nc scewing teachers again....

[kiddbrewer]

90% of all teachers are excellent teachers, great mentors, great friends, impact children as much as anyone, yet we as a state and a country have their value to society as a low level in relationship to compensation. We may have to cut other things in order to increase pay, but what could be more valuable than teachers with passion and motivation toward students. I would have no problem with a 1% sales tax increase if I knew that 100% would go to increase elementary and high school teachers over and beyond current budget. By the way I taught and coached 5 years and then left for the business world. Not bragging but I for one should have been a teacher/coach for my entire career. PAY TEACHERS MORE NOW is my war cry!!!

I can't agree more. I am a teacher and I wouldn't mind a small tax increase knowing that 100% of the funds go to not only the teachers, but to help fund education like texts and teacher assistants and not central office administrators. I'm working with books that we got 2 curriculum alignments ago. Now that NC has gone to the Common Core, none of the books are aligned with the Common Core. Google has been my best friend, along with 2-3 old texts per class, when I am planning my lessons.

That is what the lottery money was supposed to go for,but, it didn't.

I agree and if I remember correctly, the state legislature was going to rename the lottery and take out the NC Education" part. It's a shame that the NC legislature, along with former Gov. Perdue did not use the lottery for its intended purpose.

[newtoasu]

Why is it that so many public school teachers are opposed to charter schools?

I'm not sure how the charter schools run in NC, but I can answer based on how they are run in Texas. They are disliked because they drain money from the public schools. State funding for public schools is determined based on number of students that attend the public school. If a kid goes to a charter school that is one less student, therefore less funding.

However, that in and of itself is not the biggest gripe. The biggest gripe is that charter schools can somewhat "cherry pick" their students. If you have a student that has a discipline problem in a charter school they can kick them out; the public schools cannot; if a child has a special need (learning disability or physical disability, etc) the charter school is not required to take them. So the kids that cost more are always at the public schools and the charter schools on score better on their standardized tests without many of these kids to drag down their scores.

In addition, at least in Texas, Charters are not required to have certified teachers and that results in significant differences in pay for the teachers, with charters paying only 1/2 to 2/3 what public schools pay their teachers.

While not in Texas, and I'm sure an outlier, there is this story of financial abuse at a charter school in Florida: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... hool-board

For more horror stories read here: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/

Bottom line is that in most states, charter schools get to operate under different rules than the public schools yet get compared on the same results. It's like looking at only the scoreboard when comparing an FCS to FBS football game.

[HeffnerIV]

Why is it that so many public school teachers are opposed to charter schools?

I'm not sure how the charter schools run in NC, but I can answer based on how they are run in Texas. They are disliked because they drain money from the public schools. State funding for public schools is determined based on number of students that attend the public school. If a kid goes to a charter school that is one less student, therefore less funding.

However, that in and of itself is not the biggest gripe. The biggest gripe is that charter schools can somewhat "cherry pick" their students. If you have a student that has a discipline problem in a charter school they can kick them out; the public schools cannot; if a child has a special need (learning disability or physical disability, etc) the charter school is not required to take them. So the kids that cost more are always at the public schools and the charter schools on score better on their standardized tests without many of these kids to drag down their scores.

In addition, at least in Texas, Charters are not required to have certified teachers and that results in significant differences in pay for the teachers, with charters paying only 1/2 to 2/3 what public schools pay their teachers.

While not in Texas, and I'm sure an outlier, there is this story of financial abuse at a charter school in Florida: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... hool-board

For more horror stories read here: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/

Bottom line is that in most states, charter schools get to operate under different rules than the public schools yet get compared on the same results. It's like looking at only the scoreboard when comparing an FCS to FBS football game.

Most of the arguments on this thread are about the failure or public education because all students are treated as if they learn the same way, have the same ability, same background, etc.- basically, one-size-fits-all education. So wouldn't having different schools who had different specialties, who were judged reasonably based on appropriate criteria, be more effective? Would this not provide for the most opportunity for all students?

[newtoasu]

Most of the arguments on this thread are about the failure or public education because all students are treated as if they learn the same way, have the same ability, same background, etc.- basically, one-size-fits-all education. So wouldn't having different schools who had different specialties, who were judged reasonably based on appropriate criteria, be more effective? Would this not provide for the most opportunity for all students?

As far as the bolded part of your statements above I think most would agree. Unfortunately, as long as the funding treats all students the same, and results are all used in the same way and measured the same way it is unfair to expect the public schools to take the kids the charters don't want and be expected to get those kids to perform at the same level for the same money while your costs (salaries) are substantially more.

[goapps93]

BTW. How are you evaluated? Do you move up the salary scale based on number of years served or do you have an evaluation every year that determines your salary? You are a state employee, aren't you?

I assume this was to me. I already answered all that in response to your question earlier. I am a state employee and I hate the way they do evaluations. It kills all incentive to excel and makes it all but impossible to get rid of those who do nothing, and we all get paid the same, based on the job description.

Then that process should be ended, too. I assume you would agree.. BTW, I didn't see your response to my question concerneing your position with the state.

Cline, I'll try to help out with your question. I work for NCDPS and since the NCGA defunded the merit based increase system many years ago we do not move up the salary schedule unless the GA approves a salary increase in the budget. We are still evaluated each year by our supervisor and given a performance rating. If the rating is "Very Good" or "Outstanding" then we would qualify for a merit based salary increase, if funded. Until the merit based salary increase system if funded the only way to "get a raise" is to be promoted to a new position in a higher pay grade or rely on the GA to appropriate a salary increase. We don't get any salary increase for years of service but we are "rewarded" with a yearly longevity check after 10 years of service, and it ain't much. A Master's Degree would not provide me with a salary increase either. The only advantage I may get would be a competitive edge for a promotion and negotiation of that salary. So basically, once we are in a position our pay stays the same unless the GA provides a salary increase or COLA in a new or adjusted state budget. That has not happened much or at all in recent years. I have been in my current job for 5.5 years and make 3.95%(2.75% in '08 and 1.2% in '12) more than I did then I was hired in this position. In comparison, during my 2.5 years away from state employment in the private sector my salary increased about 15% over that short period and the evaluation process was not as thorough as with NCDPS.

[HeffnerIV]

Most of the arguments on this thread are about the failure or public education because all students are treated as if they learn the same way, have the same ability, same background, etc.- basically, one-size-fits-all education. So wouldn't having different schools who had different specialties, who were judged reasonably based on appropriate criteria, be more effective? Would this not provide for the most opportunity for all students?

As far as the bolded part of your statements above I think most would agree. Unfortunately, as long as the funding treats all students the same, and results are all used in the same way and measured the same way it is unfair to expect the public schools to take the kids the charters don't want and be expected to get those kids to perform at the same level for the same money while your costs (salaries) are substantially more.

What if the kids who had special needs were valuated (in need, not actual value) at a different level so that they received the funding necessary. I would imagine that when we allocate for each school child a certain amount of money, it's an average #. However, it's safe to assume that there are kids who consume both more and less than the average (obviously). So, why can't we allocate more per student of special needs at a specialized school? If I read your comment correctly, we agree that all children are different. Therefore, without discriminating, couldn't we teach them differently or at least provide them different opportunities and/or choices

[newtoasu]

What if the kids who had special needs were valuated (in need, not actual value) at a different level so that they received the funding necessary. I would imagine that when we allocate for each school child a certain amount of money, it's an average #. However, it's safe to assume that there are kids who consume both more and less than the average (obviously). So, why can't we allocate more per student of special needs at a specialized school? If I read your comment correctly, we agree that all children are different. Therefore, without discriminating, couldn't we teach them differently or at least provide them different opportunities and/or choices

Again, I agree that it costs significantly more to educate and provide for special needs kids, particularly those with significant needs, but to my knowledge (and that is quite limited on this subject Chuck (ASU66) or JCline or other education administrators may know more) there is no extra money for these kids. The legislature would argue that these special needs kids are randomly distributed in such a way that a straight per child allowance is sufficient, and that would normally be the case. In other words we give you 120% of what it takes to educate a regular kid and the extra 20% per child covers the difference for the special needs population.

This would normally work, but when Charter schools are taking the same per child as the public schools but not education the more expensive students it creates an unfair advantage.

The simple fix seems to be what you propose and that is to differentiate the cost of educating students based onn their needs and then funding that need. However that would still allow the Charters to "cherry pick" and start to create more separate but Unequal schools.

Many times there seems to be simple fixes, but usually there is a reason for the complexity and that is usually that life is not simple but quite complex.

[Maddog1956]

Again, I agree that it costs significantly more to educate and provide for special needs kids, particularly those with significant needs, but to my knowledge (and that is quite limited on this subject Chuck (ASU66) or JCline or other education administrators may know more) there is no extra money for these kids. The legislature would argue that these special needs kids are randomly distributed in such a way that a straight per child allowance is sufficient, and that would normally be the case. In other words we give you 120% of what it takes to educate a regular kid and the extra 20% per child covers the difference for the special needs population.

This would normally work, but when Charter schools are taking the same per child as the public schools but not education the more expensive students it creates an unfair advantage.

The simple fix seems to be what you propose and that is to differentiate the cost of educating students based onn their needs and then funding that need. However that would still allow the Charters to "cherry pick" and start to create more separate but Unequal schools.

Many times there seems to be simple fixes, but usually there is a reason for the complexity and that is usually that life is not simple but quite complex.

And don't forget the "Cherry Picking" can include requiring parents to be able to transport their child to school so they don't have to spend on buses and also requiring parents to be able to spend a certain amount of "hours" assisting at the school. Not that I'm against any of this but "Charters" should have a better "success" rate and may be should be funded at a lower rate than schools that have more "needs". Or maybe any child should be able to go to any public school (not based on area) even "charters" that their parent can get them to. While transport would still create an unfair advantage, I think it could be over come the easiest.

Charters were really set up to be experiments that would help create better schools everywhere in a State. The only thing I think we have learned is that if you "cherry pick" your kids you'll have better schools, which I think everyone knew in the beginning.

[bcoach]

Maybe the real answer is to go back to the way things were 40 years ago and earlier. You know the education that produced the people who put us on the moon, invented the computer and on and on. A time when we realized that not all people have the same capabilities. A time when you were NOT a failure if you didn't go to collage. A time when a teacher was not deemed less than stellar if one of their students " didn't make the grade". A time when you were proud to build cars or lay brick. A time when the teacher could devote time to all the students fairly equally and not have to give 30% of their time to one student who had this need or that. We are trying to be all things to all people and that NEVER works. I think the educational system and most of all politicians spent way too much time trying to fix something that was not broke. Remember when you were tested on what the teacher had the freedom to teach (within bounds) and not on what some politician decided we should be tested on? It blows my mind how we have allowed politicians to have so much influence on our education system. It has been stated that 90% of teachers do a very good job. I agree with that and would not argue against that figure being a little higher. Why then do we allow politicians, those people who just don't seem to get very much of anything right, influence the education of our children so heavily? One side of the isle thinks that every child should be the same and learn on an equal level and the other side comes up with charter schools. Lets get back to the way things should be and used to be. Educators take care of education and politicians take care of screwing up the country.

[appbio91]

Why is it that so many public school teachers are opposed to charter schools?

I'm not sure how the charter schools run in NC, but I can answer based on how they are run in Texas. They are disliked because they drain money from the public schools. State funding for public schools is determined based on number of students that attend the public school. If a kid goes to a charter school that is one less student, therefore less funding.

However, that in and of itself is not the biggest gripe. The biggest gripe is that charter schools can somewhat "cherry pick" their students. If you have a student that has a discipline problem in a charter school they can kick them out; the public schools cannot; if a child has a special need (learning disability or physical disability, etc) the charter school is not required to take them. So the kids that cost more are always at the public schools and the charter schools on score better on their standardized tests without many of these kids to drag down their scores.

In addition, at least in Texas, Charters are not required to have certified teachers and that results in significant differences in pay for the teachers, with charters paying only 1/2 to 2/3 what public schools pay their teachers.

While not in Texas, and I'm sure an outlier, there is this story of financial abuse at a charter school in Florida: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... hool-board

For more horror stories read here: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/

Bottom line is that in most states, charter schools get to operate under different rules than the public schools yet get compared on the same results. It's like looking at only the scoreboard when comparing an FCS to FBS football game.

What an awesome summary. If the current NC legislators get their way there will be no one left in public schools except special needs and discipline problems.

[JCline0429]

Why is it that so many public school teachers are opposed to charter schools?

I'm not sure how the charter schools run in NC, but I can answer based on how they are run in Texas. They are disliked because they drain money from the public schools. State funding for public schools is determined based on number of students that attend the public school. If a kid goes to a charter school that is one less student, therefore less funding.

However, that in and of itself is not the biggest gripe. The biggest gripe is that charter schools can somewhat "cherry pick" their students. If you have a student that has a discipline problem in a charter school they can kick them out; the public schools cannot; if a child has a special need (learning disability or physical disability, etc) the charter school is not required to take them. So the kids that cost more are always at the public schools and the charter schools on score better on their standardized tests without many of these kids to drag down their scores.

In addition, at least in Texas, Charters are not required to have certified teachers and that results in significant differences in pay for the teachers, with charters paying only 1/2 to 2/3 what public schools pay their teachers.

While not in Texas, and I'm sure an outlier, there is this story of financial abuse at a charter school in Florida: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... hool-board

For more horror stories read here: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/

Bottom line is that in most states, charter schools get to operate under different rules than the public schools yet get compared on the same results. It's like looking at only the scoreboard when comparing an FCS to FBS football game.

That is basically the way it is in NC except I'm not sure about the certification thing, but overall they get to make their own rules. There is a charter school in Charlotte which has been allowed to screen its students by a minimum IQ.

[JCline0429]

Why is it that so many public school teachers are opposed to charter schools?

I'm not sure how the charter schools run in NC, but I can answer based on how they are run in Texas. They are disliked because they drain money from the public schools. State funding for public schools is determined based on number of students that attend the public school. If a kid goes to a charter school that is one less student, therefore less funding.

However, that in and of itself is not the biggest gripe. The biggest gripe is that charter schools can somewhat "cherry pick" their students. If you have a student that has a discipline problem in a charter school they can kick them out; the public schools cannot; if a child has a special need (learning disability or physical disability, etc) the charter school is not required to take them. So the kids that cost more are always at the public schools and the charter schools on score better on their standardized tests without many of these kids to drag down their scores.

In addition, at least in Texas, Charters are not required to have certified teachers and that results in significant differences in pay for the teachers, with charters paying only 1/2 to 2/3 what public schools pay their teachers.

While not in Texas, and I'm sure an outlier, there is this story of financial abuse at a charter school in Florida: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... hool-board

For more horror stories read here: http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/

Bottom line is that in most states, charter schools get to operate under different rules than the public schools yet get compared on the same results. It's like looking at only the scoreboard when comparing an FCS to FBS football game.

What an awesome summary. If the current NC legislators get their way there will be no one left in public schools except special needs and discipline problems.

That is basically what I've been saying.

[JCline0429]

What if the kids who had special needs were valuated (in need, not actual value) at a different level so that they received the funding necessary. I would imagine that when we allocate for each school child a certain amount of money, it's an average #. However, it's safe to assume that there are kids who consume both more and less than the average (obviously). So, why can't we allocate more per student of special needs at a specialized school? If I read your comment correctly, we agree that all children are different. Therefore, without discriminating, couldn't we teach them differently or at least provide them different opportunities and/or choices

Again, I agree that it costs significantly more to educate and provide for special needs kids, particularly those with significant needs, but to my knowledge (and that is quite limited on this subject Chuck (ASU66) or JCline or other education administrators may know more) there is no extra money for these kids. The legislature would argue that these special needs kids are randomly distributed in such a way that a straight per child allowance is sufficient, and that would normally be the case. In other words we give you 120% of what it takes to educate a regular kid and the extra 20% per child covers the difference for the special needs population.

This would normally work, but when Charter schools are taking the same per child as the public schools but not education the more expensive students it creates an unfair advantage.

The simple fix seems to be what you propose and that is to differentiate the cost of educating students based onn their needs and then funding that need. However that would still allow the Charters to "cherry pick" and start to create more separate but Unequal schools.

Many times there seems to be simple fixes, but usually there is a reason for the complexity and that is usually that life is not simple but quite complex.

As to your point about extra money for special needs kids, in a way that is what the Title money which comes from the federal government is for. It's a debateable point whether it has the desired results.

It has already been spoken to indirectly, but the charter schools get to use more of their money directly for education in that most don't have to spend a dime on transportation, which is a HUGE cost for the public schools.

[Maddog1956]

Maybe the real answer is to go back to the way things were 40 years ago and earlier. You know the education that produced the people who put us on the moon, invented the computer and on and on. A time when we realized that not all people have the same capabilities. A time when you were NOT a failure if you didn't go to collage. A time when a teacher was not deemed less than stellar if one of their students " didn't make the grade". A time when you were proud to build cars or lay brick. A time when the teacher could devote time to all the students fairly equally and not have to give 30% of their time to one student who had this need or that. We are trying to be all things to all people and that NEVER works. I think the educational system and most of all politicians spent way too much time trying to fix something that was not broke. Remember when you were tested on what the teacher had the freedom to teach (within bounds) and not on what some politician decided we should be tested on? It blows my mind how we have allowed politicians to have so much influence on our education system. It has been stated that 90% of teachers do a very good job. I agree with that and would not argue against that figure being a little higher. Why then do we allow politicians, those people who just don't seem to get very much of anything right, influence the education of our children so heavily? One side of the isle thinks that every child should be the same and learn on an equal level and the other side comes up with charter schools. Lets get back to the way things should be and used to be. Educators take care of education and politicians take care of screwing up the country.

I know it's not popular to take up for politicians but they only do what the people that elects them want them to do or they don't stay a politician for long. I'm only assuming (yes, I know what that does) that people felt the system was broken, that we were losing the "education race" with other countries is why the politicians tried to fix it. That or either people didn't feel they were getting their money's worth from the educational system. A lot of the "American Inventions" actually came from people that grew up and were educated in other countries (i.e. almost all our atom and rocket tech came from Germany).

So I"m not sure that everything was so great 40 years ago, but that being said there may have been things done 40 years ago that we need to look at as well as new things we haven't tried.

I personally feel we should go back more then 40 years ago...to the time of one or two room schools with several grades in one class room. Each school being in the local community within walking distance to a students home. Each student that wanted to go had to walk, ride a bike, etc unless they were handicapped. With the internet and today's technology I think it would work even better then it did then.

But that's another story and I think that everyone thinks I"m crazy for even thinking it could work.

[kiddbrewer]

Remember when you were tested on what the teacher had the freedom to teach (within bounds) and not on what some politician decided we should be tested on? It blows my mind how we have allowed politicians to have so much influence on our education system. Why then do we allow politicians, those people who just don't seem to get very much of anything right, influence the education of our children so heavily? One side of the isle thinks that every child should be the same and learn on an equal level and the other side comes up with charter schools. Lets get back to the way things should be and used to be. Educators take care of education and politicians take care of screwing up the country.

It'll probably take an act of Congress (in this case, the NC supreme Court), but we need to take education out of the hands of the State Legislature and put it into the hands of DPI. DPI can be funded by a proportional amount of income taxes, sales taxes, and they control the proceeds of the NC "Educational" Lottery. The downside to this, the head of DPI is also an elected politician, but one stupid state official is better than several dozen. And sorry, I group almost all politicians in the "stupid" category.

The State Superintendent's cabinet, per say, would comprise of a random selection of system superintendents and school board chairs from around the state. I feel this group of people is more likely to listen to the teachers and even the parents than the legislatures, who only listen to those who put cash in their pockets.

Now we have educators guiding other educators and determining the path of our educational system. Unfortunately, the only way we will have a system where educators lead the educators will be when I fall into a deep REM sleep.

[bcoach]

Maybe the real answer is to go back to the way things were 40 years ago and earlier. You know the education that produced the people who put us on the moon, invented the computer and on and on. A time when we realized that not all people have the same capabilities. A time when you were NOT a failure if you didn't go to collage. A time when a teacher was not deemed less than stellar if one of their students " didn't make the grade". A time when you were proud to build cars or lay brick. A time when the teacher could devote time to all the students fairly equally and not have to give 30% of their time to one student who had this need or that. We are trying to be all things to all people and that NEVER works. I think the educational system and most of all politicians spent way too much time trying to fix something that was not broke. Remember when you were tested on what the teacher had the freedom to teach (within bounds) and not on what some politician decided we should be tested on? It blows my mind how we have allowed politicians to have so much influence on our education system. It has been stated that 90% of teachers do a very good job. I agree with that and would not argue against that figure being a little higher. Why then do we allow politicians, those people who just don't seem to get very much of anything right, influence the education of our children so heavily? One side of the isle thinks that every child should be the same and learn on an equal level and the other side comes up with charter schools. Lets get back to the way things should be and used to be. Educators take care of education and politicians take care of screwing up the country.

I know it's not popular to take up for politicians but they only do what the people that elects them want them to do or they don't stay a politician for long. I'm only assuming (yes, I know what that does) that people felt the system was broken, that we were losing the "education race" with other countries is why the politicians tried to fix it. That or either people didn't feel they were getting their money's worth from the educational system. A lot of the "American Inventions" actually came from people that grew up and were educated in other countries (i.e. almost all our atom and rocket tech came from Germany).

So I"m not sure that everything was so great 40 years ago, but that being said there may have been things done 40 years ago that we need to look at as well as new things we haven't tried.

I personally feel we should go back more then 40 years ago...to the time of one or two room schools with several grades in one class room. Each school being in the local community within walking distance to a students home. Each student that wanted to go had to walk, ride a bike, etc unless they were handicapped. With the internet and today's technology I think it would work even better then it did then.

But that's another story and I think that everyone thinks I"m crazy for even thinking it could work.

I would argue that politicians did not do what people wanted them to do but rather what the people allowed them to do. Politicians don't go in to office with a list of things that they have been directed to do by the public and then go do them. They go in with a list of thing that THEY want to do and then do all that the public or other politicians ALLOW them to do.
I would also argue that we have had plenty of "American Inventions" invented by Americans. I am not from the others do it better crowd. I would also guess that those Europeans were educated in a model closer to what we had then than what we have now.
As far as one room schools go I think you know that would not work in todays world. Can you imagine how many schools Wake County NC would have? I do believe that you have something there though. Students should be as close to their school as possible. Neighborhood schools are better for everyone concerned. Parental involvement (not interference) makes a big difference in the end result. The Wake system of bussing kids all over the county and then changing schools every year was the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. A family having two children going to two different high schools at the same time is a plan developed by idiots. My children turning out the way they have is a true testament to them after suffering through the Wake County system.

[JCline0429]

Maybe the real answer is to go back to the way things were 40 years ago and earlier. You know the education that produced the people who put us on the moon, invented the computer and on and on. A time when we realized that not all people have the same capabilities. A time when you were NOT a failure if you didn't go to collage. A time when a teacher was not deemed less than stellar if one of their students " didn't make the grade". A time when you were proud to build cars or lay brick. A time when the teacher could devote time to all the students fairly equally and not have to give 30% of their time to one student who had this need or that. We are trying to be all things to all people and that NEVER works. I think the educational system and most of all politicians spent way too much time trying to fix something that was not broke. Remember when you were tested on what the teacher had the freedom to teach (within bounds) and not on what some politician decided we should be tested on? It blows my mind how we have allowed politicians to have so much influence on our education system. It has been stated that 90% of teachers do a very good job. I agree with that and would not argue against that figure being a little higher. Why then do we allow politicians, those people who just don't seem to get very much of anything right, influence the education of our children so heavily? One side of the isle thinks that every child should be the same and learn on an equal level and the other side comes up with charter schools. Lets get back to the way things should be and used to be. Educators take care of education and politicians take care of screwing up the country.

I know it's not popular to take up for politicians but they only do what the people that elects them want them to do or they don't stay a politician for long. I'm only assuming (yes, I know what that does) that people felt the system was broken, that we were losing the "education race" with other countries is why the politicians tried to fix it. That or either people didn't feel they were getting their money's worth from the educational system. A lot of the "American Inventions" actually came from people that grew up and were educated in other countries (i.e. almost all our atom and rocket tech came from Germany).

So I"m not sure that everything was so great 40 years ago, but that being said there may have been things done 40 years ago that we need to look at as well as new things we haven't tried.

I personally feel we should go back more then 40 years ago...to the time of one or two room schools with several grades in one class room. Each school being in the local community within walking distance to a students home. Each student that wanted to go had to walk, ride a bike, etc unless they were handicapped. With the internet and today's technology I think it would work even better then it did then.

But that's another story and I think that everyone thinks I"m crazy for even thinking it could work.

The thing is, most people don't know what the politicians do thanks in part to the apathy voters show on keeping up with what politicians do or not understanding these things. The mainstram news outlets cover up the negative things our elected officials do or at the very least spin these negative things into positive things. Too, politicians are notorious for lying.

[Maddog1956]

I would argue that politicians did not do what people wanted them to do but rather what the people allowed them to do. Politicians don't go in to office with a list of things that they have been directed to do by the public and then go do them. They go in with a list of thing that THEY want to do and then do all that the public or other politicians ALLOW them to do.

Six or a half dozen it's all the same, my point is you can't blame politicians without blaming the voters. Citizens get the politicians they deserve. I can't remember many politicians that have run for office without saying "This is what I'm going to do", which they either do or not do but again it's on the voter.

I would also argue that we have had plenty of "American Inventions" invented by Americans. I am not from the others do it better crowd. I would also guess that those Europeans were educated in a model closer to what we had then than what we have now.

I agree and was just trying to make the point that it wasn't so much our educational system that helped the "American Inventions" as much as it was the need, market freedom and immigration that lead to many of the inventions.

As far as one room schools go I think you know that would not work in todays world. Can you imagine how many schools Wake County NC would have? I do believe that you have something there though. Students should be as close to their school as possible. Neighborhood schools are better for everyone concerned. Parental involvement (not interference) makes a big difference in the end result. The Wake system of bussing kids all over the county and then changing schools every year was the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. A family having two children going to two different high schools at the same time is a plan developed by idiots. My children turning out the way they have is a true testament to them after suffering through the Wake County system.

Wake would need hundreds or thousands of schools, but what is a school? Is it not a teacher and several students. If we got rid of 2000 students schools with 3 or 4 principals, 3+ media staff, 5+ office staff, 4+ cafeteria workers, bus drivers, plus all the central office staff, etc, etc could we not have basement, kitchen, civic center, church schools, with a teacher within walking distance for almost every student? Just a thought, maybe even a leap, but I'm not totally unconvinced that it couldn't work to some degree, maybe a new play on charter schools. With computers and the internet do we need huge media centers? Can we not provide hot dogs and frozen pizza as well as a cafeteria? Can a teacher not be expected to teach 20 kids without a principal (class would be lower without all the admin staff)? Is it not just an assisted form of "homeschooling" that seems to work fairly well?

[bcoach]

I would argue that politicians did not do what people wanted them to do but rather what the people allowed them to do. Politicians don't go in to office with a list of things that they have been directed to do by the public and then go do them. They go in with a list of thing that THEY want to do and then do all that the public or other politicians ALLOW them to do.

Six or a half dozen it's all the same, my point is you can't blame politicians without blaming the voters. Citizens get the politicians they deserve. I can't remember many politicians that have run for office without saying "This is what I'm going to do", which they either do or not do but again it's on the voter.

I would also argue that we have had plenty of "American Inventions" invented by Americans. I am not from the others do it better crowd. I would also guess that those Europeans were educated in a model closer to what we had then than what we have now.

I agree and was just trying to make the point that it wasn't so much our educational system that helped the "American Inventions" as much as it was the need, market freedom and immigration that lead to many of the inventions.

As far as one room schools go I think you know that would not work in todays world. Can you imagine how many schools Wake County NC would have? I do believe that you have something there though. Students should be as close to their school as possible. Neighborhood schools are better for everyone concerned. Parental involvement (not interference) makes a big difference in the end result. The Wake system of bussing kids all over the county and then changing schools every year was the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. A family having two children going to two different high schools at the same time is a plan developed by idiots. My children turning out the way they have is a true testament to them after suffering through the Wake County system.

Wake would need hundreds or thousands of schools, but what is a school? Is it not a teacher and several students. If we got rid of 2000 students schools with 3 or 4 principals, 3+ media staff, 5+ office staff, 4+ cafeteria workers, bus drivers, plus all the central office staff, etc, etc could we not have basement, kitchen, civic center, church schools, with a teacher within walking distance for almost every student? Just a thought, maybe even a leap, but I'm not totally unconvinced that it couldn't work to some degree, maybe a new play on charter schools. With computers and the internet do we need huge media centers? Can we not provide hot dogs and frozen pizza as well as a cafeteria? Can a teacher not be expected to teach 20 kids without a principal (class would be lower without all the admin staff)? Is it not just an assisted form of "homeschooling" that seems to work fairly well?

We are not very far apart in the goal but we do have differences in how to get there. The important thing though is that people start talking about it and then put their thoughts into action. we have an education problem in this country and I just don't believe that teachers are the problem. I think government is the problem. When it comes to voting sometimes I don't blame people for picking the wrong guy the first time. When they vote for the idiot the second time is when they prove they just don't care. Where we differ is that I think you feel that they tell us what they are going to do so we can make a decision. I think they tell us what they think the majority of voters want to hear so they can win then go do what they want. it is not what we do before the elections that makes the difference it is what we do after.
yes some schools are to big. Home schooling only works because of the low numbers. Most parents are not capable of teaching. Yes administration is way to big but we do need someone to steer the ship. Just like government is way too big but we do need government.
No we have to be way far apart on the food deal. Childhood obesity is a HUGE problem. We have to stop feeding them crap. parents are feeding their kids junk and we don't need to compound the problem in the schools.
Here is the bottom line and I am done because we don't really have an argument in the overall goal. Parents need to parent and let teachers teach. Teachers should not have to be prison guards, babysitters, or social workers. They need to make more money. They need to be valued more than coaches. Big government needs to get out of the way. They should make no mandates that they don't pay 100% of the cost. Let everything come from educators on a local level. I fear it is too late but then again if people really care then......................

[appst89]

Bcoach, you have hit on the crux of almost every problem America faces right now; voter apathy. Too many people are perfectly content to go to the polls and vote the way they always have or the way their preferred media outlet tells them to. We get the kind of politicians we deserve when we allow ourselves, as an electorate, to be manipulated so easily.