Posted on 07/20/2008 9:25:34 AM PDT by wintertime
The newly elected head of the nation's largest teachers union on Monday called on school districts nationwide to create community schools that would offer services to students and their families ranging from health care to recreation.
Speaking to about 3,300 conventioneers at Navy Pier, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said minority students need the help to bridge the achievement gap between them and their white counterparts.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
....as long as they could afford it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why is education special? Why not nationalize grocery stores, farms, clothing, shoes, houses?
No one in America needs to go homeless or hungry. If we take care of the above in the free market with vouchers ( food stamps and Section 8 housing) we could do the same with the poor.
In my opinion private vouchers could eventually educate the poor. But...Surely you don’t think that Americans are stingy do you?
In 2005 the average public school expenditure in the US was $8,700 per pupil. Many states were over $10,000, with NY being about $14,000. So yes, in general the savings would be sufficient to pay for a private education, although I suppose some parents might have to give up one of their BMW’s, or stop spending a couple of thousand a year on tobacco and alcohol, or scale back on other discretionary spending.
But the real issue is quality. Public schools are dominated by leftists who want to brainwash our children. Public schools are not competitive, and they attract and keep poor teachers. Education as a private enterprise offers the same benefits as other private enterprise: freedom of choice, competition for customers, and therefore high quality. The success of the American economy is driven by capitalism and freedom, not by government bureaucracy and a socialist agenda.
It sort of reminds me of the way students were educated (or not) in the South 100 years ago...
IOW, if it had worked really well I doubt we'd have adopted the present system...but everything in education seems to swing from one extreme to the other, even if the "middle ground" works best, so maybe it's time for another swing.
not wiether someone is GAY! Yes, that shouldn’t be an issue. As Martin Luther King said, “the chacter of themself, not the color of their skin. And gays (I have 3 friends who are gay teens) should be judged by their character - not if they are GAY or NOT.
Some people consider homosexuality and lesbianism to be character issues.
Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
Thankyou.
I will try to remember that.
A hundred years ago the U.S. would be considered a third world nation by today's standards. A hundred years ago 4 generations of the du Pont family lived stuffed in a house that would be considered average by today's building standards. The du Ponts were the richest family in Delaware 100 years ago.
So...Comparing living standards of today with those of 100 years ago is comparing apples to oranges.
In the 1890’s my great grandmother was married at age 15. For her wedding her family gave her a pair of **real** shoes...and..this was a successful ** middle class** family in upstate New York!
Given the poverty, yes, I think Americans did very well educating their children. My great grandfather owned a livery and shipping business. His son ( my grandfather) was an assistant to the manager of Exide batteries. My mother's father was the general manager of the nation's largest toy companies. And...none of these men went to college. I doubt if they went to high school.
I agree, provided they are not of the homosexual militants who are trying to force everyone to tow the homosexual P.C. line. There are homosexuals who are **very** aggressive and and gays have been responsible for having Christians fired from jobs just because they are Christian.
So...When it comes to homosexuals in the government schools I am **very** suspicious. I believe they are entering education in large numbers and their goal is indoctrination of the youth into accepting gay marriage, gay adoption, gays as foster parents, homosexual behavior as normal, tolerating transsexuals dress on the job, and in getting student to experiment in homosexual activity....etc.
I'm not comparing living standards; I'm comparing educational systems. Also, you'll notice I used a specific part of the country. The north had compulsory education laws sooner.
And...none of these men went to college. I doubt if they went to high school.
A high school education didn't become commonplace in most parts of the country until the Great Depression. At that time, teenagers were encouraged to go to high school in large part to keep them out of the labor market.
Even thirty years ago, someone could drop out of high school and have a chance at a good industrial job with chances of advancement. That's much more difficult now. A lot of the industrial jobs have gone overseas, and the employers that remain generally have higher standards. Where 30 years ago they might have trained you to do a job, now they expect you to come from tech school already trained.
If you don't have a high school education, you're pretty much stuck with those "jobs Americans won't do"....
I'd like to point out that a schoolteacher here made the same error.
Where I live, the schools offer what we call "community education", but it's different from Weingarten's proposal:
Here, the programs are offered through the school district in the afterschool and summer hours. But most of them are offered by the private sector and independent teachers, and parents pay out-of-pocket. I'm guessing most school districts across the nation offer such programs, too.
But, I guess Weingarten wants all of the programs covered by the taxpayers. That's the difference. Better keep an eye on this one.
Nah... All these calls for helping quote-unquote "minority students" and "bridging the achievement gap" only promote negative stereotypes about said people. Claims that certain people need help send the message that they're incapable of helping themselves. And people like Weingarten and the AFT benefit from that negative stereotype: their jobs are secure as long as they can make people believe they're necessary. ;-)
I’d like to point out that a schoolteacher here made the same error.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for picking that up.
I’m not comparing living standards; I’m comparing educational systems. Also, you’ll notice I used a specific part of the country. The north had compulsory education laws sooner.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Living standards have a great deal to do with how much education can be purchased either individually or through collective compulsion in the form of taxes. The South, 100 years ago was just emerging from Reconstruction.
Also...Americans are the most generous people on earth. Why do you think Americans would be so stingy when it comes to education? Do you really thing so little of America and Americans?
Yeah, I did it.
I was responding to a post of wintertime's in which she'd made that mistake.
Personally, I don't belong to either the AFT or the NEA, and neither is very active in my state, so I don't pay really close attention to their internal politics.
Do you disagree that there is an achievement gap? Do you think if it were ignored it would go away?
Now, I think I kind of understand what you are saying...I was really angry when the state said our county schools did very well, compared to those in other small, poor counties - compared to large, rich counties our county didn't do well at all, but the state didn't expect it to, because it was small and poor.
I felt that the state should expect high standards of ALL counties (I guess that's the "soft bigotry of low expectations" they were putting on us?)
Claims that certain people need help send the message that they're incapable of helping themselves.
Are you speaking of people in lower socioeconomic groups in general, or of minorities in particular?
Part of the reason people in lower socioeconomic groups don't score as well -- and this is not just in the United States, but across cultures and across the world -- is because children in those groups tend to be talked to and read to less, so they have smaller vocabularies and don't have as much idea that written symbols stand for spoken words.
A number of studies show that some kinds of preschool programs, if well implemented, CAN help these children do better in school and increase their chances of graduating from school and improving their economic circumstances.
So far as the black community is concerned, some people are doing very well, and some aren't.
Of the ones who are not, some of their problems began with racism, and some are still a result of that, but I think that many of the current problems are a result of buying into the culture of victimization promoted by Jackson, Sharpton, et.al., and also of the "hip-hop" culture that doesn't seem to value education and hard work, and I think solutions for those problems will have to come from within the black community.
I agree that Americans are the most generous people on earth, but I don't think the government necessarily takes on responsibilities (and I don't think voting taxpayers would allow the government to take on responsibilities) except in cases where there is a perceived need.
There is an achievement gap but why do we need to make it go away? Michael Jordan can play basketball much better than me. Should I be given the time and attention of the best coaches to try to close the achievement gap so I too can make millions playing basketball? Or is that a foolish waste of limited resources?
School and life in general should be equal opportunity, not equal outcome. I can score 100 points during a basketball game or successfully perform brain surgery if given 30 free do-overs for every step, but that's not how it works.
Maybe using a highly restrictive environment and computerized instruction to lower the cost of 30 do-overs everyone could get an equal education. But once they get a job in the real world they aren't going to get do-overs.
We should allocate resources so that the total achievement is at a maximum. Attempting to produce an even distribution of results should not be a goal. Making life equal for all is driven by envy which is hardly a saintly persuit.
If there are problems in environment or culture we should try to cost effectively address that, but equal outcome is never going to happen.
“( Homosexuals hire other homosexuals!)”
A lesbian ex-girlfriend (don’t ask) once remarked that the corporation she worked for was very “family friendly.” She didn’t mean mom & dad family but the imagined “family” that gays consider themselves to be.
Hopefully, as the conservative media strengthens, Americans will perceive the need to privatize education, so that all parents and children will have the maximum amount of choice among private alternatives.
When my kids were homeschooling, I had to define the word “homeschool”. I was, at that time, defining the word “vouchers”. Never in my wildest imagination did I expect to see them implemented in so many states in such a relatively short amount of time. I never expected to see rallies of thousands petitioning their legislators for vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. This is amazing!
I am enormously optimistic. I have good reason to be. ( See tag line.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.