if the department chair is crazy? Your proposals are political and it is sad that you can not see that.

submit further your incessant attack on my person and my style as opposed to offerin' objective counter to my argument exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the approach you have adopted, and of your argument's foundation.

You expose yourself with utterly off topic and irrelevant comments like a description of your clothing! The irony is that you dress like a lesbian cartoon!

BTW, you never earned a degree, did you?

You want respect? Drop your "in'"s! My kids hate their father for speaking in that matter. Going out of your way to write like that is silly beyond belief.

POM, you're a riot. Unfounded allegations, unwarranted assumptions, misdirections, distractions, misperceptions, and outright mischaracterizations flow through your commentary with fluid grace. The army you bring to the field is staffed by straw men bedecked in red herrings. For the sake of the future, I may only wish the majority of proponents of the agenda you press were talented similarly to you in the forensic arts.

I will say that you and I argue differently, and add I'm gratified those who argue from my perspective are steadily trimmin' the radical left's destructive influence on society. I suspect I can see from whence derives the bitterness your comments frequently betray; continued disappointment and a growin' sense of futility can be difficult to live with.

Once again, thanks for the entertainment.

Timber -- You don't argue at all. First of all, as Monte Python joked, an argument is an intellectual premise . . . Well, you say you want to reform education from the top down. Well, you claim to be from the right which abhors government . . . but of course . . . you want all the schools to close because you support bush . . . but yet you would change education by imposing your will on them as a member of a governmental body, a school board.

When I ask for concrete examples of what those changes are, you have nothing to say. It is probably because you have no plans. It is definitely because you don't know how to argue.

Now you and fishin' think that schools ought to return to teaching the Three R's, yet, there are hundreds of kids in the fifth grade here in Arlington, which is only the 29th school system in MA (by one source), who write (one of the Three) with greater clarity and fluidity and, therefore, argue better than either of you. How can you then claim to be able to improve education from your "top" down?

You say you never had the patience to teach and yet you would change the world of those who have the patience (and other qualities). You know, when I can not do something, I do not expect other people do what I can not. Nor would I have the arrogance to change what they do.

You also say the left ruined schools. You further say that you believe in public service. Well, the left improved schools. For some members of the left, teaching is a public service, as well as a profession they rested from the hands of bubble headed right wing sorority girls. The trouble is you and fishin' and I suspect brandon, all live in the past. I have been reading and re-reading the education threads here. You, the unholy trinity, tend to use examples from three decades past and think they are somehow relevant to today.

I pointed out to you that the left ended the notion of gaining an education degree in Michigan long ago. I asked you if you know who was responsible for the whole notion of political correctness (hint: it was not the left) and you ignored the question. You keep saying things that can not be proved, even if you were to marshall your facts.

When you go outside of the major American cities, you quickly hit Dogpatch. But the people who now live and work in Dogpatch have been out of school for some years -- maybe decades -- and their faulty education was not by the left.

How silly of me! I failed to realize that when I said left wingers of my generation began the movement to improve schools by beginning with their own educational progress, that I thought that Timberlandko believed in education. My gosh! He believes in illiteracy! Sorry!

One thing The Left seems to have not learned is that dismissin' and disparagin' Middle America serves The Left poorly. Fortunately, it's one of the few things The Left does well.

Dogpatch is fortunate indeed, ascendent and growin'. Glad I live there.

The sort of writing that teachers here in Arlington elementary schools demand of their fifth graders is the same as the nuns demanded of my eighth grade class. Friends of mine who went to the public high school rather than a Catholic school, always did well in English as they were already in advance of their classmates.

So, this is not a platitude but documentation.

What is wrong with criticizing America? There is nothing in this world that is above criticism. Without criticism -- which you on the right reveled in during the Clinton years -- there can be no growth, no improvement. Besides, since education is a part of America, aren't you contradicting yourself?

Besides, no one who has read this thread has any idea what your disappointment with American education is. You've never made one concrete statement. You have never documented what you see or feel.

Finally, if you acknowledge that you live in Dogpatch, don't be proud of having been re-elected.

<sigh>

Dunno why the concept is so hard for you to grasp. Lets try again from the top. We'll make some concrete, if that'll make ya happy.


First some sand:
1) Establish stringent, uniform grade-level achievement standards nationwide, standards structured to provide not mere literacy but a logical series of buildin' blocks formin' a foundation from which the student departs the K-12 system equipped with the necessary tools to have an equitable start in the adult world. The real adult world.

Next, a bit of gravel:
2) Require school districts meet minimum average student annual advancement levels, with actual student achievement required for advancement.

Some cement:
3) Establish effective, efficient, wholly objective reportin', monitorin', and enforcement mechanisms to track and ensure compliance with those standards.

And some water in which to mix it all:
4) Abolish tenure and patronage; tie not just advancement and promotion, but job retention as well to performance, for educators and administrators alike. Hold school districts, school administrations, and teachin' faculty accountable for meetin' those standards; perform at least to minimums, or be replaced by someone who will - lead, follow, or get the helloutta the way.


Now, lets agitate the ingredients:
NCLB, far from bein' an "unfunded mandate", has seen historic, unprecedented increases in Federal educational spendin' over the years since its inception, including a 49% increase in total K-12 spendin', $139 million for readin' programs alone (over four times the amount spent in FY 2001), and a 75% increase in special-education fundin'.

Durin' just 3 years of Bush the Greater's first term, Federal K-12 spendin' increased by more than during the entire Clinton Administration and the Democratic Administration preceedin' it, Carter's, combined. From 2001 through 2004, Federal education appropriations increased from $29.4 billion to $55.7 billion. The GAO has concluded that the new requirements actually imposed by NCLB - testin' every child, for example - are relatively inexpensive and are more than adequately offset by federal education dollars. Apart from that, literally $Billions of NCLB funds lie unspent in the coffers of various states, hostage to political wranglin' and fiefdom protection.

From 1960 thru 2000, after-inflation education spendin' more than tripled. A recent Harvard study found that real, inflation-adjusted spendin' increased from $5,900 per pupil in 1982 to over $9,200 in 2000. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that current (2004) U.S. K-12 education spendin' tallies a bit over $10,800 per child.

By 2000 figures, the OECD found the US spent significantly more per K-8 student than any other industrialized nation, includin' 56% more than France, 27% more than Japan, 80% more than the UK, 62% more than Belgium, 62% more than Finland, and a staggerin' 122% more than South Korea. And with all of that, the US was ranked 15th out of 31 in a 2000 OECD study of readin' comprehension, grade-for-grade. The 1999 TIMSS study of 8th-grade science-and-math student achievement found the US, overwhelmingly the most generous spender, able to rank no higher than 19th out 38 nations compared. The picture is similar for secondary education; the US spendin' per-pupil is 40% higher than is the average elsewhere in the industrialized world.

I'm even further outraged by the accountin' gamesmanship enabled through Department of Education regulation, and cherished by the likes of the NEA; excluded from official US calculations of "current-expenditure-per-pupil" are such things as debt service, property acquisition, construction, renovation, and most physical-plant maintenance. The per-pupil spendin' figures you see in your local paper likely represent somethin' on the order of 75% of real education spendin', as an average.

While US Business has worked hard at trimmin' the fat, the US public education system has continued to bloat shamelessly. For example, over the Half Century from 1949 to 1999, the number of non-teachin' staff employed by American schools increased from one per 2.36 teachin' staff to one per 1.09 teachein' staff. In New York City alone, the public-school district employs about 25,000 central-district personnel, managin' district's roughy 1 million students. The Arch Diocese of New York, with an enrollment of around 10% as many pupils, has an admonistrative staff of fewer than 25, while the achievement scores and graduation percentage for students of the Arch Diocese are across-the-board higher than those for the NYC public school system's pupils.

Between 1960 and 2000, the national ratio of teachers to students dropped from 1:26 teacher/students to 1:16.1 teacher/students; today, a teacher instructs about 60% as many students as was the case little more than a generation ago. Over the past couple decades, direct teacher/student daily interface hours have declined from 1980's 4.5 hour national average to 2000's 3.7 hour national average.

OK - I think we're ready to pour. Lets see what we've got here:

Bottom line: under the current system, we spend ever-increasin'ly more overall, with more and more people employed by the system, and more and more spent on stuff unnecessary, ancillary or even irrelevant to education, while our children get less and less education, as amply demonstrated by objective international comparison. It is entirely conceivable we don't spend enough on education. It is undeniable, however, that we get nowhere near the education we already pay for, and that other industrialized nations get far better results with significantly less spendin'-per-pupil. Perhaps we might benefit from greater spendin' on education, but there is absolutely no point spendin' more if we don't spend wisely. It is stupid to pursue a repeatedly failed course of action in expectation of improved result through repetion. Throwin' more money at the current system is stupid. Expectin' the current system to improve on its own is stupid. Wantin' better for our children is not stupid. We can't afford to be doin' stupid things to our children. Its more than high time to stop the stupidity. Our kids aren't stupid. Lets stop sendin' 'em out into the world prepared as though they were.



There - is that enough "concrete" for ya? I'd think, along with the boots your argument already wears, that batch oughtta be more than enough to serve. To your argument I say over the side, now, please, and enjoy the fish - their schools are unlikely to be harmed by a stupid agenda.


To you and those with whom you align on this issue, I say mind the spray, there's a helluva splash comin' your way.

NCLB, far from bein' an "unfunded mandate", has seen historic, unprecedented increases in Federal educational spendin' over the years since its inception

This is from Timberlandko, who insists on using the annoyingly illiterate in'

Anyway, it is not true. Federal funding has decreased. But, he believes what he wants to believe.

BTW, Timberlandko wrote several posts that he believes in service. After a few months of substitute teaching at the elementary level the year before last, it became painfully obvious to me that the politicians know nothing about education and use teachers and school children as whipping boys for their own political ambitions. It is entirely possible that the schools in Timberlandko's area are terrible. The schools here are largely very good, but, because MA children score above the national average on the SATs, we might have surmised that. (There is another element to this statistic, but we'll sit back and see who else figures it out.) That said, politicians here are just as guilty as politicians in Timberlandko's WI of using schools to stir up the populace and garner votes. SO, I decided that no thinking politician should run for office without first having spent a minimum of a semester as a substitute teacher. And no one should vote for a politician who has not served in the classroom.

Back to T's prescription for improvement. Too general. Really, if you tried to submit that as a business plan or as a paper in a sociology or in the type of education class taught today, you'd be rejected in the first instance and given a grade no higher than a D in the second.

You tried to insult me by asking what is so difficult. But you are not being specific. So, I guess then that you want a level playing field, with all the states coming down to the place occupied by Mississippi or Alabama. And since you hate my leftist classmates, who all insisted for themselves that they follow the traditional seven liberal arts and that they major in the subject they wished to teach rather than in education, that we abolish the requirement that those wishing to teach literature or social studies also study science and math. And, of course, the reverse would also be upheld. And that we would never give a teaching credential to anyone with the gall to take 30 hours of Latin or math or biology or English, reserving the privelege for those who take Scissors 101, 102 and 103.

student departs the K-12 system equipped with the necessary tools to have an equitable start in the adult world.
----------------
How can we do this when today's college grads work as store managers, a job that as late as 1980 was reserved for high school graduates?

How can we do this when we continually send jobs over seas?

Oh, wait, I forgot! All those talking heads who haunted programs like Wall Street Week throughout the 1980s talked up the service economy. It was the plan of those who observe the bottom line, those folks who want to reform things, like T does, from the "top down," to eliminate jobs everywhere but at McDonald's. How silly of me!

Require school districts meet minimum average student annual advancement levels, with actual student achievement required for advancement.
-----------------

Well, you made fun of the achievement tests I was given as Catholic school student. Of course, Catholic schools are outside of consideration.

There are such guidelines in place. They've existed for a long time. They've been observed for a long time. Social promotion is largely a myth. The few kids who are passed along are the ones -- like the 20 who couldn't pass the English MCAS here in Arlington -- who just can not learn.

Prolly the biggest kick I get outta doin' that is witnessin' the entertainment doin' so provides you, POM


Sorry, partner, no points there - the only "decrease" is in relationship to Bush-the-Greater's already instituted, unprecedented increases. More Federal education funds are provided now than at any time prior to The Current Administration's stewardship.


Hillarious - have you ever thought of pickin' up side money on the Standup Comedy circuit? I'd think you would do well there.


I offer a framework, not a prescription. I make no claim to havin' solved the problem, but rather point out what I believe to be salient within the problem, and propose examination and development of remedial methodology. You propose nothin' but stickin' with the failed status quo.


Without actually layin' out an intricately detailed, comprehensive, point-by-point, step-by-step, many-thousand-page action plan, I dunno how I coulda been any more specific. I said what I thought was wrong, supported my contentions with objective, verifiable data and reference, and suggested avenues to pursue in the interest of reachin' a solution.


Straw Man, Mis-Attribution, and Reducio Ad Absurdam. C'mon now, you, if possessed of the education and forensic skills you profess, are better than that.


That appears to me a spectacular, mis-founded, disconnected, incoherent ramble with no apparent application to anything I've said - just whatinhell are you tryin' to say there?

Oh, and re Ad Hominem - I submit one of the two us has evidenced far more of that mis-step (not alone among other logical fallacies) than has the other in this discussion, and I submit further that one has not been myself.

Not only do I feel your position in this matter is untenable, I find the method by which that position has been presented to be faulty and without merit.

Of course, I concede, in fact champion, your perogative to be wrong - its certainly your inalienable right to not be right. When all that's right has been eliminated, all that's left is The Left.

offer a framework, not a prescription. I make no claim to havin' solved the problem, but rather point out what I believe to be salient within the problem, and propose examination and development of remedial methodology. You propose nothin' but stickin' with the failed status quo.


First of all, if what you offer is a framework, you simply prove either that your relationship with reality is tenuous or that you are just shooting off your mouth. I suspect that a little of both is present. You haven't a clue what the problems are, if there are problems. SHould problems be described to you, you wouldn't have a clue how to solve them. In fact, you would probably deny that they were true.

Secondly, I do not propose anything but continuing with what is being done now. Remember, it was the right wing baby boomers who took the gut classes. However, let me quote something to you: "A puzzling aspect of the descrepancy in test scores (between whites and blacks) is that it was cut in half between 1970 and 1990. Since then it has remained steady, narrowing slightly on some tests, widening on others."

I would suggest strongly that a new, more conservative band of teachers, resorting to the older methods of teacher training -- i.e., majoring in education -- have come in to hold the line as Baby Boom teachers retire. That is "stickin' with the failed status quo."

Furthermore, there are other aspects that come into play. Between 1970 and 1990, Blacks began to have fewer children, meaning parents could pay more attention to each child, and more Black women finished high school, meaning a greater value has been placed on education.

Now, both Head Start and Sesame Street were left wing ventures. Head Start is a government program, inspired by initiatives taken by the left. The Right wants to eliminate this program that helps small children and, incidentally, frees young mothers to work, something the right values.

Now, I have other things to do, and I am not going to read your empty manifesto, that is, your second from the last post, but, you demonstrated in your last post how empty your soul and mind are, as well as how immature you are.

Sorry, I forgot that there probably aren't many Black people in rural Wisconsin and you're victimizing the random Native American family.

Why, POM - a double-down on the race card, with elitistism and ridicule already showin'? Well, thats it then. You ain't bluffin' your hand, its busted right there on the table. Thanks for clearin' that up; no point playin' with you anymore.

T -- Of course, you, like Durwin or Dean or whatever handle he used, are trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to rile me. The debate that I am attempting to have with you, and which you are incapable of participating in, was held late last year in the New York Review of Books. The side you attempt to take was assumed -- no more successfully, but with greater articulation -- by a Harvard professor (it's a myth that Harvard is a liberal institution).

You really must accept your limits.

You haven't an idea. You don't know what goes on in schools. You can not define your objections.

What a laugh to see you use current slang, like pulled the race card.

BTW, the premise of NCLB is that all children will, by the year 2010 or whatever, perform at the superior level. Its there in black and white. You small debaters manque here have been trying to say it without knowing what you are saying.

A cri de coeur from another internet forum:
One of the most interesting aspects of this election was the confidence parents put into Bush to help their children's education. I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but in California, we've been closing schools like mad after "Leave no child behind" because of the underfunded federal mandates. This was one confusing election - for me!

Little wonder there. I expect confusion may persist a while in some quarters.