An interesting opinion piece with some striking (if they are true) statistics comparing and contrasting economic & societal disparity across classes & time among white Americans:
Uneducated people (at the macro level) are condemned to a harder life. I can't imagine how a parent could be so cruel to put their child on such a hard lifelong path.
Is it really that hard to imagine? How many people do you know with the financial means to leave that decided to stay in a failure of a school district in a poor neighborhood? How many were there in the first place?
How many people in Peters Township packed up and headed to New Ken?
Did you read the entire article you posted? Like people group together. Most kids in poor school districts weren't deprived by their parents; their parents had no better choice. The parents failed in life long before they had kids. Nobody intentionally lives down.
Now if you want to argue they were cruel to their kids by having them in the first place with no feasible means of providing a legit opportunity, I'll agree.
Read the entire thread. You don't have context to understand what was posted. I've argued all parents need to take an active interest to motivate their kids to take education seriously. The premise that the great unwashed could be interested in taking their kids education seriously has been denounced by most other posters. The economic disparity between rich & poor will continue to grow as globalization makes more sectors of the American job market obsolete.
By the way, PTSD absolutely blows compared to USC. The extra tax $$$ to live in USC is well worth the investment for any parent that wants their kids to get the best possible public education.
Interesting... I don't necessarily agree with it, as sports are a good outlet for many, and in a time where "everyone wins", I feel as though school sports are one of the few times that students get to feel the pain of defeat and from there know how to deal with loss and defeat. At the same time, sports have always been and will always be a privilege to play, not a right.
that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with school sports... nothing. What i was saying is that it is not the school's responsibility to provide some sort of sports outlet for their students. And if they do choose to create an environment where students participate in sports, i think it's important to make sure the kids know that it's a privilege to play (i.e. keep your grades up, stay out of trouble, be a model student).
An interesting opinion piece with some striking (if they are true) statistics comparing and contrasting economic & societal disparity across classes & time among white Americans:
Uneducated people (at the macro level) are condemned to a harder life. I can't imagine how a parent could be so cruel to put their child on such a hard lifelong path.
Is it really that hard to imagine? How many people do you know with the financial means to leave that decided to stay in a failure of a school district in a poor neighborhood? How many were there in the first place?
How many people in Peters Township packed up and headed to New Ken?
Did you read the entire article you posted? Like people group together. Most kids in poor school districts weren't deprived by their parents; their parents had no better choice. The parents failed in life long before they had kids. Nobody intentionally lives down.
Now if you want to argue they were cruel to their kids by having them in the first place with no feasible means of providing a legit opportunity, I'll agree.
Read the entire thread. You don't have context to understand what was posted. I've argued all parents need to take an active interest to motivate their kids to take education seriously. The premise that the great unwashed could be interested in taking their kids education seriously has been denounced by most other posters. The economic disparity between rich & poor will continue to grow as globalization makes more sectors of the American job market obsolete.
By the way, PTSD absolutely blows compared to USC. The extra tax $$$ to live in USC is well worth the investment for any parent that wants their kids to get the best possible public education.
OK the hyperbole of PTSD vs. USC really needs to stop. I will agree that you have demonstrated that USC has more higher level classes available for students but it's not like students attending PTSD aren't getting a good education. The way you talk about it students going to PTSD might as well be attending McKeesport school district. Both PTSD and USC prepare their students for successful post secondary pursuits. So quit making PTSD out to be some wasteland while USD is the cornucopia of the world.
I found an interesting article about how/why the iPhone would never be built in the United States. It wasn't purely for the low wages that are paid in China, but more about the lack of middle-level skilled labor:
China's labor advantage goes well beyond the low-skill workers who do the menial task of stuffing parts into iPhones. The country also excels at educating middle-skill "industrial engineers." These aren't Stanford graduates capable of designing the next iteration of the iPad. Rather, they're akin to alums from your local community college who have the technical skills to manage the iPad production line. As the Times notes:
Apple's executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufracturing iPhones. The company's analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States.
In China, it took 15 days.
Those sorts of statistics should bring into cold, clear focus why America's education system is at such a disadvantage when it comes to manufacturing. The problem isn't a lack of elite graduates. We have those. It's our unskilled working class.
Further:
Our immediate goal shouldn't be to prep more students for Harvard, Penn State, or University of Central Florida. It should be to find a way to make sure that more than 25% of the students who enroll at community colleges actually graduate within 3 years.
This is exactly something that has been floating around academia (at least my school) for the last few years: not everyone needs a traditional college education. We need skilled laborers, welders, pipefitters, and so on. I do believe that everyone should have the opportunity for a traditional college education, but we should be educating high school students and graduates on pairing their natural talents and skills to an education beyond high school.
There are some other non-education points in the article which will problem draw the ire of the conservatives on LGP, but we'll save those for another thread.
I found an interesting article about how/why the iPhone would never be built in the United States. It wasn't purely for the low wages that are paid in China, but more about the lack of middle-level skilled labor:
China's labor advantage goes well beyond the low-skill workers who do the menial task of stuffing parts into iPhones. The country also excels at educating middle-skill "industrial engineers." These aren't Stanford graduates capable of designing the next iteration of the iPad. Rather, they're akin to alums from your local community college who have the technical skills to manage the iPad production line. As the Times notes:
Apple's executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufracturing iPhones. The company's analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States.
In China, it took 15 days.
Those sorts of statistics should bring into cold, clear focus why America's education system is at such a disadvantage when it comes to manufacturing. The problem isn't a lack of elite graduates. We have those. It's our unskilled working class.
Further:
Our immediate goal shouldn't be to prep more students for Harvard, Penn State, or University of Central Florida. It should be to find a way to make sure that more than 25% of the students who enroll at community colleges actually graduate within 3 years.
This is exactly something that has been floating around academia (at least my school) for the last few years: not everyone needs a traditional college education. We need skilled laborers, welders, pipefitters, and so on. I do believe that everyone should have the opportunity for a traditional college education, but we should be educating high school students and graduates on pairing their natural talents and skills to an education beyond high school.
There are some other non-education points in the article which will problem draw the ire of the conservatives on LGP, but we'll save those for another thread.
Read the entire thread. You don't have context to understand what was posted. I've argued all parents need to take an active interest to motivate their kids to take education seriously. The premise that the great unwashed could be interested in taking their kids education seriously has been denounced by most other posters. The economic disparity between rich & poor will continue to grow as globalization makes more sectors of the American job market obsolete.
That's not really an accurate portrayal of what has been countered in this thread. There are some "great unwashed" who don't take an interest. I can and have talked to them until I'm blue in the face and it's simply not important to them. How does one get someone else to care about their own kids more? Whenyou have an answer to that question you can solve a lot of problems in education.
Others care greatly and do all that they can to take an interest and get their kids to achieve. To some some extent they could be fed more stats, but I'm sure how that would make them more capable of doing more.
Interesting... I don't necessarily agree with it, as sports are a good outlet for many, and in a time where "everyone wins", I feel as though school sports are one of the few times that students get to feel the pain of defeat and from there know how to deal with loss and defeat. At the same time, sports have always been and will always be a privilege to play, not a right.
that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with school sports... nothing. What i was saying is that it is not the school's responsibility to provide some sort of sports outlet for their students. And if they do choose to create an environment where students participate in sports, i think it's important to make sure the kids know that it's a privilege to play (i.e. keep your grades up, stay out of trouble, be a model student).
I took your initial comments the wrong way; I apologize.
That doesn't seem like it'd be a popular opinion on this website; remember: "Some children aren't destined for PSE"
I had a kid once ask if i could "not give me a zero for cheating until next week so I can play in the football game friday? I'm already failing another class and can't have 2 F's". I told him no and he got angry that I wouldn't overlook his cheating so he could play football. Priorities I suppose...
A couple comments in Obama's SOTU address concerning education:
He stated that teachers need to stop 'teaching to the test' and instead utilize creativity. Yes, very true. So does that mean there will be a different way of evaluating teachers that doesn't rely heavily in student test scores?
Stop dropouts. Either go to school until you graduate or turn 18. That's a parent's job, not a school's job.
i've said it numerous times... there are kids that just aren't cut out/not meant to be in high school. if they need to stay in until they turn 18, they need to be provided with more options than just the traditional high school.
Indiana Senate passes bill putting religion in science class
Yesterday, after almost no debate, the Indiana State Senate approved a bill that would allow its schools to teach the origin stories of various religions when a class touches on the origin of life. It now moves on to the state's House, where one of its cosponsors is currently the Speaker of the House.
Although the bill as written could be used to create a comparative religion class, its sponsor, Senator Dennis Kruse, has made it clear that he hopes to see it foster the teaching of creationism in science classes. The original text of the bill explicitly mentioned creation science; it has since been modified to mention a variety of religions, including Scientology. In a brief interview, Kruse expressed disdain for evolution, calling it a "Johnny-come-lately" theory.
I don't mind them teaching it, but keep it out of a science classroom. I think far to many people don't understand what science truly is. What is taught today is our BEST understanding or guess of how the world works based on evidence that we find around us, not based on what was written in some book thousands of years ago.
Curriculum should be based on learning objectives. Exams should test knowledge of the objectives. Maybe the problem is we have written too many objectives as a nation through legislation? Just food for thought.
Curriculum should be based on learning objectives. Exams should test knowledge of the objectives. Maybe the problem is we have written too many objectives as a nation through legislation? Just food for thought.
A lot of schools just have a scattershot curriculum, with very lame objectives. Objectives need to be clear and have depth. We don't need a math curriculum for 4th grade that covers 15 different areas and goes into very little depth on any of them. It's a complete disservice.
Nothing about "working with a team" precludes you from teaching yourself.
What do you even mean by teaching yourself?
"Teaching yourself" seems like a pretty straight-forward concept. But if I had to define it I would say being able to educate yourself about x without outside help.
For example, say you work at an office and are given new software. "Teaching yourself" would mean being able to learn and execute the new software without having to ask 14 different people how it works.
In what way is that a good strategy for anyone? That would lead to loss of production and cost companies more money. Teaching yourself isn't a very good concept for the real world or school especially for example middle school children who are transitioning into understanding abstract thought. To tell them to teach themselves would be disastrous. Heck if you really believe in teaching themselves there would be no need for schools at all.
A good point made here, too many companies invest in new computer software and systems with little to no employee training. Productivity is lost even if the products are better in my experience.
Curriculum should be based on learning objectives. Exams should test knowledge of the objectives. Maybe the problem is we have written too many objectives as a nation through legislation? Just food for thought.
A lot of schools just have a scattershot curriculum, with very lame objectives. Objectives need to be clear and have depth. We don't need a math curriculum for 4th grade that covers 15 different areas and goes into very little depth on any of them. It's a complete disservice.
I agree in that objectives need to be clear. Making them so broad is a cop out to clearly defining the objectives. Too many is just as bad though.
Teachers should not get tenure after 2 years. The teacher's union is the entire problem with education in this country.
In PA it's 3... and to say "the entire problem" is the union is a joke.
I ask how many states are still union for teachers? This is not a union hater, I would just like to clarify from someone elses sources that this is a myth driving the entire county's educational success.
I guess I should clarify what I mean by intelligence. I mean more overall eliteness. Go-getting type A people who don't party all through college. Nerds. Pre-med, science, math, and engineering students. The type of people who aspire to more than just going to the crappy local 13th grade college. Those are the type of people going into teaching in Finland. That is impossible in the US as long as unions are keeping starting salaries down in the gutter to justify the idiotic idea of tenure.
I am one of those people...I was in teaching because I wanted to teach, and I can tell you it was not the union that made me quit, it was much more than that.
Because you don't like summers off?
Sounds good doesn't it. But young teachers mostly have to work a second job to get that summer off in most states. Even middle age teachers in most states can't afford to take the "summer off".
I personally know one individual that started as a janitor at 18 to strive to become a math teacher in PA. Studied and took courses along the way while working full time. He worked every summer doing remodeling work which some of his children helped. He took a significant pay cut when he became an entry teacher. His children worked jobs from the time they were 13 to earn money for things like glasses and dental appointments, along with kid entertainment needs. Family time was often game related. Every card game known to man, chess and the typical board games. 37 years later he retired as an administrator. Did I mention he was a previous PSEA negotiator for contracts?
Teachers should not get tenure after 2 years. The teacher's union is the entire problem with education in this country.
In PA it's 3... and to say "the entire problem" is the union is a joke.
I ask how many states are still union for teachers? This is not a union hater, I would just like to clarify from someone elses sources that this is a myth driving the entire county's educational success.
I believe there are five states that don't allow collective bargaining for teachers: NC, SC, Texas, Virginia, and Georgia.
Teachers should not get tenure after 2 years. The teacher's union is the entire problem with education in this country.
In PA it's 3... and to say "the entire problem" is the union is a joke.
I ask how many states are still union for teachers? This is not a union hater, I would just like to clarify from someone elses sources that this is a myth driving the entire county's educational success.
I believe there are five states that don't allow collective bargaining for teachers: NC, SC, Texas, Virginia, and Georgia.
I guess I should clarify what I mean by intelligence. I mean more overall eliteness. Go-getting type A people who don't party all through college. Nerds. Pre-med, science, math, and engineering students. The type of people who aspire to more than just going to the crappy local 13th grade college. Those are the type of people going into teaching in Finland. That is impossible in the US as long as unions are keeping starting salaries down in the gutter to justify the idiotic idea of tenure.
I am one of those people...I was in teaching because I wanted to teach, and I can tell you it was not the union that made me quit, it was much more than that.
Because you don't like summers off?
Sounds good doesn't it. But young teachers mostly have to work a second job to get that summer off in most states. Even middle age teachers in most states can't afford to take the "summer off".
My comment was sarcastic. I'm a teacher. Luckily, I have a wife who makes good money. However, several people I work with started teaching four years ago. They are now making the exact same salary they did when they started and have to pay for more of their supplies.
Teachers should not get tenure after 2 years. The teacher's union is the entire problem with education in this country.
In PA it's 3... and to say "the entire problem" is the union is a joke.
I ask how many states are still union for teachers? This is not a union hater, I would just like to clarify from someone elses sources that this is a myth driving the entire county's educational success.
I believe there are five states that don't allow collective bargaining for teachers: NC, SC, Texas, Virginia, and Georgia.
Don't allow or are largely non union?
If my understanding is correct collective bargaining is illegal. NC has a couple of teacher's unions I know of, but they have no bargaining power.
