Are Americans getting dumber?

[CJ7]

this is 3 years old, but the source is credible

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09f33pub.pdf



its long, but after scrolling through the table of contents one of the first things you see it the $$$ distribution graph

46% State
43% local
9% federal

if you take away the 9% of federal $ and add it to state and local $ how does that make it cheaper for state and local funding?

[CuteOldGuy]

And now with "cherry picking" the best students, you should back that up with some evidence. There is no relation I know of that says richer kids are smarter or better behaved than poor kids.

I know you just make this stuff up as you go along, but try to support something with a fact here or there.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by WTF

You missed my other two points on why this is so.

Legancy costs and cherry picking the very best students.

What do you mean by "legancy costs"? Unions? Also, privately ran charter schools do not cherry pick their students. They are selected by lottery and consistently outperform public educated students because they are motivated to do so. Explain please

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Vouchers by themselves only change who gets to go to the "good" schools. Until we upgrade the quality of more schools--thus providing more "good quality education" opportunities--we will not fix the problem..

That is exactly correct.

These folks have no concept of the low hanging fruit principal.

A god Damn midget can pick all the low hanging shit!

It takes more money and innovation to get to the harder to reach stuff.

Same holds true in education.

These silly bastards do not understand that principal!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

What do you mean by "legancy costs"? Unions? Also, privately ran charter schools do not cherry pick their students. They are selected by lottery and consistently outperform public educated students because they are motivated to do so. Explain please

If you do not know wtf legancy cost are, look it up. Briefly, it means older costs. Retired teachers. They have been in business much longer than most private schools.


Do you understand parental participation? Do you understand that parents that put their kids in the lottery are much better parents in this regard and thus have much better results with their kids education. The public schools are left teaching kids who have parents that just do not care about them in this regard.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is exactly correct.

These folks have no concept of the low hanging fruit principal.

A god Damn midget can pick all the low hanging shit!

It takes more money and innovation to get to the harder to reach stuff.

Same holds true in education.

These silly bastards do not understand that principal!

You should rent the movie "Waiting for Superman" it's an award winning docuementary on charter schools and private schools. There are a few charter schools and private schools that take the worst students and completely turn them around with better teachers, uniforms, strict discipline, etc. Seriously, if you're interested in the subject, it's worth watching. The filmaker is a liberal Democrat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rmSldhnSDc

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you do not know wtf legancy cost are, look it up. Briefly, it means older costs. Retired teachers. They have been in business much longer than most private schools.


Do you understand parental participation? Do you understand that parents that put their kids in the lottery are much better parents in this regard and thus have much better results with their kids education. The public schools are left teaching kids who have parents that just do not care about them in this regard.

So yea, unions and the pensions.

I understand completely about parental participation. I thought you were saying public schools are better than charter or private schools as others suggested. I misunderstood your intent, carry on.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

You should rent the movie "Waiting for Superman" it's an award winning docuementary on charter schools and private schools. There are a few charter schools and private schools that take the worst students and completely turn them around with better teachers, uniforms, strict discipline, etc. Seriously, if you're interested in the subject, it's worth watching. The filmaker is a liberal Democrat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rmSldhnSDc

I've seen that, very informative. I cannot fathom anyone wanting their children to get a public education, blows me away there are some here that do.

[CuteOldGuy]

Those are "legacy" costs, dipshit. "Legancy" is not a word. What a moron. That's a good name WAM.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

You should rent the movie "Waiting for Superman" it's an award winning docuementary on charter schools and private schools. There are a few charter schools and private schools that take the worst students and completely turn them around with better teachers, uniforms, strict discipline, etc. Seriously, if you're interested in the subject, it's worth watching. The filmaker is a liberal Democrat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rmSldhnSDc

The key to your argument is that it is a charter school, so I assume the parents had to do something proactive to get their kids into those schools. That means they were also supporting the school's policies. That parental involvement is probably worth far more than the uniforms and many other trappings.

You also mention the other key element: better teachers. Doubling the number of charter/private schools will not double the number of good teachers. "Better" teachers are often those with more experience and with the zeal to withstand the pain of administivia. That means they often have enough senority to get the charter school positions.

Yes, a combination of better teachers, more involved parents, and a focused agenda tailored to attract a matching group of students is likely to produce better results. That is the easy part.

Take students who have no support at home (or often an educational hostile atmosphere), no parental support for the school, the second or third tier of teachers, and see if that works in any environment, charter or private or traditional public. Odds are it won't.

Throwing more $ alone will not fix it.

Decreeing tougher standards alone will not fix it.

And using the schools as a political football sure won't.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

I've seen that, very informative. I cannot fathom anyone wanting their children to get a public education, blows me away there are some here that do.

I bet the parents with kids in public schools are blown away because you pay hookers for pussy too ..

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Old-T

The key to your argument is that it is a charter school, so I assume the parents had to do something proactive to get their kids into those schools. That means they were also supporting the school's policies. That parental involvement is probably worth far more than the uniforms and many other trappings.

You also mention the other key element: better teachers. Doubling the number of charter/private schools will not double the number of good teachers. "Better" teachers are often those with more experience and with the zeal to withstand the pain of administivia. That means they often have enough senority to get the charter school positions.

Yes, a combination of better teachers, more involved parents, and a focused agenda tailored to attract a matching group of students is likely to produce better results. That is the easy part.

Take students who have no support at home (or often an educational hostile atmosphere), no parental support for the school, the second or third tier of teachers, and see if that works in any environment, charter or private or traditional public. Odds are it won't.

Throwing more $ alone will not fix it.

Decreeing tougher standards alone will not fix it.

And using the schools as a political football sure won't.

The biggest advantage over charter schools, is they have the ability to quickly fire the teachers that do not perform. It is probably a combination of all of the above that produces better results. But if you are stuck with a unionized teacher that is not performing and cannot be fired, no matter what you have at your disposal, you will end up with uneducated students.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

I bet the parents with kids in public schools are blown away because you pay hookers for pussy too ..

Only the women and the crazy religious kooks.

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL I had a provider who had a kid in my kid's class in school. That was fun.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

You should rent the movie "Waiting for Superman" it's an award winning docuementary on charter schools and private schools. There are a few charter schools and private schools that take the worst students and completely turn them around with better teachers, uniforms, strict discipline, etc. Seriously, if you're interested in the subject, it's worth watching. The filmaker is a liberal Democrat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rmSldhnSDc

I haven't seen it but I used to play golf with one of the educators that did this in NO after Katrina.