Well, first, I don't think that the government is a good place to start for education. The government should be as small as possible. I think that local taxes should be used to fund local schools....I would be willing to have the teacher live in my home. remember "little town on the prarie"? ha ha. What we need to remember is that there is more and more information to learn...our kids are NOT going to learn it all. So it is silly to expect the government to teach it all. Different locations need different information...it needs to be less centralized, not more centralized....but of course then you come back to the people problem. I think year round school solves some of the problems and creates new ones. I think it is amusing that the amusement parks are against year round school. ha ha ha aha. I dislike summer vacation and as a working mother with kids in public school...well, sorry, it is a PIA. It isn't that I expected the government to babysit my kids...it is just that it is different THESE 8 weeks, than regular and so it is cobbled together and difficult.
This is the quote I had a problem with: This indicates that the educational reasons are secondary to the inconvenience that summer break extols on the parents. Please keep the kids in school so I don't have to scramble for summer daycare? That is the inherent problem. One of our local schools was the last holdout in our are for year round school (they did tracks) and this year was there last. We must live in a great area, because most people complained about the tracks and year round system. They had kids in different tracks so they were never all home at the same time; they couldn't take family vacations - just a mess. So this was their last year of year round schooling. I know we do school throughout the summer. We focus on Math and languages (Latin this summer) and do a lot of fun art projects. We enjoy it and it keeps the kids busy so they dont' spend all summer in front of the TV or whining that they are bored (at least, not SO much!
I'm curious what do you hope to accomplish by setting national standards? How would that actually change the Public School System?
All it does it makes sure all kids are on the same basic playing field. After that it is then the parents job to enrich their kid's lives.
Because they will all have the same guidelines for learnng. They will all be required to have a certain level of every subject thus the same playing field.
So you are telling me that as long as there are "standards" they WILL be met. I should try that on my children's rooms. I will just set the standard and surly it will be done accordingly. I hate to tell you this but setting a standard is doing nothing. It doesn't really do anything to ensure children are getting a good education. I was hoping you would be able to enlighten me but repeating the fact that a standard makes things fair over and over won't get us anywhere. HOW does it make things fair? How does it even the playing field? What is a fair playing field when we are all different? The only point of having a standard is if people are held accountable to a standard. The only penalty the Fed's have for making people keep some Bureaucrat in Washington's standard is by withholding funding. So teachers and administrators have incentive to skirt standards, pad tests, teach to the test or whatever and the child is actually HARMED. Not only that we end up spending tax money for them to find ways around the system rather then focusing on the children. Also the people in the places that probably need the funding the most are going to be the same schools and districts who struggle to keep up with a standard or cheat their way around it. Children with English as a second language. Children who have to take care of themselves because their parents can't. People in nice neighborhoods with well educated parents can have schools that do practically nothing and they will pass those tests. I assure you that even the poorest of standards will be unattainable by some and achieved without effort or perhaps without doing anything by others. I know I have worked in Special Ed classes. I have also tutored disadvantaged children on my own time without pay. I can assure you that what you are advocating will do as much as me setting standards for my children on how to clean their room but never teaching or enforcing them how to clean their room. Standards are nothing more then a smoke screen for politicians to say they are doing something when the truth is the government would be better off getting out of the way and letting local communities, teachers, and parents do their job without a bunch of interference or countering incentives. We don't need the Fed's working against us. On top of all that when you take things to a National level people feel helpless in trying to change something. I am more likely to succeed in rallying the people of my community to do something then I am to change Federal Law. It makes everyone more apathetic.
I do not think the schools should be responsible for raising peoples children. We are in a time when people seem to think everyone else is responsible for their children and their lives. When dh and I had our first child, our marriage was miserable. Our appartment was small...400 square feet maybe. He worked all the time and I tried to work around his schedule. IF someone else stepped in and took responsibility for my child, I would have walked out. Instead, I was forced to deal with my decision, in poverty and all, to have a child. I took care of him and I raised him and I worked out my marriage. Now, things are much better. But I highly resent any tax dollars that go toward supporting someone else's children or mistakes. I think the public schools spend way too much to begin with. Our football teams alone cost our local district over 100 million a year while they claim to not have enough money for paper or decent health insurance for the teachers. I like year round school, when it is run on the model where they go the same number of hours, they just go certain weeks on and certain weeks off. It allows the district to reduce the number of teachers and keep staff working year round. They can have 4 class rotating in and out of 3 classrooms with 3 teachers about. I have seen this model in Arizona and thought it was great. THAT, I would be ok with. Free daycare, I am not ok with.
Our local PS system has what they call a modified traditional track. They started it not long after I exited the school system here. They start at the end of July, 2 weeks of for a fall break (last week of sept and first week of oct), 3 weeks for christmas, 2 weeks for spring and then they are off at the beginning of June.
We enjoy schooling year round most of the time and take off in December for vacationing and overall Christmas fun. It seems to me the problem with public schools is that it isn't actually public but government schools. More local control and involvement would mean it could be controlled by the local or public in that area ie. year round or religious curriculum. Finally ITA with MLC and Emma's#1fan
i have to disagree, the majority of the US is the govt, not the conservative Christian population, which it seems is in the minority
sorry, wasnt meant to be aimed at you personally, just a bit frustrated with our administration right now
I know you were just joking around so don't take this as me being argumentative because I don't mean it that way. I just find it a very interesting thought. There is no "we", really. When people say "we" elected Obama, I have to say that I didn't elect Obama. Some people elected Obama but it wasn't me so please don't include me in the "we". I did not choose John McCain to run in the Primary nor did I choose I current health care system or what it may turn into. I did not choose to invade Iraq or implement No Child Left Behind. I know this is not a political thread I just want to ensure that people don't include me into any of these things that they say "we" did. "We" makes it sound like it was some kind of mutual decision but that's not what really happens. Some people get their way while others are unhappy about it and we are all thrown together into this "we" group. Actually by the time things get through Congress nobody wants to claim them. Also Washington Bureaucrats or Politicians make some decisions on their own but it has nothing to do with what I or you (unless you have a lot of money )want.
We have never choosen anyone the electorial college does. Its sole purpose was to stop uneducated people from "making a mistake". We need to abolish it but it will never happen because our government doesn't trust us as much as we don't trust them.
ok, im assuming the electoral college is who is choosing our primary candidates? so have we really always done that? even back in the very beginning or is this something that was "invented" later? yes that is the true issue! and also, alot of times in the primary people are encouraged to vote for the candidate that will most likely beat the opposition, not the candidate that most fits our values.
Electorial College has always been around it was to keep the poor, women and slaves from voting and ruining our government. It still has the same purpose it is designed so we the people can't screw things up the government. Most people vote for a party not a candidate at all. That is why on the voter registrator cards you pick democrat/republican/none. Because then you are included in that parties elections. If you write none then you don't get notified at all. Canidates are choosen because of money and public presence. If a party thinks that person is a people friendly person and has that special spark then they endorse them to be their party leader. Sometimes you get a party divided like Obama and Clinton so the primaries were to narrow it down. Then the winner takes all in the election. You very rarely see an independent get it because they don't have finacial backing.
Actually it is Constitutional and appropriate because we are supposed to be the "United States" of America. The founders started it. It can be read about in Article II section 1 of the Constitution. Democracy is really tyranny of the majority not that a Republic is much better but at least an elected official will be held responsible for his or her decision at a later date. The founders had spent a lot of time studying the Greek Democracies and The Republic of Rome and realized the pitfalls of both. Democracies are extremely fickle just as the majority of the American public is fickle or a mob. I suppose this is getting a bit off topic though. No matter what form of government you use though we each make our own decisions both in individual life and to our small voice in our government. There will never be a million people who all think a like and make a decision together.
Actually it was to keep the "States" on equal footing. They had no problem keeping women or slaves or whoever from voting with or without the electoral college. They simply didn't allow it.
