jd750ace wrote:
When people try to tell you you ARE special and you WILL succeed, and somone else WILL PAY for you to go to college (regardless of your aptitude) and all that collapses around you, it's pretty tough.

When I was in school, and kids got out driving drunk, and went Camaro VS 200 year old oak tree, we didn't have grief counselors at school helping us cope with our feelings. We had educators educate us on why these things happen, and it was a LESSON as well as a tragedy, but nobody lowered the flag, cancelled school, or had to go into therapy to "cope" with the untimely death of someone they might not have even known. Kids are too damn soft, and parents and teachers do not prepare them for the real world. When they are thrust out here with real people and real problems, they have no coping skills, and they go running back to the nest. My parents made me buy my own school clothes with the money I earned the first summer I worked (in the coal mines) at age 14, instead of letting me blow it on cassettes, pizza, and arcade games. I never got an "allowance", nobody bought me a car, and I didn't need any pennies from the government to find my way in the world, or get trained to do something useful and half-way rewarding!

Oh, Hope is where Bill Clinton was born!

I started working at 14 & I've had MANY different jobs, paid for everything I've ever had. I'll offer anyone a hand up, but no one a hand out.

Yup.....



.

TimB1007 wrote:
SKWEARpeg wrote:
Thom M wrote:
I've got to agree with everything you said SKWEARpeg .
One of our biggest problems is the government control of our educational system.
It's all based on the old Prussian educational system of Germany.
The Prussian philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), described by many as a philosopher and a transcendental idealist, wrote "Addresses to the German Nation" between 1807 and 1808, which promoted the state as a necessary instrument of social and moral progress. He taught at the University of Berlin from 1810 to his death in 1814. His concept of the state and of the ultimate moral nature of society directly influenced both Von Schelling and Hegel, who took an similarly idealistic view.

Using the basic philosophy prescribing the "duties of the state", combined with John Locke's view (1690) that "children are a blank slate" and lessons from Rousseau on how to "write on the slate", Prussia established a three-tiered educational system that was considered "scientific" in nature. Work began in 1807 and the system was in place by 1819. An important part of the Prussian system was that it defined for the child what was to be learned, what was to be thought about, how long to think about it and when a child was to think of something else. Basically, it was a system of thought control, and it established a penchant in the psyche of the German elite that would later manifest itself into what we now refer to as mind control.

The educational system was divided into three groups. The elite of Prussian society were seen as comprising .5% of the society. Approximately 5.5% of the remaining children were sent to what was called realschulen, where they were partially taught to think. The remaining 94% went to volkschulen, where they were to learn "harmony, obdience, freedom from stressful thinking and how to follow orders." An important part of this new system was to break the link between reading and the young child, because a child who reads too well becomes knowledgable and independent from the system of instruction and is capable of finding out anything. In order to have an efficient policy-making class and a sub-class beneath it, you've got to remove the power of most people to make anything out of available information.

This was the plan. To keep most of the children in the general population from reading for the first six or seven years of their lives.

Our school systems have become little more then education mills whose main purpose(besides being life support for those that work there) is to crank out people who all think a certain way....ie, think what their told to think and when to think it. The basics have fallen by the way side, and been replaced with just about every kind of feel goodery from "billy has two fathers", to the idea that Polar bears are drowning in tropical waters at the poles, and that there are mean people in Washinton who don't like their teacher.
I saw an article a week or so ago, where they talked about how the workforce in the education system over the last 40 years, has doubled, while the number of students enrolled, has only gone up by about 8.5%. In general, across the board testing results didn't show any significant increase in test scores after reducing class sizes, and increasing personnel. Both items, that were supposed to be the salvation of the education system when they pushed for it in the 70's.

Seems to me that public schools are for the employees & parents, not the kids.

I disagree with your generalization. I'm married to a teacher and count a dozen more as close, personal friends. I'm in a small, rural community, but we have an excellent school district and I regularly contract labor with them, and I have found the administration (and school board) to be top-notch people who do good things with thin budgets and limited staff. Our principals and superintendant agonize over apathetic parents, students who cannot meet the minimum standards, truancy and impoverished families. I have known many teachers who bring food and clothing from their own homes for their students. Their history, math and science teachers are also their neighbors, coaches, and their parent's friends. All my children have worked summer jobs alongside their teachers who are trying to make ends meet by farming, clerking, mowing lawns or painting houses. Some teachers don't seem to care beyond their paycheck, but many teachers today are quite committed to children and education, just as they were 30 or 40 years ago when I was in school.

churchdog wrote:
TimB1007 wrote:
SKWEARpeg wrote:
Thom M wrote:
I've got to agree with everything you said SKWEARpeg .
One of our biggest problems is the government control of our educational system.
It's all based on the old Prussian educational system of Germany.
The Prussian philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), described by many as a philosopher and a transcendental idealist, wrote "Addresses to the German Nation" between 1807 and 1808, which promoted the state as a necessary instrument of social and moral progress. He taught at the University of Berlin from 1810 to his death in 1814. His concept of the state and of the ultimate moral nature of society directly influenced both Von Schelling and Hegel, who took an similarly idealistic view.

Using the basic philosophy prescribing the "duties of the state", combined with John Locke's view (1690) that "children are a blank slate" and lessons from Rousseau on how to "write on the slate", Prussia established a three-tiered educational system that was considered "scientific" in nature. Work began in 1807 and the system was in place by 1819. An important part of the Prussian system was that it defined for the child what was to be learned, what was to be thought about, how long to think about it and when a child was to think of something else. Basically, it was a system of thought control, and it established a penchant in the psyche of the German elite that would later manifest itself into what we now refer to as mind control.

The educational system was divided into three groups. The elite of Prussian society were seen as comprising .5% of the society. Approximately 5.5% of the remaining children were sent to what was called realschulen, where they were partially taught to think. The remaining 94% went to volkschulen, where they were to learn "harmony, obdience, freedom from stressful thinking and how to follow orders." An important part of this new system was to break the link between reading and the young child, because a child who reads too well becomes knowledgable and independent from the system of instruction and is capable of finding out anything. In order to have an efficient policy-making class and a sub-class beneath it, you've got to remove the power of most people to make anything out of available information.

This was the plan. To keep most of the children in the general population from reading for the first six or seven years of their lives.

Our school systems have become little more then education mills whose main purpose(besides being life support for those that work there) is to crank out people who all think a certain way....ie, think what their told to think and when to think it. The basics have fallen by the way side, and been replaced with just about every kind of feel goodery from "billy has two fathers", to the idea that Polar bears are drowning in tropical waters at the poles, and that there are mean people in Washinton who don't like their teacher.
I saw an article a week or so ago, where they talked about how the workforce in the education system over the last 40 years, has doubled, while the number of students enrolled, has only gone up by about 8.5%. In general, across the board testing results didn't show any significant increase in test scores after reducing class sizes, and increasing personnel. Both items, that were supposed to be the salvation of the education system when they pushed for it in the 70's.

Seems to me that public schools are for the employees & parents, not the kids.

I disagree with your generalization. I'm married to a teacher and count a dozen more as close, personal friends. I'm in a small, rural community, but we have an excellent school district and I regularly contract labor with them, and I have found the administration (and school board) to be top-notch people who do good things with thin budgets and limited staff. Our principals and superintendant agonize over apathetic parents, students who cannot meet the minimum standards, truancy and impoverished families. I have known many teachers who bring food and clothing from their own homes for their students. Their history, math and science teachers are also their neighbors, coaches, and their parent's friends. All my children have worked summer jobs alongside their teachers who are trying to make ends meet by farming, clerking, mowing lawns or painting houses. Some teachers don't seem to care beyond their paycheck, but many teachers today are quite committed to children and education, just as they were 30 or 40 years ago when I was in school.

That's fine, I never said ALL & it changes my opinion not one bit. Why not teach foreign languages in K-4 when the kids will pick it up without a second thought. Why not teach the truth in history class? Why not year round school? It was only started with summers off so kids could help on the farms, now it's for the teachers paid vacation. Try to fire a crappy teacher, good luck with that. The teachers my son had were ALL, with the exception of two, lousy, non-caring, apathetic losers!

I guess we are fortunate to have chosen a good school to pay taxes for! We also have a very good school system, and very good teachers, but not all of them.
Many, many people I worked with over the years have complained about the quality of education they were getting from thier schools, but suggest moving, to change that, and everybody freaks about uprooting the kids. I get that , but if they are not going to realize thier potential because of lackluster educators, YOU will be just as big a part of the failure as the teachers who do not care. My younger brother's wife teaches 3rd grade in Eastern Kentucky, and is a 3rd generation educator. This is prominent in the area, and I think that is a good thing overall. I had, to my now seasoned perception, 3 teachers in 12 years of school that were pieces of crap, and the rest were good. 4 or 5, I would rate outstanding, and of those, 3 were teachers that my parents also had 20 years earlier.

churchdog wrote:

I disagree with your generalization. I'm married to a teacher and count a dozen more as close, personal friends. I'm in a small, rural community, but we have an excellent school district and I regularly contract labor with them, and I have found the administration (and school board) to be top-notch people who do good things with thin budgets and limited staff. Our principals and superintendant agonize over apathetic parents, students who cannot meet the minimum standards, truancy and impoverished families. I have known many teachers who bring food and clothing from their own homes for their students. Their history, math and science teachers are also their neighbors, coaches, and their parent's friends. All my children have worked summer jobs alongside their teachers who are trying to make ends meet by farming, clerking, mowing lawns or painting houses. Some teachers don't seem to care beyond their paycheck, but many teachers today are quite committed to children and education, just as they were 30 or 40 years ago when I was in school.

It may be a generalization, but I also think you and yours(as with many rural schools systems in many states)would be the exception. This wasn't an attack on 'good' teachers. "Good" teachers will always have a job. In a private system, they'd be worth a premium.
If parents where having to make decisions based on where they were spending their education dollars, instead of having it lumped into
this or that tax, they might pay a bit closer attention to what they were getting for their money. The current system breeds indifference, and the "day care" attitude exhibited by to many parents.
If tax dollars didn't have to get sifted through umpteen hands were everybody gets a piece, before it got to the teachers and students it was aimed at, there would probably be more money where it was needed, then in some bureaucracy in Washington or elsewhere.

jd750ace wrote:
I guess we are fortunate to have chosen a good school to pay taxes for! We also have a very good school system, and very good teachers, but not all of them.
Many, many people I worked with over the years have complained about the quality of education they were getting from thier schools, but suggest moving, to change that, and everybody freaks about uprooting the kids. I get that , but if they are not going to realize thier potential because of lackluster educators, YOU will be just as big a part of the failure as the teachers who do not care. My younger brother's wife teaches 3rd grade in Eastern Kentucky, and is a 3rd generation educator. This is prominent in the area, and I think that is a good thing overall. I had, to my now seasoned perception, 3 teachers in 12 years of school that were pieces of crap, and the rest were good. 4 or 5, I would rate outstanding, and of those, 3 were teachers that my parents also had 20 years earlier.

So people should have to move? I don't think so. A teacher sucks, fire them!!

churchdog wrote:
TimB1007 wrote:
SKWEARpeg wrote:
Thom M wrote:
I've got to agree with everything you said SKWEARpeg .
One of our biggest problems is the government control of our educational system.
It's all based on the old Prussian educational system of Germany.
The Prussian philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), described by many as a philosopher and a transcendental idealist, wrote "Addresses to the German Nation" between 1807 and 1808, which promoted the state as a necessary instrument of social and moral progress. He taught at the University of Berlin from 1810 to his death in 1814. His concept of the state and of the ultimate moral nature of society directly influenced both Von Schelling and Hegel, who took an similarly idealistic view.

Using the basic philosophy prescribing the "duties of the state", combined with John Locke's view (1690) that "children are a blank slate" and lessons from Rousseau on how to "write on the slate", Prussia established a three-tiered educational system that was considered "scientific" in nature. Work began in 1807 and the system was in place by 1819. An important part of the Prussian system was that it defined for the child what was to be learned, what was to be thought about, how long to think about it and when a child was to think of something else. Basically, it was a system of thought control, and it established a penchant in the psyche of the German elite that would later manifest itself into what we now refer to as mind control.

The educational system was divided into three groups. The elite of Prussian society were seen as comprising .5% of the society. Approximately 5.5% of the remaining children were sent to what was called realschulen, where they were partially taught to think. The remaining 94% went to volkschulen, where they were to learn "harmony, obdience, freedom from stressful thinking and how to follow orders." An important part of this new system was to break the link between reading and the young child, because a child who reads too well becomes knowledgable and independent from the system of instruction and is capable of finding out anything. In order to have an efficient policy-making class and a sub-class beneath it, you've got to remove the power of most people to make anything out of available information.

This was the plan. To keep most of the children in the general population from reading for the first six or seven years of their lives.

Our school systems have become little more then education mills whose main purpose(besides being life support for those that work there) is to crank out people who all think a certain way....ie, think what their told to think and when to think it. The basics have fallen by the way side, and been replaced with just about every kind of feel goodery from "billy has two fathers", to the idea that Polar bears are drowning in tropical waters at the poles, and that there are mean people in Washinton who don't like their teacher.
I saw an article a week or so ago, where they talked about how the workforce in the education system over the last 40 years, has doubled, while the number of students enrolled, has only gone up by about 8.5%. In general, across the board testing results didn't show any significant increase in test scores after reducing class sizes, and increasing personnel. Both items, that were supposed to be the salvation of the education system when they pushed for it in the 70's.

Seems to me that public schools are for the employees & parents, not the kids.

I disagree with your generalization. I'm married to a teacher and count a dozen more as close, personal friends. I'm in a small, rural community, but we have an excellent school district and I regularly contract labor with them, and I have found the administration (and school board) to be top-notch people who do good things with thin budgets and limited staff. Our principals and superintendant agonize over apathetic parents, students who cannot meet the minimum standards, truancy and impoverished families. I have known many teachers who bring food and clothing from their own homes for their students. Their history, math and science teachers are also their neighbors, coaches, and their parent's friends. All my children have worked summer jobs alongside their teachers who are trying to make ends meet by farming, clerking, mowing lawns or painting houses. Some teachers don't seem to care beyond their paycheck, but many teachers today are quite committed to children and education, just as they were 30 or 40 years ago when I was in school.
What I wrote isn't a generalization but the blue print our Dept. of Education has used for our schools since around the 60's. I also know many teachers who believe they are dedicated to their students and do many of the things you mentioned above like bring in clothes and such.
But they are still required to teach the curriculum that is mandated by the Dept. of Education. You mentioned kids meeting minimum standards. Who do you think sets those standards? Are the standards designed with the idea that each child is different and learns at different rates or maybe excels in something other then academics? Or are the standards designed to produce a student who is just the same as everyone else and knows how to follow the rules and do what they are told.
It's not the teachers fault, it's the educational system they have to work in that's the problem. It's a system designed for mass conformity.

SKWEARpeg wrote:
churchdog wrote:

I disagree with your generalization. I'm married to a teacher and count a dozen more as close, personal friends. I'm in a small, rural community, but we have an excellent school district and I regularly contract labor with them, and I have found the administration (and school board) to be top-notch people who do good things with thin budgets and limited staff. Our principals and superintendant agonize over apathetic parents, students who cannot meet the minimum standards, truancy and impoverished families. I have known many teachers who bring food and clothing from their own homes for their students. Their history, math and science teachers are also their neighbors, coaches, and their parent's friends. All my children have worked summer jobs alongside their teachers who are trying to make ends meet by farming, clerking, mowing lawns or painting houses. Some teachers don't seem to care beyond their paycheck, but many teachers today are quite committed to children and education, just as they were 30 or 40 years ago when I was in school.

It may be a generalization, but I also think you and yours(as with many rural schools systems in many states)would be the exception. This wasn't an attack on 'good' teachers. "Good" teachers will always have a job. In a private system, they'd be worth a premium.
If parents where having to make decisions based on where they were spending their education dollars, instead of having it lumped into
this or that tax, they might pay a bit closer attention to what they were getting for their money. The current system breeds indifference, and the "day care" attitude exhibited by to many parents.
If tax dollars didn't have to get sifted through umpteen hands were everybody gets a piece, before it got to the teachers and students it was aimed at, there would probably be more money where it was needed, then in some bureaucracy in Washington or elsewhere.

I vote they cut all school sports that require travel.

I say fire them too, but the teacher's union says they meet the minimum standard set by the state since they
"promote" the proper percentage of students every year, and they spend 6 weeks before standardized tests cramming the material to slew the results.
It's a crap system, and even as good as our school system has been, if Texas passed a voucher system, I would be looking into private institutions in a heartbeat. As it is, I can't afford to pony up $2600 bucks a year to a school that my son does not attend, and another 5-7K a year to a private school.