Posted on 08/03/2003 6:18:43 PM PDT by Brian S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:43:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
This city's superintendent of schools, who recently put two dozen teachers on unpaid leave for failing a basic English proficiency test, has himself flunked a required literacy test three times.
Wilfredo T. Laboy called his failing scores "frustrating" and "emotional." He blamed his performance on a lack of preparation and concentration, as well as the fact that that Spanish is his first language.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Parochials can take who they want...deny entry if desired, public schools are forced to take everyone from willing students to felons.
Parochials do not suffer from "PC over common sense" disease
Parochials have an effective discipline program
Parochials can expel students, public schools will undoubtedly face lawsuits if they do so, and will likely end up being forced to take the kid back...rendering discipline meaningless
Parochials are not free..."that which is valued too cheaply is esteemed too lightly" (TJ) - those who go to parochials have parents who value education more, generally speaking - hence parochials have better product to work with from the get-go.
Parochials can, if they're bad, close/go away/out of business.
The problems in public schools are a result of a monopoly system. The symptoms we all see are the results of that monopoly.
Want to improve education? Fix the problem, don't treat the symptoms. Get government out of education; make education a competitive industry.
But why stop there? Spanish is the first language of one of my favorite novelists, the incomparable James Carlos Blake. Born in Tampico, Mexico, he teaches literature to American college students, is regularly published in literary journals and has won national prizes for his fiction.
Polish (that's Pole-ish, not Paul-ish) was the first language of Josef Conrad. Russian was the first language of Vladimir Nabokov. And Hindi is the first language (I think) of VS Naipaul.
All three men were (or are, in Naipaul's case) great stylists in their adopted language.
How about Ha Jin, an exile from Red China? He taught himself English at night and is now professor of English at Emory and a front rank American novelist.
I think it can go both ways:
"In some cases, you can treat a clause with what as the subject as singular or plural, depending on the emphasis you want to convey. In What excite him most are money and power, the implication is that money and power are distinct elements; in What excites him most is money and power, the implication is that money and power are a single entity...,"
More info and examples are provided here.
Sadly enough though, he got the job! One does have to wonder how.
I've seen that constuction used before but not by professionals. It's awkward. Best to just go around it.
While I agree with you about the advantages of private schools, I disagree that government is the problem. The problem is LIBERAL government who, for at least the last 20 years, has watered down content to nonexistant levels.
Consider the education system in India. Free to all, and expectations through the roof. Those who don't excel in school become blue collars. The Universities are government schools, and they have higher standards than any in the US.
The answer to US public education? Raise the stakes. If you don't have, say, a 3.0 in high school, you don't go to college. Period. You go to trade school, or work for your father-in-law at the auto parts store. All work in honorable, and everyone can't be white collar.
A college education used to mean something, and it was not for everyone. Now it just means that you (or someone on your behalf) wrote a series of checks, and you showed up for the finals.
Can you imagine the uproar from the liberals if a conservative proposed a 3.0 minimum for entrance to state universities? But that is what it will take.
My assertion is that education would be better if it were a competitive industry, irrespective of government involvement. Education can still be taxpayer funded.
There is no surely reason to think competition would be bad, is there?
Just my thoughts: Walmart is successful in a competitive industry, but Walmart still sucks. It is efficient and profitable, but it still sucks.
I would prefer that schools all had the same high standards of learning, and let the students be competitive toward success and promotion.
There is no surely reason to think competition would be bad, is there?
Competition is always good. I am a teacher (as mentioned in my #97), and I know that when the stakes are high, students rise to the challenge. They respect the school, the teacher, and the educational process when there is a lot demanded of them. But my hands are tied as to the degree of rigor I can demand. For that I can thank the liberals of the last 30 years.
Well now, you see, you erred as well. He didn't mispell grammar, as grammar is an entity or area of knowledge not susceptible of spelling. He mispelled 'grammar', the word which represents grammar in english.
Hey, let me give the test. Nobody would pass! Someone else wondered what the test was actually like, and I share that curiosity. I suppose if I took it I might end up with a failing grade and a beef on every question.
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.