Coming Soon to a Town Near You - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

mcgraw_wv · 02-23-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

If a parent of a high school student won't let their child go home by him/herself, then they have "issues" they need to deal with.

But when discussing ideas, taking your stance alienates potential policy adopters, accommodating those that say they need it, is they way change is made.

***DarrylS*** · 02-23-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

Last night I watched Freakonomics the Documentary, A great program. One of the chapters they ran a test to pay students to bring up their grades, every month, if they achieved all C's or more, they got 50.00, and then 1 student out of those with grades can win 500.00.

The Idea was great, as an economist, his job was to find the right incentive to make kids care more about their grades. In the end 50.00 resulted in 5-7% more kids passing 9th grade.

They ran this with 900 kids, that equates to 45-63 more kids who passed, at a potential cost of 45000 a month if all 900 passed ( which they didn't ) so I don't know what the total costs were.

The end result was that the incentive wasn't really what the kids were looking for, and they felt that it was money better spent by incentivizing kids to learn at an early age as when you wait for 9th grade, they are already stuck to their level of moditivation for learning.

I mentioned this becuase my wife and I discussed this last night, ( her mom is a teacher ) and she felt that the money spent directly to kids could go to hiring another teacher and make the class size smaller.

I said "Ahhhh! But Class size does not factor into a KIDS incentive, I don't think they would care much more if they had a smaller class size. We need to find out what incentive most kids want to achieve, which is important to them"

If you figure that out, you fix education.

My idea, For all students who achieve a 3.0 or better have 1 hour less of school a day. OR... They don't have to show up on Fridays.

Giving 1 day for teachers to focus soley on the struggling students, and rewarding those good students with more free time and social interaction with friends, which IS what motivates Kids.

Huge fan of freakonomics.. this is not a bad idea. Believe it or not, some of my grandson's friends actually like the "solace" that school provides, it gives some of them respite in a very crazy world.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 02-23-2011, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

I think most high school students already stay home by themselves.

I was not thinking of only high school student when I voiced my concerns.

My kids spent a few hours alone when they were in high school, but I did try very hard to make those hours as minimal as possible, as I assume most parents do. While teenagers are certainly "old enough" to be left alone it sometimes seems as though some of them, at least, are not "mature enough."

Too much time alone can lead to trouble, even for teenagers - especially for teenagers in some cases - PR seems to disagree with me and that's his right - but I'd have to ask him at what age he began drinking and did the fact that his parents left him to his own devices after school factor into the relative easieness of getting drunk while still in high school - if indeed, he began drinking at an early age. He very well may not have - but alot of teenagers do, and they generally do it at someone's house while the parents are not home.

Same for doing drugs, having sex, browsing porn and all those other things we'd all prefer our 12 to 19 year old kids not have the time or space to do it in.

And no, PR, I don't think that's a personal "issue," I had as a parent, I think it's a concern of all decent parents everywhere and most of us would prefer to do something other than hand our kids a key and trust they'll know what to do with an empty house and several hours or a whole day of unsupervised time.

The Brandon Five · 02-23-2011, 08:59 AM

Quote:

When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children. - Albert Schanker, President of the United Federation of Teachers from 1964-1984, President of the American Federation of Teachers from 1974-1997.

Do the right thing: the people's ... - Google Books

Mrs.PatsFanInVa · 02-23-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Brandon Five

Do the right thing: the people's ... - Google Books

Sick quote, sick man....but then again, does the state have the interest of the child at heart, either, or do they basically negotiate in favor of budgets and such? Does closing half the schools in Detroit (a move being taken by the state not by the union) have the best interest of the child as it's basis?

I guess that's what I'm asking, and why I asked that this not devolve into a discussion about "whose fault it is."

I want to know what, if anything, can be done to keep good teachers (and regardless of what anyone thinks, even "good" people, people with the best interest of their pupils at heart,) are going to follow the money and they are going to protect their own sanity.

If a person can make the same salary with comparable benefits working as a clerk in a grocery store or as a receptionist in a doctor's office with virtually no responsibilities is that person going to choose to face a classroom with 60 unruly ghetto kids on a daily basis instead?

Is cutting salaries, lowering benefits and doubling or tripling class size and responsibility going to encourage teachers to keep teaching or is it going to send them in another direction?

Do we, as parents, find it acceptable to send our kids to a school with 60 kids in a classroom?

This can't be the only answer, can it?

mcgraw_wv · 02-23-2011, 10:12 AM

Mrs P.... I think you are coming around to the conclusion that you can not rely on government to run and provide the best education for you and your family. You are sounding more and more like me in your last post.

What's the best solution? Government stops taking a huge chunk of tax money and giving it to schools who can't compete, or perform the duties it is paid to perform.

Now you take that money back and you find the best solution you can afford to send your kid too.

Government is in the business of lowest common denominator. They are not going to provide services over and above expectations, only to meet the lowest level which will keep you wanting to pay your taxes to support it.

Now the honest answer, pay for your child to go to private school and ensure they are getting the best teachers, with the best tools, and the best environment, which will dramatically increase your kids chances of being successful.

now I know your going to say "But not everyone can afford that! It's not fair" and then i'll remind you of what your dad, or grandpa said to you when you were a kid... "Life isn't fair"

I could even see a market for local work at home moms, hosting a small local Home Schooling business / Daycare in which you send your kids down the street, pay the one person to watch and educate your child, and I bet you end up with a better education without all the pit falls and distractions of public education.

PatriotsReign · 02-23-2011, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

But when discussing ideas, taking your stance alienates potential policy adopters, accommodating those that say they need it, is they way change is made.

Child rearing is 100% the responsibility of PARENTS. No one else is responsible for them. My point is that public school systems can't afford to worry about the needs of parents.

Could it work against them in discussions with parents? Sure it will. But again, PARENTS need to accept the fact schools play no role in making their lives more "convenient"...nor should they.

The last thing a teacher needs to worry about is who is at home watching "The poor children". Its not their concern.

PatriotsReign · 02-23-2011, 10:20 AM

My opinion on funding public education is that all tax revenues from each town that are earmarked for public education should be placed into a pool at the state level and every town should get the same funding (per student).

Wealthier towns shouldn't have better schools and better teachers than poorer towns...in my opinion.

Now, poorer states would still get less, but it's still more fair than the current system. The LAST thing I'd want to see is public education handed over the federal gov't. So let's keep it at the state level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

Mrs P.... I think you are coming around to the conclusion that you can not rely on government to run and provide the best education for you and your family. You are sounding more and more like me in your last post.

What's the best solution? Government stops taking a huge chunk of tax money and giving it to schools who can't compete, or perform the duties it is paid to perform.

Now you take that money back and you find the best solution you can afford to send your kid too.

Government is in the business of lowest common denominator. They are not going to provide services over and above expectations, only to meet the lowest level which will keep you wanting to pay your taxes to support it.

Now the honest answer, pay for your child to go to private school and ensure they are getting the best teachers, with the best tools, and the best environment, which will dramatically increase your kids chances of being successful.

now I know your going to say "But not everyone can afford that! It's not fair" and then i'll remind you of what your dad, or grandpa said to you when you were a kid... "Life isn't fair"

I could even see a market for local work at home moms, hosting a small local Home Schooling business / Daycare in which you send your kids down the street, pay the one person to watch and educate your child, and I bet you end up with a better education without all the pit falls and distractions of public education.

mcgraw_wv · 02-23-2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Do we, as parents, find it acceptable to send our kids to a school with 60 kids in a classroom?

This can't be the only answer, can it?

You will as long as you feel government run education is the best form of education for your children. You don't have a choice do you? As long as you want to rely on government education, you are FORCED to send your kid to a 60 student classroom.

On a side note...

Parents such as your self have a major problem sending their kids to a school with 60 students in them, however you will more than likely within the next few years be either taking out 40k worth of loans, or paying for your kids to go to a college where the class size is easily 250+

Explain that phenomenon

mcgraw_wv · 02-23-2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

My opinion on funding public education is that all tax revenues from each town that are earmarked for public education should be placed into a pool at the state level and every town should get the same funding (per student).

Wealthier towns shouldn't have better schools and better teachers than poorer towns...in my opinion.

Now, poorer states would still get less, but it's still more fair than the current system. The LAST thing I'd want to see is public education handed over the federal gov't. So let's keep it at the state level.

So me and my neighbors work our ass off to make a lot of money, so we have to pay taxes in order to ensure my kids school is the lowest common denominator? If I am paying for it, I want my money going to the best, most competitive situation for my kid. Why should I ensure the people who live 300 miles away in a town that produces very little tax money have the same quality of education? I want to ensure MY kid gets the best, yet your offering me the best that can be afforded to all? Or the lowest common denominator...

This is why it's broken... We aren't creating schools which are centers for advancing educational standards, we are ensuring that areas who are known for innovation, and generating jobs via businesses are getting a lesser education, and therefore ensuring the levels of innovation and growth slow with the next generation.

And I 100% understand that it's not a very "fair" situation. However, the goal should be to have your kids just a bit better off than yourself... and you don't go from po-dunk to CEO in 1 generation... it may happen, but it's not the norm. If you live in one of the areas with poor services, your aim as a provider should be to find a job which afford you the ability to either send your kid to a better school or move to a better area. Easier said than done, I understand this... Life isn't fair, it's hard...