<chuckle>
Getchyer umbrella ready, POM.
Getchyer umbrella ready, POM.
Is this supposed to mean something?
plainoldme wrote: Is this supposed to mean something?
Not to those who haven't been payin' attention.
Here is just one example of how faulty this article is as an article:
Chester Finn, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, notes that, while the number of pupils grew 50 percent in the last half-century, the number of teachers grew almost 300 percent.
I assume by "the last half century," he means 1950-2000 and not the literal 1955-2005.
That bit of nit piking aside, this is a stupid statement, yanked out of context: one of those over-simplifications that causes human stampedes, as did the famous statistic of the 1980s that 5,000 children are kidnapped in the US annually, or whatever it was.
Children from the peak year of the Baby Boom officially (kindergarten was not universal at the time) began school in the fall of 1953. At St. Sebestian Elementary School in Dearborn Heights, MI, there were two first grade classes. Each class had 60 kids.
Two years later, another Catholic school opened about two miles away and siphoned off 1/3 of the student body.
Class size was generally large during most of the 50s. There were fewer schools which were more widely spaced.
Allegedly, the number of students plummeted in the 1970s as the so-called Baby Bust hit the schools.
So, who really talks about increases over a 50-year period? Also, what does he mean by a 300% increase in the number of teachers?
Toward the end of the first 25 years of the long period under discussion, the curriculum offered by high schools expanded, making the high school education of the Boomers on par with the college education of their parents. There would have been an increase in the number of teachers, pushed by the growing numbers of students and pulled by the demands for a more sophisticated range of class offerings.
When the mania for budget cutting hit in the early 80s, and continued into the 90s, a great deal of curriculum contraction occurred. Schools that once offered five or more foreign languages now hobbled along with two: French and Spanish. Theoretically, the new century should have seen a decrease in the number of teachers. To some extent, this is borne out by class size: many schools have class registrations exceeding 35 at the high school level. Reduced class choice and larger enrollments does not point to a larger number of teachers.
-----------------------
Furthermore, I wonder how many voters are sophisticated enough to recognize what the Hoover Institute (I believe that this is the proper name) is and, therefore, clue into the real meaning behind his message?
-----------------------------
But if the number of teachers had grown apace with enrollments and school budgets had risen as they have, teachers' salaries today would average nearly $100,000 instead of less than half that.
What piffle. Teacher salaries are controlled by the voters.
The grammar is as faulty as the reasoning, but we won't nit pik.
-----------------------
As for his catch phrase, "classroom instruction," well, it is pretty meaningless. Let's do man-in-the-street polling and discover what people feel it means. Let's add another question to the poll, and ask what they think their education dollar, largely in the form of property taxes, buys. The answer is infrastructure and utlitities.
I'd like to see this same person and his proposals dissected intelligently, by someone who passed high school English and reasoning.
Getchyer is not in my dictionary.
And why is the rain a threat to me?
Is it the rain of foggy notions and bad writing in this article? What is the source of this piffle?
You do a fine job of makin' my points for me, POM.
T -- You are shameless, aren't you? Tore down your article instantly and you attempt to raze me, which is totally beyond your capabilities. Will post your article on another forum.
Timberlandko -- Will read what you post when you use standard spelling and grammar. Frankly, I don't have the time for tomfoolery.
Very well, madam. Are you familiar with Winston Churchill? Your's is the sort of nonsense up with which I no longer shall put. To that, I might add I shall be sober in the morning, whereas you shall be unchanged.
T -- You're very immature.
If I hadda pick one or the other, I'd rather be immature than a stubborn old fool. Fortunately, the choices aren't so limited. For most folks. Still, it is a matter of choice, however many options may be open.
www.bostonphoenic.com/boston/news_feature/other_stories/multipage/documents/046757.asp
This will take you to a very recent story that tells you not only are scores on the up for Boston school children but will give you some insight into the politics of the Boston public schools.
If you believe that the manner in which you write, with your poor syntax and stylized spelling, shows you in a good light, you're deluding yourself.
Furthermore, your syntax works against your arguments.
What, other than as a component - and not a broadly representational component - of the overall educational system have the Boston schools to do with anything here at discussion? What point are you tryin' to make? That not all schools are identical?
As to what works which way regardin' any of my argument, I note you've not presented any counter evidence pertinent to any of the documentation or statistics with which I have supported my argument. Rather than engage and deconstruct my argument, not only do you disparage the manner in which my argument has been presented as opposed to dealin' with the thrust and content of that argument, but also you continually malign the presenter of that argument through ad hominem attack, derision, and ridicule. Attemptin' to achieve a dialog, an exchange of ideas, with one who practices debate after the fashion you have evidenced here is about as productive as tryin' to push a rope.
As to what works which way regardin' any of my argument, I note you've not presented any counter evidence pertinent to any of the documentation or statistics with which I have supported my argument.
Well, I must say that you have a much more of an imagination than I might give you credit for. You've not posted a single statistic and your documentation is a will-o'-the-wisp. Grow up.
BTW, you are the first person ever to proclaim 1957 the peak year of the post war BB.
Apparently you've missed quite a bit, Pom, or chosen to ignore it. Oh, and its not my contention that 1957 was the peak year of the post war baby boom, it is a fact, and I'm hardly the first to proclaim it; that honor goes to The US Bureau of The Census.
