University student unhappy he was forced to see an Inconvenient Truth [Archive]

JCPhoenix

05-17-2007, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
My computer got killed today in a thunderstorm and the one I am on now does not have audio capability so i can't watch the clip; however, why should people have to watch ONE side of an issue? Would you guys be ok if your professor had you watch a prolife documentary without airing the other side of the issue?

College should present both sides of issues and let the students think for themselves. They don't want to do that cause students may not decide to think the "correct" way.

1. It would be quite hard to find a documentary on the other side...what kind of documentary would that be? A documentary on how there *isn't* global warming? No one would make that cause anyone who doesn't believe that global warming is happening wouldn't care about the issue.

2. If you watch the clip, it's never mentioned whether the other side of the issue was presented or not in the class. So we don't have that information.

3. I would be okay with a professor showcasing a pro-life doc by itself, or vice versa (though I think it would certainly be better to show both sides of the issue - in an aside, I hear the Tony Kaye documentary Lake of Fire showcases both sides of that issue quite fairly) simply because I don't believe that's forcing views on me or anything. I think that would just be highlighting a set of arguments. But even so, pro-life/pro-choice is a much more touchy subject than global warming.

I agree with your second last statement about how colleges should present both sides of an issue and let students think for themselves - that is certainly the best way to learn.

But all of this is beside the point; this guy is making the mistake of thinking he shouldn't have to see this movie in the class cause it's forcing a view on him - WRONG. If that was the case, this student must be one impressionable dude. No one's forcing this viewpoint on him - I could be forced to watch a prolife documentary or a prochoice documentary in school and I wouldn't have a problem with it because it's not like the college is forcing me to take those views as mine. Again, all they're doing is introducing other viewpoints into the class - the decision of what to believe is still my own.

My problem with this student is that, as far as I can see, he's not worried about being shown both sides of the issue but rather, he just doesn't want to see this film, period. To me, that's the stupidest thing. He can watch the movie and still retain his own views. It's not forcing him to accept a certain view; just to watch other opinions. Honestly, think of it this way. It's like if this guy was on these boards and he decided it was unfair of the board to have any conservative posts (or if you want to think about it the other way) because it's "forcing" views on him. To me, that just sounds more like this guy doesn't even wanna hear another point of view.

I would be far more sympathetic if this guy was arguing for showcasing more POVs but if you watch the clip he A. clearly isn't and B. seemingly isn't all that smart. After all, he does get "well" grades.

Oh and I can't believe I just wrote so much based on some idiotic interview. :eek:

electriclite

05-17-2007, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Vong
Then I guess It's just convenient that a lightning storm just happened to occur at the same time I post a video, and yet somehow your computer lives, but your speakers do not....come on Lynn, we are not gullible!

She said one computer died and that she's on a different one that doesn't have audio.

JohnTheHenchman

05-17-2007, 01:40 AM

We had to watch this for my senior seminar class. I made up a phony excuse for why I couldn't attend.

Scorpio24

05-17-2007, 11:22 AM

You're such a rebel John.

The Postmaster General

05-17-2007, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Vong
....come on Lynn, we are not gullible!

Not gullible, just paranoid!

http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/allergies/pastweather/USMA0046?from=36hr_topnav_allergies

Whatever - I think most of these college students are more concerned with making smart ass points, and having someone slap their back saying "right on!", than actually having any real complaints.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-17-2007, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Vong
Then I guess It's just convenient that a lightning storm just happened to occur at the same time I post a video, and yet somehow your computer lives, but your speakers do not....come on Lynn, we are not gullible!

Come on Vong, we're not gullible but that would be something really stupid to lie about.

Vong

05-17-2007, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Come on Vong, we're not gullible but that would be something really stupid to lie about.

Ok, maybe I'm going alittle to far into conspiracy territory, but it isn't the first time someone has posted a video here and Lynn claiming she can't watch the video for some reason....

It's ok though. I don't mind waiting for her to see it.

Jon Lyrik

05-17-2007, 04:23 PM

Hey guys, let's show a video on alchemy being an alternative to chemistry, or creationism being an alternative to evolution, or--oh wait...

Lynn7

05-17-2007, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I didn't lose my audio but there was a thunder storm here.
Not sure why I'm responding to this though.

You have been moved to offer evidence into this courtroom that in Massachusetts we did indeed have a band of severe thunderstorms that moved through the region yesterday. Thank you for your cooperation, lol!

(And we had a tornado watch too- did you?)

And Vong- how would I have known it was an audio clip if I had not attempted to click on your link? I have an older computer we are trying to fix so we don't have to buy another quite yet. I am not your enemy, you know.

Lynn7

05-17-2007, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by JCPhoenix
1. It would be quite hard to find a documentary on the other side...what kind of documentary would that be? A documentary on how there *isn't* global warming? No one would make that cause anyone who doesn't believe that global warming is happening wouldn't care about the issue.

2. If you watch the clip, it's never mentioned whether the other side of the issue was presented or not in the class. So we don't have that information.

3. I would be okay with a professor showcasing a pro-life doc by itself, or vice versa (though I think it would certainly be better to show both sides of the issue - in an aside, I hear the Tony Kaye documentary Lake of Fire showcases both sides of that issue quite fairly) simply because I don't believe that's forcing views on me or anything. I think that would just be highlighting a set of arguments. But even so, pro-life/pro-choice is a much more touchy subject than global warming.

I agree with your second last statement about how colleges should present both sides of an issue and let students think for themselves - that is certainly the best way to learn.

But all of this is beside the point; this guy is making the mistake of thinking he shouldn't have to see this movie in the class cause it's forcing a view on him - WRONG. If that was the case, this student must be one impressionable dude. No one's forcing this viewpoint on him - I could be forced to watch a prolife documentary or a prochoice documentary in school and I wouldn't have a problem with it because it's not like the college is forcing me to take those views as mine. Again, all they're doing is introducing other viewpoints into the class - the decision of what to believe is still my own.

My problem with this student is that, as far as I can see, he's not worried about being shown both sides of the issue but rather, he just doesn't want to see this film, period. To me, that's the stupidest thing. He can watch the movie and still retain his own views. It's not forcing him to accept a certain view; just to watch other opinions. Honestly, think of it this way. It's like if this guy was on these boards and he decided it was unfair of the board to have any conservative posts (or if you want to think about it the other way) because it's "forcing" views on him. To me, that just sounds more like this guy doesn't even wanna hear another point of view.

I would be far more sympathetic if this guy was arguing for showcasing more POVs but if you watch the clip he A. clearly isn't and B. seemingly isn't all that smart. After all, he does get "well" grades.

Oh and I can't believe I just wrote so much based on some idiotic interview. :eek:

There is an opposing documentary- I mentioned it within the last week about how people who viewed both had different outgoing opinions than the people who just viewed the Gore one.

I think what people are objecting to is when a teacher/professor has an agenda he or she is pushing. It is no longer just good to get kids to learn to think but there seems to be a push that the kids must think in a particular way.

Maybe I would have no problem if a documentary was shown and then students were invited to research the opposing side of any issue it happened to be, to demonstrate how things are always better when examined from both sides and given thoughtful consideration. Kids should be taught to think and question all information that they are given. That should be the highest calling of education.

Dr Martin Luther Loomis

05-17-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Hey guys, let's show a video on alchemy being an alternative to chemistry, or creationism being an alternative to evolution, or--oh wait...

Dude, grow up. Enough with your goofin' around and sardonic bullshit.

On a serious note, I have original footage from the 70s of my sister being delivered by the Stork. Like I said, it's was the 70s, so it's a bit grainy, but it still gives us a decent enough glance into how the reproduction system really works. It should still be acceptable for health classes... in Kansas.

outsyder

05-17-2007, 10:58 PM

If it was anything but a film class, I really hope it was not used as study material.

Beyond that, I can't see how he can have a case on why it shouldn't be screened in class. Hell, I was screened Triumph of the Will in a high school class once.

KcMsterpce

05-17-2007, 11:34 PM

Hahhahaa "double plus-think!" Hilarious!

I don't think there's a problem at all with showing films that present many aspects of opinions.

To complain about this is just childish. You can watch it and get annoyed, choose NOT to watch it, or completely disagree and debate about it afterwards. To go to college and expect to be taught everything you believe and expect to have classes that abide completely with your thoughts and opinions is - well - fucking stupid.
You don't like it, express that in an educated manner. Don't whine and mope and try to change the world because you think you're right and your perspective is the only way. Have your say in your esSAY (oh I'm funny) or in class debate, suck it up and move on. Sheesh.

The Postmaster General

05-18-2007, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by KcMsterpce
To complain about this is just childish. You can watch it and get annoyed, choose NOT to watch it, or completely disagree and debate about it afterwards. To go to college and expect to be taught everything you believe and expect to have classes that abide completely with your thoughts and opinions is - well - fucking stupid.
You don't like it, express that in an educated manner. Don't whine and mope and try to change the world because you think you're right and your perspective is the only way. Have your say in your esSAY (oh I'm funny) or in class debate, suck it up and move on. Sheesh.

(slaps KC on the back)

Right on!

QUENTIN

05-18-2007, 03:24 PM

Fox News must have been really hard up for propaganda that day if they resorted to giving this silly schmuck air time.

As for "presenting the other side", of which there really isn't one (the ONLY people who dispute global warming are the corporate interests who would be forced to change and potentially lose money if regulations were forced on them, and the conservatives who were tricked into thinking it was a political issue or has anything to do with their faith or pocketbooks), Stephen Colbert put it best there:

"I'm no scientist but I thought there were supposed to be two sides to every story. Sure, there's a vast consensus on global warming science. But doesn't the opposing 5% deserve 50% of the time?"

Sound like anyone here?

Lynn7

05-18-2007, 03:39 PM

And the consensus used to be that the world was flat- d'oh!

Vong

05-18-2007, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
And the consensus used to be that the world was flat- d'oh!

If you're implying that science first said that the world was flat, so what? If anything, you can blame religion for dampening the exploration into science and changing that view.

Look at Ptolemy. His viewpoint wasn't challenged for 1400 years, and his viewpoint was endorsed by the Vatican. Anyone who argued something different, was put to death or imprisoned for heresy. It took balls for people to come forward and argue that the world was not the center of the galaxy/universe.

Thrizzle

05-18-2007, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
And the consensus used to be that the world was flat- d'oh!

Science has led us to believe otherwise.

Lynn7

05-18-2007, 10:15 PM

Each generation thinks that they have all the answers. I'm sure what we think is great science now could be very discredited in the next 50 years. Dennis Miller was laughing about how not to long ago (20 years ago?) the scientests were worried about a global freeze but now we have global warming! Who knows? Our interpretation of data can always be wrong since we don't always know all the variables, like that other article said.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-18-2007, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Each generation thinks that they have all the answers. I'm sure what we think is great science now could be very discredited in the next 50 years. Dennis Miller was laughing about how not to long ago (20 years ago?) the scientests were worried about a global freeze but now we have global warming! Who knows? Our interpretation of data can always be wrong since we don't always know all the variables, like that other article said.

Yeah but considering the vastly superior technology we have today one would think that the answers are indeed right here.

unspoken

05-19-2007, 07:35 AM

I'd complain too...not over the material, but rather instead that I could have went to Blockbuster and paid 5 bucks to see it instead of dropping a few hundred bucks on a class where the prof decided to be lazy.

Lynn7

05-19-2007, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Yeah but considering the vastly superior technology we have today one would think that the answers are indeed right here.

It was awesome when antibiotics were first put into use but now we have superbugs that are immune to them. When VCRS got put into homes for the first time it was revolutionary- now those are almost obsolete. Science is exciting and fun and as new discoveries come into play, then the old technology looks archaic. And science can get old so quickly! The things we beleive wholehearteldy today can be hopelessly out of date in the next ten years, so it is always good to hold some skepticism about science and the scientific community (who will often sell their souls to get government money for the hot sexy causes of the day). Hey, I'd like to do a study on how global warming is killing our planet- can I have a million dollars please?

Badbird

05-21-2007, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
And the consensus used to be that the world was flat- d'oh!

Wow. You really need to watch that clip with audio...

And why is there always TWO sides to a debate? Why not three sides? Why not ten sides? Or why does their have to be any sides? What if it has so many sides that it looks more like a circle?

Anyway, this guy's a raging pussy. Do you think that I wanted to read A Thousand Acres for my Shakespeare class? Do you think that I wanted to read that one Dilbert comic in my Sociology class?

Oh the pain and suffering I've endured!

I wonder how he did in English... he speak very well.

KcMsterpce

05-21-2007, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Badbird
Wow. You really need to watch that clip with audio...

And why is there always TWO sides to a debate? Why not three sides? Why not ten sides? Or why does their have to be any sides? What if it has so many sides that it looks more like a circle?

Anyway, this guy's a raging pussy. Do you think that I wanted to read A Thousand Acres for my Shakespeare class? Do you think that I wanted to read that one Dilbert comic in my Sociology class?

Oh the pain and suffering I've endured!

I wonder how he did in English... he speak very well.

I hated reading THE SCARLET LETTER so much, that I admitted to my teacher in my book report that I disliked it so much, that even a mere 200 pages was too much for me to put up with. I had about 75 pages to go and quit. I reported that in my book report. I got a C+ for my honesty, and for reporting what I DID know about the story.

... this is from a dude that read MOBY DICK... unabridged! BLEEEEGH!

bigred760

05-21-2007, 02:59 AM

Here's my beef with this: it doesn't look like this kid bitched at all about having to watch the movie in his class, instead he went for the "well grade" and wait to go on Fox News and bitch about it. And we all know how unbiased Fox News. It's typical.

Colbert rocks.

Lynn7

05-21-2007, 01:18 PM

I read an article yesterday about this kid in Cananda who has seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth in FOUR of his classes. That's an agenda if I have ever heard one. Nothing like pushing out a message to students.

Vong

05-21-2007, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I read an article yesterday about this kid in Cananda who has seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth in FOUR of his classes. That's an agenda if I have ever heard one. Nothing like pushing out a message to students.

So it's an agenda to show a film that raises awareness of the environment and how precious it is? What's so wrong about showing a video that shows love for nature and the environment?

Depending on the education of the kid, he/she will be either more acceptable and open minded to the film, or just flat out ignore it. This idiot on FOX News is far from being open minded.

Brando @$$ Fat

05-21-2007, 02:45 PM

Unless those four classes were science-related then it does seem a bit silly he saw the film in all of them. Still, the kid in this video is a whiny little bitch. I mean, at my school I had to watch that "George W. Bush: Faith in the White House" film....imagine how much I hated that. This kid needs to grow a pair, do his work, and shut the fuck up. Plus, judging from his speaking style this guy is too fucking stupid for school anyway.

Thrizzle

05-21-2007, 04:45 PM

Man, all that is nothing. I had a religion in popular culture class and has to watch movies like the Fisher King, Ya ya sisterhood (or one of those girly movies, not sure which one....it was about 4 asian women), Leap of Faith, etc. If felt like the professor was pushing her favorite girly movies onto us, which i resented but i dealt with it and pulled out a gentlemans D+. JK.

College is about being exposed to new ideas and learning how to think critically. This kid clearly doesnt understand that and he isnt going to get anything out of his education. And whats worse is that Fox News viewers probably dont understand that either.

electriclite

05-21-2007, 05:42 PM

....

Brando @$$ Fat

05-21-2007, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Man, all that is nothing. I had a religion in popular culture class and has to watch movies like the Fisher King, Ya ya sisterhood (or one of those girly movies, not sure which one....it was about 4 asian women), Leap of Faith, etc. If felt like the professor was pushing her favorite girly movies onto us, which i resented but i dealt with it and pulled out a gentlemans D+. JK.

Ok, I don't think The Fisher King even compares to a film about how God put Bush in the White House in terms of propaganda.

Thrizzle

05-21-2007, 08:44 PM

I wasnt comparing the propaganda, i was talking about the awfulness of the movie. No one should ever have to watch the Joy Luck Club, for any reason.

But yea that film about god puttng Bush in the white house is pure insanity.

Lynn7

05-21-2007, 10:25 PM

Im at a disadvantage cause I haven't seen the clip but I think we conservatives are all fed up about being fed an all liberal point of view and to see our side constantly derided. That's not eduacation, that is brain washing. I resent it.

I loved the movie the Joy Luck Club. But that movie was not political as far as I recall.

electriclite

05-21-2007, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Im at a disadvantage cause I haven't seen the clip but I think we conservatives are all fed up about being fed an all liberal point of view and to see our side constantly derided. That's not eduacation, that is brain washing. I resent it.

I loved the movie the Joy Luck Club. But that movie was not political as far as I recall.

The funniest thing about this is that I've heard from conservatives who've gone to liberal schools, who describe their experiences as a badge of honor. I mean they've gone through the regiment of learning how liberals think, what their beliefs are and how to discourse among them thereby cultivating excellent conversation and argument skills.

What does this kid want? To be in the same "bubble" that conservatives accuse liberals of being in, and let any sort of critical thinking and argument skills atrophy or, in his case, never develop to begin with?

Thrizzle

05-21-2007, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Im at a disadvantage cause I haven't seen the clip but I think we conservatives are all fed up about being fed an all liberal point of view and to see our side constantly derided. That's not eduacation, that is brain washing. I resent it.

Ever consider that you might be wrong about certain issues? That's an honest question.

In my macro economics class the professor cited some mistakes of Bush administrations economic policy. I didnt walk out or challenge his motivation; this man obviously knows a lot more about the subject than i do and i had to respect that. A similar thing happened in my world history class. My professor criticized the bush admin about the war in iraq and some other policies, gave a historical perspective to back it up, and now a couple years later i can see he was absolutely right. These werent conclusions based on partisanship or a liberal agenda; they were derived from years of research.

So what were my professors supposed to do? Not give present day examples of issues that impact their student's lives because some students may take offense? That makes no sense at all. Why even have universities if people claim the right of infallibility and unwavering certainty?

Vong

05-22-2007, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Im at a disadvantage cause I haven't seen the clip

Still can't get that computer with the speakers to work, huh? Must have been one hell of a lightning storm to fry your entire computer like that....probably a good time to buy a new one :)

EVILxxx

05-22-2007, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Vong
Still can't get that computer with the speakers to work, huh? Must have been one hell of a lightning storm to fry your entire computer like that....probably a good time to buy a new one :)

Tell her where you bought the one that runs on hamster power. That way it won't happen again. ;)

Vong

05-22-2007, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Tell her where you bought the one that runs on hamster power. That way it won't happen again. ;)

Sorry, the "Hamster Computer" (patent pending) can't be bought in stores yet. :D

The Postmaster General

05-23-2007, 08:11 PM

You know, the other side's point is that "global warming"-type events have happened before, and all of this is part of nature.

That's the other side. Period.

Okay... What's their point exactly? It's futile for man to make any effort to overcome the forces of nature? Yeah - I think that's what they are trying to say. Right?

People have gotten sick all through time - that's a part of nature too. Okay, so what's the point? We shouldn't treat illnesses? We should just not worry when people get sick, because shucks, that's just how nature works. Maybe every time a doctor gives a speech, we should have people picketing and complaining that the other side isn't being presented, and be there to hand out pamphlets about The Plague and Legionnaires' Disease. Maybe they should hang out at Home Depot™ and warn potential buyers of storm shutters that their efforts don't account for much, because hurricanes have always happened and aren't anything new.

I think the real reason the other side isn't presented is a bit less paranoid sounding, and much more obvious, than The Big Liberal Agenda Theory.

And as far as this kid being "FORCED" to watch a movie -- unless there was some Clockwork Orange-styled stuff going on, I think it's all a bit melodramatic.

electriclite

05-23-2007, 08:24 PM

Lynn7

05-24-2007, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Ever consider that you might be wrong about certain issues? That's an honest question.

In my macro economics class the professor cited some mistakes of Bush administrations economic policy. I didnt walk out or challenge his motivation; this man obviously knows a lot more about the subject than i do and i had to respect that. A similar thing happened in my world history class. My professor criticized the bush admin about the war in iraq and some other policies, gave a historical perspective to back it up, and now a couple years later i can see he was absolutely right. These werent conclusions based on partisanship or a liberal agenda; they were derived from years of research.

So what were my professors supposed to do? Not give present day examples of issues that impact their student's lives because some students may take offense? That makes no sense at all. Why even have universities if people claim the right of infallibility and unwavering certainty?

And if those professors had chosen to present Bush's policies in a postive light and only gave that side of the issue you would be ok with that? There are always two sides to every issue. In school both should be presented if only to show students how both sides can be presented and argued. It is manipulative to do otherwise- brainwashing even. I do always give my kids both sides of the issues- here's what these people beleive and here's what these people beleive. It makes them think and learn to think and see things from both sides. I would not trust a teacher who was only explaining one side. What do they have to fear?

Lynn7

05-24-2007, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
You know, the other side's point is that "global warming"-type events have happened before, and all of this is part of nature.

That's the other side. Period.

Okay... What's their point exactly? It's futile for man to make any effort to overcome the forces of nature? Yeah - I think that's what they are trying to say. Right?

People have gotten sick all through time - that's a part of nature too. Okay, so what's the point? We shouldn't treat illnesses? We should just not worry when people get sick, because shucks, that's just how nature works. Maybe every time a doctor gives a speech, we should have people picketing and complaining that the other side isn't being presented, and be there to hand out pamphlets about The Plague and Legionnaires' Disease. Maybe they should hang out at Home Depot™ and warn potential buyers of storm shutters that their efforts don't account for much, because hurricanes have always happened and aren't anything new.

I think the real reason the other side isn't presented is a bit less paranoid sounding, and much more obvious, than The Big Liberal Agenda Theory.

And as far as this kid being "FORCED" to watch a movie -- unless there was some Clockwork Orange-styled stuff going on, I think it's all a bit melodramatic.

It's legitimate to wonder what control we have over the forces of nature. We should treat the illnesses that we can and buy the storm shutters to protect our houses as much as we can.
both sides of medicine should be presented. Why is it that the medical community will promote some new health thing and then say- wait! That treatment, it turns out, causes people to die of heart attacks! We should always hear about both sides so we can make an educated decision. If we can conserve and lessen pollution that is fine but that is not what is going on here. And the people who are for global warming aren't even practicing what they preach. Maybe I'll listen more when they do cause then I'll know they really beleive what they say.

The Postmaster General

05-24-2007, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
It's legitimate to wonder what control we have over the forces of nature. We should treat the illnesses that we can and buy the storm shutters to protect our houses as much as we can.
both sides of medicine should be presented. Why is it that the medical community will promote some new health thing and then say- wait! That treatment, it turns out, causes people to die of heart attacks! We should always hear about both sides so we can make an educated decision. If we can conserve and lessen pollution that is fine but that is not what is going on here. And the people who are for global warming aren't even practicing what they preach. Maybe I'll listen more when they do cause then I'll know they really beleive what they say.

Taking control of the forces of nature is not exactly what anyone has proposed, but you are right - that sounds a bit of a big task. I think what we are presenting is a need to attempt and survive everything that has been thrown at us.

You're analogy doesn't ring true, because no one has died from trying to conserve greenhouse gases. I think it's more like saying that we should explore the option of not washing hands when preparing meals, because germs are a natural occurrence, and we haven't really given that another shot now that we know more about germs than we did when hand-washing became standard practice.

Something else, no one is exactly for or against Global Warming. Some of your people talk about it like some of my people talk about God, and that's just not right. Global Warming isn't something that's neither able to be believed or disbelieved, but it is a term used to describe a condition that has been observed. You can't disprove Global Warming because it is what it is, not because we really believe in it. Don't forget that your people's argument is whether or not Global Warming is something we should be worried about, not whether or not it is real

Thrizzle

05-24-2007, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
And if those professors had chosen to present Bush's policies in a postive light and only gave that side of the issue you would be ok with that? There are always two sides to every issue. In school both should be presented if only to show students how both sides can be presented and argued. It is manipulative to do otherwise- brainwashing even.

I would be OK if they presented facts and evidence to support their argument. Absolutely. But the professors did give two sides to the issue and then thoroughly explained why they disagreed. And then they backed up their positions with evidence and well informed research.

I do always give my kids both sides of the issues- here's what these people beleive and here's what these people beleive. It makes them think and learn to think and see things from both sides. I would not trust a teacher who was only explaining one side. What do they have to fear?

Could i get an example? Let me hear you defend a liberal position (other than something like: they want to destroy christianity :p). I think i should be the judge of whether or not you present both sides of the issue, and if you want i can explain a conservative position to you so we can compare objectivism.

Lynn7

05-27-2007, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Taking control of the forces of nature is not exactly what anyone has proposed, but you are right - that sounds a bit of a big task. I think what we are presenting is a need to attempt and survive everything that has been thrown at us.

You're analogy doesn't ring true, because no one has died from trying to conserve greenhouse gases. I think it's more like saying that we should explore the option of not washing hands when preparing meals, because germs are a natural occurrence, and we haven't really given that another shot now that we know more about germs than we did when hand-washing became standard practice.

Something else, no one is exactly for or against Global Warming. Some of your people talk about it like some of my people talk about God, and that's just not right. Global Warming isn't something that's neither able to be believed or disbelieved, but it is a term used to describe a condition that has been observed. You can't disprove Global Warming because it is what it is, not because we really believe in it. Don't forget that your people's argument is whether or not Global Warming is something we should be worried about, not whether or not it is real

Yeah, it is not going to hurt us to conserve and cut back on pollution but it is a matter of to what degree we do it- at what point do the regulations hurt our economy- if we force certain plants to close because of burdensome restrictions etc then people may lose jobs, the economy can suffer etc. Sure we should all conserve but let's be careful about where this is going.

Global Warming is an interpretation. They are projecting about what is happening to our Earth. They are saying this is what is happening now AND this is where it is leading to. They are also saying and this is what is causing it to happen. What if there is a small increase in the earth's temp based on something that is going on with a sunspot or something we do not presently understand.

It is great to do the research to try to understand data but to assert that one way is right before all the facts are known is against what science should stand for. There may be things at work that we don't know about yet. Just like radio waves were in the air thosands of years before radio, there are things about this universe that we are not privy to.

Doens't it concern you when scientests are criticiszing people who interpret data differently and are not open to hearing other points of views or research? That bothers me a lot. I have to wonder why they don't want to hear from others? Why do they try to squelch other people's viewpoints and even to go as far as to discredit them? That makes me very skeptical about these people and their agenda.

Lynn7

05-27-2007, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I would be OK if they presented facts and evidence to support their argument. Absolutely. But the professors did give two sides to the issue and then thoroughly explained why they disagreed. And then they backed up their positions with evidence and well informed research.

Could i get an example? Let me hear you defend a liberal position (other than something like: they want to destroy christianity :p). I think i should be the judge of whether or not you present both sides of the issue, and if you want i can explain a conservative position to you so we can compare objectivism.

Sure. For instance, abortion. I told my kids that the liberals beleive that an abortion is OK because the pregnancy occurs in the woman's body and because of that it affects her health alone and she should be the one who decides what happens to that pregnancy since she is the one who has to carry the baby. The man does not have to carry the baby so it does not impact his health at all.

The liberals beleive that in the case of rape or incest, it is not the girl's fault that she got pregant. she was victimized and by having her carry the baby to term it would be a painful reminder of that rape or that a family member molested her. It would be unfair to make her go through that experience.

In the case of an unplanned pregnancy- it was an accident. The pregancy is unplanned and it would not be fair to bring a child into the world where things were not right for it. MAybe the two people involved are not committed or have even broken up. Maybe they are not financially ready yet to bring the child up. It would not be fair to the child to be brought into a situation where the conditions for an upbringing were substandard. Also, it would be unfair for the parents to give up their dreams in order to go through with this unplanned pregancy. The woman or the man might have to give up plans to go to college or to accomplish things they want to do at this point in their lives without being responsible for a baby's care.

Medical abortions are safe and back in the old day, women who were desparate not to have a baby were led to try to abort the baby themselves with coathangers or to go to disreputable people - these choices had led women to die from infection or hemmorhage.

And of course the fact that the baby would not know the difference. It is not aware of anything while it is in the uterus. It would not know about it's abortion. It has no awareness.

Now, Thrizzle, have I left anything out? I challenge you to give the other side of this issue. Tell my kids why they should not be involved in choosing abortion and make it good! ;)

Brando @$$ Fat

05-27-2007, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Sure. For instance, abortion. I told my kids that the liberals beleive that an abortion is OK because the pregnancy occurs in the woman's body and because of that it affects her health alone and she should be the one who decides what happens to that pregnancy since she is the one who has to carry the baby. The man does not have to carry the baby so it does not impact his health at all.

The liberals beleive that in the case of rape or incest, it is not the girl's fault that she got pregant. she was victimized and by having her carry the baby to term it would be a painful reminder of that rape or that a family member molested her. It would be unfair to make her go through that experience.

In the case of an unplanned pregnancy- it was an accident. The pregancy is unplanned and it would not be fair to bring a child into the world where things were not right for it. MAybe the two people involved are not committed or have even broken up. Maybe they are not financially ready yet to bring the child up. It would not be fair to the child to be brought into a situation where the conditions for an upbringing were substandard. Also, it would be unfair for the parents to give up their dreams in order to go through with this unplanned pregancy. The woman or the man might have to give up plans to go to college or to accomplish things they want to do at this point in their lives without being responsible for a baby's care.

Medical abortions are safe and back in the old day, women who were desparate not to have a baby were led to try to abort the baby themselves with coathangers or to go to disreputable people - these choices had led women to die from infection or hemmorhage.

And of course the fact that the baby would not know the difference. It is not aware of anything while it is in the uterus. It would not know about it's abortion. It has no awareness.

Now, Thrizzle, have I left anything out? I challenge you to give the other side of this issue. Tell my kids why they should not be involved in choosing abortion and make it good! ;)

Wow, I must say that was quite impressive.

Jamesadin

05-27-2007, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Wow, I must say that was quite impressive.

I agree!

Thrizzle

05-28-2007, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Now, Thrizzle, have I left anything out? I challenge you to give the other side of this issue. Tell my kids why they should not be involved in choosing abortion and make it good! ;)

You left out the most important point: pro-choice advocates don't believe that the egg (up to a certain point) is a human being, just a grouping of cells no different than others found in the body or any living organism for that matter. That which defines us as human beings, or independent organisms, is not present in the unborn child for months. Because of this, there are no logical or scientific grounds to classify abortion as murder or immoral.

Your kids shouldn't be involved in abortion because all human life is precious and deserves to be preserved, regardless of age. From the moment of conception god ordains the parents with the responsibility of protecting their child and under no circumstances can one justify eschewing it. Furthermore, no one can make the decision to abort a unborn child's life, no one but god has that authority. They are defenseless and should at least be given the opportunity at life, whether it's with the parents or through adoption.

Lynn7

05-29-2007, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Thrizzle
You left out the most important point: pro-choice advocates don't believe that the egg (up to a certain point) is a human being, just a grouping of cells no different than others found in the body or any living organism for that matter. That which defines us as human beings, or independent organisms, is not present in the unborn child for months. Because of this, there are no logical or scientific grounds to classify abortion as murder or immoral.

Your kids shouldn't be involved in abortion because all human life is precious and deserves to be preserved, regardless of age. From the moment of conception god ordains the parents with the responsibility of protecting their child and under no circumstances can one justify eschewing it. Furthermore, no one can make the decision to abort a unborn child's life, no one but god has that authority. They are defenseless and should at least be given the opportunity at life, whether it's with the parents or through adoption.

I guess you hit the points that a prochoicer would think would be the prolife way of thinking. But that is not what I would tell my kids.

First I would tell my kids that sex before marriage is something that God tells us to do not cause he does not want us to have fun but because it is for our own protection. Sex can lead to venereal diseases or AIDS. Sex can lead to unplanned pregnancies. Sex can lead to unplanned pregnanices where the man leaves the woman and she is left to raise the child alone or the man wants the child but the woman wants to remain free and can choose to abort the child or she can raise the child in a home in a lifestyle that the man may not wish for his child. How many times do we hear about a woman's child being beaten to death by her latest boyfriend? It happens every few weeks around here in the news. Do you want that for your kid Do you want your kid to be aborted?

We trust that God knows what is good for us and we should try to follow his teachings because they lead us in to a good life. Sometimes we screw up. If you do have sex before marriage and the woman gets pregnant you should marry her and take responsibility for your actions and your child. If the woman refuses and does abort there is nothing you can do about it because she has the legal right to do it. But your actions contributed to the abortion of your child. So, when you are choosing a woman to date, choose a woman who shares Christian values with you. Someone who will value life the way you do.

If your girlfriend gets pregnant and you are not ready to have a baby yet financially or even that it will interfere with your dreams. Well, there is nothing more precious than a human life. At the end of your life, will it matter that you did not get that great job when you were 23 years old? Will it matter that you gave up that great opportunity to finish your eduation but you have a wonderful son or daughter that you sacrificed to bring into the world? You could always go back and finish your education part time. Any fun you will miss out on is fleeting and fool's gold. Happiness comes from being kind to others and having others be kind to you. Happiness does not come from going out drinking with your friends, In a few more years you will never see most of your friends anymore- they will be distant memories to you. But your child will be with your forever.

God will help you through any hardship- pray to Him and He will hear you and he will bring you greater happiness than you ever dreamed. He will provide for you when times are hard.

Life is very precious. When you hold that baby in your arms your heart will soar. If you choose adoption that is fine too. You will give a couple a wonderful gift of life and the child will have a wonderful life loved by people who want that child very badly. I have never talked to anyone who has been adopted who wished they had been aborted. Never.

And of course, as to the argument that the embryo is not a human , if left alone it will become a human different than any other human. No person will ever again be like that embryo. It is one of a kind. An individual like no other. If I had aborted you, you would not be here.

Thrizzle

05-29-2007, 06:33 PM

In my defense, things of this nature are like a second language to me so i try to be as concise as possible.

Lynn7

05-30-2007, 05:38 AM

In your defense I would say that the only problem I had with your explanation is that the (heart-felt) spiritual component was not there. I just wanted to represent that side of the tale- but I didn't mean to put down your explanation. I think perhaps without the spiritual component (as opposed to the obey God because He said so line of thought) the prolife side of the argument would not hold up. That's probably why it is mostly Christians and people who are devout from other faiths who are prolife, right? ;)

The Postmaster General

06-01-2007, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yeah, it is not going to hurt us to conserve and cut back on pollution but it is a matter of to what degree we do it- at what point do the regulations hurt our economy- if we force certain plants to close because of burdensome restrictions etc then people may lose jobs, the economy can suffer etc. Sure we should all conserve but let's be careful about where this is going.

I don't get it Lynn. You want to cut teachers' jobs because their students aren't performing, but you don't want to cut manufacturers' jobs when their products are becoming, at the least, unfashionable.

Once again, we have different priorities. From where I stand, education should be given the financial concern. The privilege to use a lot of gas and waste stuff isn't as big a concern for me. Training for new products will always be available to workers, but there's not much future for an abandoned school.

Global Warming is an interpretation. They are projecting about what is happening to our Earth. They are saying this is what is happening now AND this is where it is leading to. They are also saying and this is what is causing it to happen. What if there is a small increase in the earth's temp based on something that is going on with a sunspot or something we do not presently understand.

Global Warming is description of events that are being observed.

Yes, there is an interpretation of data and how it pertains to Global Warming and the future of the earth.

If there is a sunspot or something, I hope someone finds it. In the meantime, what exactly is the harm in going by what we know. If you smoke cigarettes and get a cough, you shouldn't keep smoking because maybe the cough is due to a grass allergy.

It is great to do the research to try to understand data but to assert that one way is right before all the facts are known is against what science should stand for. There may be things at work that we don't know about yet. Just like radio waves were in the air thosands of years before radio, there are things about this universe that we are not privy to.

Constantly arguing against what people have convinced others of isn't going to help much. If there is so much other research that totally blows what we are seeing out of the water, someone needs to step up and provide that evidence, otherwise all I'm hearing is a lot of irrationality.

Doens't it concern you when scientests are criticiszing people who interpret data differently and are not open to hearing other points of views or research? That bothers me a lot. I have to wonder why they don't want to hear from others? Why do they try to squelch other people's viewpoints and even to go as far as to discredit them? That makes me very skeptical about these people and their agenda.

Who's viewpoints are being squelched? I haven't heard anyone filing a law suit trying to stop people from showing any other viewpoint except the one presented in An Inconvenient Truth. And I agree. It's totally bonkers.

electriclite

06-01-2007, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
It's legitimate to wonder what control we have over the forces of nature. We should treat the illnesses that we can and buy the storm shutters to protect our houses as much as we can.
both sides of medicine should be presented. Why is it that the medical community will promote some new health thing and then say- wait! That treatment, it turns out, causes people to die of heart attacks! We should always hear about both sides so we can make an educated decision. If we can conserve and lessen pollution that is fine but that is not what is going on here. And the people who are for global warming aren't even practicing what they preach. Maybe I'll listen more when they do cause then I'll know they really beleive what they say.

This is not about taking control of nature, but taking control of our role and the abilities we have at our disposal.

People in Japan have built highrises that can withstand eathquakes and typhoons, the people of Holland built dykes that have held back the ocean from flooding their cities out of existence for centuries, cities are built near volcanoes but have develop warning systems to prevent the loss of mass casualties. These are just mere examples of the abilities humanity has at its disposal. True not all are perfect, but nothing in this world is, we only take solace in the fact that what we have at the present is much better than what we'd have without them.

The idea that the argument for Global Warming is made mute because those who talk about it don't look to follow it is a mute point. If the idea is true and good, who cares what the people do?

There is corruption in churches by men and women who say they follow the teachings of God but do not truly do so based upon their actions. Is that cause to do away with faith? Does that devalue the message? Invalidate God? No, of course not, you know people are fallible but their faults do not affect ideas except in superficial terms.

The affect to economies that decide to take on measures to reduce pollutants will only be a temporary one, merely because it is so used to the way things are now. There is always the hump of adjustment to go through, but that too shall pass and then we'll have an economy that runs just as effectively as it did prior to the change. But to say that the endeavor is not worth it merely because of the temporary inconvenience, than you are subscribing to the very laziness, and lack of conviction you've contemptably accused others in this country of being guilty of.

Lynn7

06-01-2007, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove

I don't get it Lynn. You want to cut teachers' jobs because their students aren't performing, but you don't want to cut manufacturers' jobs when their products are becoming, at the least, unfashionable.

Once again, we have different priorities. From where I stand, education should be given the financial concern. The privilege to use a lot of gas and waste stuff isn't as big a concern for me. Training for new products will always be available to workers, but there's not much future for an abandoned school.

Global Warming is description of events that are being observed.

Yes, there is an interpretation of data and how it pertains to Global Warming and the future of the earth.

If there is a sunspot or something, I hope someone finds it. In the meantime, what exactly is the harm in going by what we know. If you smoke cigarettes and get a cough, you shouldn't keep smoking because maybe the cough is due to a grass allergy.

[/b]

Constantly arguing against what people have convinced others of isn't going to help much. If there is so much other research that totally blows what we are seeing out of the water, someone needs to step up and provide that evidence, otherwise all I'm hearing is a lot of irrationality.

Who's viewpoints are being squelched? I haven't heard anyone filing a law suit trying to stop people from showing any other viewpoint except the one presented in An Inconvenient Truth. And I agree. It's totally bonkers. [/B]

I don't get the wanting to cut teachers' job becasue kids aren't performing? In what context did I say that? I like testing kids to hold teachers accountable to teach the basics- I have seen many teachers go way off course teaching loads of rubbish instead of the basics when no one held them accountable to what they taught. Kids need to know English, Math, history and science - hard facts. Not math with candy etc.

Viewpoints are being squeleched when scientests accuse other scientests who don't believe in global warming of being hacks. That makes the others more reticent about having a different opinion cause they do not want to get derided as professionals. Peer pressure works on adults too.

I'm not arguing against conservation or anti-pollution. I'm just saying its a matter of degree and how much people are REALLY willing to give up. Knowing the American Public- people are not willing to give up much. Not an insult, just a fact of life. Even the pro-global wrming celebs aren't willing to give up so there we are.

Lynn7

06-01-2007, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by electriclite
This is not about taking control of nature, but taking control of our role and the abilities we have at our disposal.

The idea that the argument for Global Warming is made mute because those who talk about it don't look to follow it is a mute point. If the idea is true and good, who cares what the people do?

The affect to economies that decide to take on measures to reduce pollutants will only be a temporary one, merely because it is so used to the way things are now. There is always the hump of adjustment to go through, but that too shall pass and then we'll have an economy that runs just as effectively as it did prior to the change. But to say that the endeavor is not worth it merely because of the temporary inconvenience, than you are subscribing to the very laziness, and lack of conviction you've contemptably accused others in this country of being guilty of.

I am not saying it is not worth it. I am saying that it is dreaming to think people are going to give up things. They just won't do it. That is why all this is being so promoted by univeristies and Hollywood. It's all dreams and fantasies without having to really apply the ideas. People will not accept the changes. If the changes are legislated then they will have to change until they get the chance to vote out the people who are imposing restrictions on them, if the restrictions are too severe. And many people will ignore the restrictions altogether and do their own thing. The rule of law doesn't seem to carry much weight in this country anymore.

The Postmaster General

06-01-2007, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't get the wanting to cut teachers' job becasue kids aren't performing? In what context did I say that?

Every single time you rally to support No Child Left Behind.

Lynn7

06-01-2007, 06:29 PM

If our kids can't pass those tests which are pretty easy then something needs to be done. Are you saying it is better not to give those tests to the kids? Are you saying the schools should not be held accountable if the kids are failing? Are you saying that the kids in a school system where the kids are not passing tests are stupid and it has nothing to do with what is going on in that school system?

I happen to believe that a lot of the problem is the school systems' fault for leaving disruptive kids in the classrooms (bowing down to parental pressure) and that decreases everyone's chance of learning. But also, there are some teachers who are not teaching the basics but are doing very "creative" lessons that do not teach the kids anything. Let's leave those lessons in the art class. But unless these schools are identified as bad schools nothing will ever be done.

The Postmaster General

06-01-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
If our kids can't pass those tests which are pretty easy then something needs to be done. Are you saying it is better not to give those tests to the kids? Are you saying the schools should not be held accountable if the kids are failing? Are you saying that the kids in a school system where the kids are not passing tests are stupid and it has nothing to do with what is going on in that school system?

I said nothing of the sort.

And what happened? We were just talking about your claim that you never said that teachers jobs should be cut due to students not performing. Is this your way of saying that this is what you proposed?

I happen to believe that a lot of the problem is the school systems' fault for leaving disruptive kids in the classrooms (bowing down to parental pressure) and that decreases everyone's chance of learning. But also, there are some teachers who are not teaching the basics but are doing very "creative" lessons that do not teach the kids anything. Let's leave those lessons in the art class. But unless these schools are identified as bad schools nothing will ever be done.

These are all things that No Child Left Behind fails to address, or even acknowledge - but not before punishing community schools through abandonment.

Lynn7

06-01-2007, 08:19 PM

How would no child left behind cut teachers jobs? How would schools be abandoned? In mass if a school underperforms it is taken over by the state to run. And these schools are given huge opportunities to make things work out before that happens.

So what are you saying? They will lay teachers off? How would that happen? You need people to teach the classes.

The Postmaster General

06-01-2007, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
How would no child left behind cut teachers jobs? How would schools be abandoned? In mass if a school underperforms it is taken over by the state to run. And these schools are given huge opportunities to make things work out before that happens.

So what are you saying? They will lay teachers off? How would that happen? You need people to teach the classes.

I guess Jeb Bush decided to handle things differently. With his implementation of the plan, funding that would normally go to underperforming schools is diverted into high performance schools and private school vouchers, leaving the schools with a shape up or ship out policy.

Since we left Florida, every early childhood program has been removed from the school, and 18% of the classrooms have been combined - the ratio is on average 38:2 right now. It'd have to be some crazy TV movie stuff for that school to meet expectations now - It'll probably turn into a magnet school or something and the kids from the neighborhood will get bused elsewhere.

Brando @$$ Fat

06-01-2007, 09:19 PM

You're all forgetting that it all has to do with where the school is. Period. The high school I went to was one of the best in the state and over 100 kids had GPA's over 4.0 and only 100 with a GPA under 2.0. Guess what kind of neighborhoods the 4.0's came from and the ones the 2.0's came from. Coming from the South Carolina school system, I think I know something about the problems of public schools.

The Postmaster General

06-01-2007, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
You're all forgetting that it all has to do with where the school is.

I'm not forgetting. The school I was mentioning above is 98% reduced and free lunches.

Lynn7

06-02-2007, 04:35 PM

But the kids in the poor neighborhoods are not stupid so the schools are not working for them. Let them have the private vouchers to get an education that works for them instead of letting them fail and go on to drop out and have miserable lives. If the schools aren't working throwing money at them is not going to help.. You need to excise the tumor.

The Postmaster General

06-03-2007, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
But the kids in the poor neighborhoods are not stupid so the schools are not working for them. Let them have the private vouchers to get an education that works for them instead of letting them fail and go on to drop out and have miserable lives. If the schools aren't working throwing money at them is not going to help.. You need to excise the tumor.

In the long term, would it better to improve the staff at a hospital, or to just keep sending all the sick people to the one across town?

Also, who said anything about kids being stupid? I don't know how to describe what you are doing, but you keep doing it, and I don't think it's right. Everyone should know by now that slavery is wrong.

Lynn7

06-03-2007, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
In the long term, would it better to improve the staff at a hospital, or to just keep sending all the sick people to the one across town?

Also, who said anything about kids being stupid? I don't know how to describe what you are doing, but you keep doing it, and I don't think it's right. Everyone should know by now that slavery is wrong.

I said the kids are not stupid so the fault lies elsewhere. Is it the teachers? Is it the parents? is it the community? It could be any one of those things or a combination of things but to keep feeding money to schools that are failing the kids, is a miscarriage of justice. We need to identify and fix the problems. We need testing to identify the problems and we need consequences to make the schools fix the problems and if the schools can't fix them then we need to have the communties or the states figure it out. Meanwhile like 25% of kids are not finishing high school, right?

If the hospital across town is making people healthy that is where I would want to go- or I would want to know what that hospital was doing and make my hospital do likewise or threaten to shut my town's bad hospital down. I would not want to keep a hospital running that did not fix people's ailments.

The Postmaster General

06-06-2007, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I said the kids are not stupid so the fault lies elsewhere. Is it the teachers? Is it the parents? is it the community? It could be any one of those things or a combination of things but to keep feeding money to schools that are failing the kids, is a miscarriage of justice. We need to identify and fix the problems. We need testing to identify the problems and we need consequences to make the schools fix the problems and if the schools can't fix them then we need to have the communties or the states figure it out. Meanwhile like 25% of kids are not finishing high school, right?

If the hospital across town is making people healthy that is where I would want to go- or I would want to know what that hospital was doing and make my hospital do likewise or threaten to shut my town's bad hospital down. I would not want to keep a hospital running that did not fix people's ailments.

If NCLB did identify and fix problems, then I'd have no problem with it. All it does is solidify problems we all ready know we have and make no effort to fix it at the source. What, the feds fed millions of dollars to update the standardized tests so we could learn what? Oh, the kids can't read and write - Wow! We needed to speed millions, and years so we could actually PROOVE that the kids can't read or write?

What is the solution? To send the kids to schools where everyone else can read and write and just expect them to suddenly succeed, as if they really really wanted to go learn when they were at school with their friends, but just couldn't do it --- So obviously sending them to schools where they know not anyone, nor perhaps have much in common with anyone (read, private schools) and all of a sudden it is going to be no problem.

Sorry, NCLB, at least in regard to the private school vouchers, is the equivalent of buying children country club memberships in order to teach them to play golf -- It's unnecessary, disruptive and insults entire communities by telling them they are beyond repair, and that their kids are better off living a higher income lifestyle.

As for your example of the hospitals -- Well, hospitals do run that way as per licensing. The difference is, they are rated on standardized compliance issues as it relates to administration, staff, as well as safety and health standards --- Not based on how sick their patients are. Based on what you say about how hospitals should relate to schools --- The hospitals that are near high-injury or high-health risk areas - they would be the first to close down.

So, we just give all these sick people to add toward overcrowding in "successful" hospitals (quotes in bold), while in the meantime we've done nothing to improve upon a situation, have only identified where all the sick people are, and are chewing out hospital staff for having too many sick people to deal with and with our backhand giving cash rewards to the hospitals with not as many sick people.

Really, have you ever worked or gone to school in a "failing" school? You're right, the kids aren't stupid, but neither are all of the teachers or administrators. They are overworked.

What NCLB does is try to say that teachers with 30 students that speak english as a second language should face no more difficulties than teachers with 18 students who have tutors. And to make the point, they are going to funnel more money into those schools with 18 students in a classroom, while giving the former school a big fat "F" and beginning plans to dismantle it. Basically, it's bullshit

Lynn7

06-06-2007, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
If NCLB did identify and fix problems, then I'd have no problem with it. All it does is solidify problems we all ready know we have and make no effort to fix it at the source. What, the feds fed millions of dollars to update the standardized tests so we could learn what? Oh, the kids can't read and write - Wow! We needed to speed millions, and years so we could actually PROOVE that the kids can't read or write?

What is the solution? To send the kids to schools where everyone else can read and write and just expect them to suddenly succeed, as if they really really wanted to go learn when they were at school with their friends, but just couldn't do it --- So obviously sending them to schools where they know not anyone, nor perhaps have much in common with anyone (read, private schools) and all of a sudden it is going to be no problem.

Sorry, NCLB, at least in regard to the private school vouchers, is the equivalent of buying children country club memberships in order to teach them to play golf -- It's unnecessary, disruptive and insults entire communities by telling them they are beyond repair, and that their kids are better off living a higher income lifestyle.

As for your example of the hospitals -- Well, hospitals do run that way as per licensing. The difference is, they are rated on standardized compliance issues as it relates to administration, staff, as well as safety and health standards --- Not based on how sick their patients are. Based on what you say about how hospitals should relate to schools --- The hospitals that are near high-injury or high-health risk areas - they would be the first to close down.

So, we just give all these sick people to add toward overcrowding in "successful" hospitals (quotes in bold), while in the meantime we've done nothing to improve upon a situation, have only identified where all the sick people are, and are chewing out hospital staff for having too many sick people to deal with and with our backhand giving cash rewards to the hospitals with not as many sick people.

Really, have you ever worked or gone to school in a "failing" school? You're right, the kids aren't stupid, but neither are all of the teachers or administrators. They are overworked.

What NCLB does is try to say that teachers with 30 students that speak english as a second language should face no more difficulties than teachers with 18 students who have tutors. And to make the point, they are going to funnel more money into those schools with 18 students in a classroom, while giving the former school a big fat "F" and beginning plans to dismantle it. Basically, it's bullshit

There are different parts to the test that should identify where the kids are having problems and it is the educational system's responsibilty to try to find ways to improve these kids' abilities to absorb the info. Perhaps more emphasis on language basics in the lower grades and really pounding that into kids when they are still earnestly learning. Teh schools often focus on silly things when the kids are young and yet their brains are like sponges. Math too.

Education is one area where money should not be an issue. People used to learn in one room classrooms. Kids are homeshooled with great success. You really do not need tons of money to buy computers etc. Hospitals are different. You do need money to be able to diagnose and treat people. But standards of care should be the same. I'd rather see a poorly functioning hospital close down in order to force the government to take action, rather than to have that hospital continue functioning and giving bad care. I would rather see a poorly functioning school identified and targetted for improvement or yes, to close it down rather to let it keep turning out poorly prepared students.

I think NCLB is in early years and we will iron out the problems over the course of time.

The Postmaster General

06-06-2007, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think NCLB is in early years and we will iron out the problems over the course of time.

Despite what I'm saying, I am very much optimistic about things. Right now, I think NCLB is succeeding in bringing awareness to the education gaps and that there are problems with specific schools. For that, I'd give them an "A" - as far as making improvements on the education system as a whole, I think it's too early to totally tell, but in regards to helping schools reform - forget about it.

What I think people are taking for granted is that we don't have an endless supply of people who are willing to teach. Improvement is the issue here, but instead of improvement, it feels like the focus is on elimination. That can't be good.

Vong

06-07-2007, 12:32 AM

Hey Lynn, fix those speakers yet? :rolleyes:

Lynn7

06-07-2007, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Despite what I'm saying, I am very much optimistic about things. Right now, I think NCLB is succeeding in bringing awareness to the education gaps and that there are problems with specific schools. For that, I'd give them an "A" - as far as making improvements on the education system as a whole, I think it's too early to totally tell, but in regards to helping schools reform - forget about it.

What I think people are taking for granted is that we don't have an endless supply of people who are willing to teach. Improvement is the issue here, but instead of improvement, it feels like the focus is on elimination. That can't be good.

Most teachers I know are totally frustrated by the schools' unwillingness to address the problem behavior of the kids. They send the kids to the office and the office sends the kids right back to disrupt again. From what I hear the principals etc are afraid of parents who revolt when their kids are held to account and because of the nature of the politics of the situation, principals do not want to lose their jobs so they bend over backwards not to offend the parents and the superintendents are in the same situation. The parents of the well behaved kids either don't revolt or they take their kids and put them into private school if they can afford it. The way I see it, until they allow parents school choice nothing will get better.

Lynn7

06-07-2007, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Vong
Hey Lynn, fix those speakers yet? :rolleyes:

Since you added the rolling eyes I will assume that you don't really feel bad that I don't have speakers but are saying that to ridicule me for some reason. I'm glad you have your speakers though. You must be happy.

Vong

06-07-2007, 08:39 PM

I'll take that as a no...

The Postmaster General

06-07-2007, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Most teachers I know are totally frustrated by the schools' unwillingness to address the problem behavior of the kids. They send the kids to the office and the office sends the kids right back to disrupt again. From what I hear the principals etc are afraid of parents who revolt when their kids are held to account and because of the nature of the politics of the situation, principals do not want to lose their jobs so they bend over backwards not to offend the parents and the superintendents are in the same situation. The parents of the well behaved kids either don't revolt or they take their kids and put them into private school if they can afford it. The way I see it, until they allow parents school choice nothing will get better.

Well, see here is where I point blame at taking funding away from schools. Part of what needs to happen is there needs to be assessment training for the teachers, which there is to some extent, but there needs to be a sure-fire way to deal with the problems.

The sad truth is that the parents with the good kids aren't going to be the ones who raise a stink and jump ship. That is probably why their kids are so good - they learned from their parents to not be a disruption.

See, the problem I see is that it will be the disruptive parents with the problem kids that will be among the first to go to the "nicer" school.

My wife, the teacher, has been called every name in the book, as well as having her integrity questioned with accusations of racism (keep in mind she worked in a classroom with ZERO white kids.... how she was being racist by treating one kid harder remains a mystery....) ---- But those were the parents of kids who were little shits. Those were the parents who are looking for change and making a big fuss about how their kid is being wronged by the system.

The good kids have parents who are supportive and do all they can to help the school help their kids -- those are the relationships I'm worried about being severed. They will be the first to feel the blunt jabs of the cuts, because they will be the ones trying to do right by their community and to the people who pledged to educate their kids.

Lynn7

06-08-2007, 08:48 PM

But the disruptive kids wouldn't be tolerated in a private school. They would be asked to leave. That is what should be happening in public schools. If kids are chronically disruptive they should be displaced somewhere else. The schools want to keep that disruptive kid cause they feel bad for him or her but all the other students are missing out on learning cause of that kids bad behavior. And when kids see these kids getting away with that, they stop trying to. It is bad.

My feeling is that once they booted a few kids the rest would fall in line. And in time the bad behaving kids would be OK too cause they would know what they could get away with or not. People do like to have limits set in their lives. People thrive on structure and feel very anxious in chaos.

I think school choice would be a great way to try different things. We should have communities piloting school choice but there is such a huge objection by the teacher's unions. It is frustrating. Some of the poorest communities are the ones who desire school choice the most.

The Postmaster General

06-08-2007, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
But the disruptive kids wouldn't be tolerated in a private school. They would be asked to leave. That is what should be happening in public schools. If kids are chronically disruptive they should be displaced somewhere else. The schools want to keep that disruptive kid cause they feel bad for him or her but all the other students are missing out on learning cause of that kids bad behavior. And when kids see these kids getting away with that, they stop trying to. It is bad.

My feeling is that once they booted a few kids the rest would fall in line. And in time the bad behaving kids would be OK too cause they would know what they could get away with or not. People do like to have limits set in their lives. People thrive on structure and feel very anxious in chaos.

I think school choice would be a great way to try different things. We should have communities piloting school choice but there is such a huge objection by the teacher's unions. It is frustrating. Some of the poorest communities are the ones who desire school choice the most.

So, the solution is that the kids will get thrown out of school?

My point is that the parents who have the good kids are the ones who have strong relationships with their school. They are loyal. Most of them prefer the schools in their neighborhoods because they work and also try to help their kids, and don't want to drive 20 minutes across town to attend a PTA meeting.

And you can't just kick kids out of school. Our country guarantees them a right to education. They will end up at some school somewhere. Maybe a school for behavior kids? Well, well, well... Now we are back to what teachers unions are asking for now, which is more diversity in curriculums - programs, individualized approaches. Your way, everyone has to go through hell to get what they should just have to begin with. Oh, and they have to get bussed all over hell as well.

It's weird - American law dictates that the criminally insane are guaranteed individualized approaches to treatment, but then they have a law that asks the opposite for children in regards to education.

Lynn7

06-08-2007, 11:16 PM

Well, I don't think many kids would have to be kicked out before kids got the message and anyway, the dropout rate for these kids and others they have affected is through the roof. Kids need to know they have to follow the rules or face the consequences. Right now there are no consequences and that is toxic for all the kids.

Tonight I was talking to my brother and he said there is a mockumentary coming out called Chalk I think and it is about a lot of teaching stories the guy has heard over the years and they are acted out as opposed to real documentary. We'll have to keep an eye out for it and have another talk some time.

The Postmaster General

06-09-2007, 01:03 AM

A major reasons a lot of kids don't get kicked out now is because there is no place for them to go. It isn't like there's a magical sausage teacher grinder machine that creates educated professionals who are willing to deal with these kids. It isn't like every high school has a female exmarine with a heart of gold and an undying dedication to stay tough enough to reach the children of our future. Or something like that. If administrations have a record of sending a whole bunch of kids into alternate learning programs, they'll cut their money for that too.

What's the solution you support? Cash money for schools in which the students score well on standardized tests.

Something doesn't jive.

Lynn7

06-09-2007, 03:22 PM

I don't think the answer is to throw more money at public shcools since they don't know how to apply it well. I would not be averse to spending money to develop some really good schools for at risk kids. Chances are that if they are acting out at school, they are probably troubled at home. Maybe some experiments with what kinds of things might help them would be good. One thing that is bad right now is allowing one or two kids to ruin learning for an entire classroom.

Many kids used to get pulled out of school to work to support their families. Maybe the simple answer is that high school and collge aren't for everyone. Maybe it would be Ok for people to be able to choose programs that made sense for them. Part of the problem might be that a kid whose dream is to become a mechanic is not going to thrive in highschool where he is forced to do Algebra 2 and chemistry knowing he will never need it. In that case, acting out is reasonable cause he is being forced to do something that makes no sense for him. Maybe we can let kids get out of school at age 14 if they can get a job or learn a trade somewhere? First we need to identify why the kids are acting out though and we can't let them leave school to hang out.

Thrizzle

06-09-2007, 05:44 PM

I don't think anyone who has dropped out of high school has looked back on it and not regretted it. Kids simply need to stay in high school. It keeps them out of trouble. Cutting funding to schools, pre-schools, and after school programs will only increase crime and the poverty rate. No teacher in the country would support the idea that American schools are properly funded. Pre-schools and after-school programs would really prevent kids from getting into trouble and developing bad habits, but these programs require funding that's been getting cut for years now.

Rich parents don't spend thousands of dollars on pre-school for nothing, they understand that many of their childs habits and behaviors later in life will be attributable to the things they learn within the first 6 years of life.

The Postmaster General

06-09-2007, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't think the answer is to throw more money at public shcools since they don't know how to apply it well. I would not be averse to spending money to develop some really good schools for at risk kids. Chances are that if they are acting out at school, they are probably troubled at home. Maybe some experiments with what kinds of things might help them would be good. One thing that is bad right now is allowing one or two kids to ruin learning for an entire classroom.

Many kids used to get pulled out of school to work to support their families. Maybe the simple answer is that high school and collge aren't for everyone. Maybe it would be Ok for people to be able to choose programs that made sense for them. Part of the problem might be that a kid whose dream is to become a mechanic is not going to thrive in highschool where he is forced to do Algebra 2 and chemistry knowing he will never need it. In that case, acting out is reasonable cause he is being forced to do something that makes no sense for him. Maybe we can let kids get out of school at age 14 if they can get a job or learn a trade somewhere? First we need to identify why the kids are acting out though and we can't let them leave school to hang out.

Who said throw money at schools? That's what NCLB does. They give cash money rewards to schools that get As and Bs. I'm talking about funding programs that do everything you think would be just fantastic. What's your problem with that?

And everything you say that would help the schools - None of this is accounted for in NCLB, and in actuality is a distraction to prevent those sorts of things. How the hell is a teacher going to have time to learn about one of her kids when she's spending 6 out of 8 hours a day practicing for a SCAT?

There's something you said earlier though that just occurred to me:

There are different parts to the test that should identify where the kids are having problems and it is the educational system's responsibilty to try to find ways to improve these kids' abilities to absorb the info. Perhaps more emphasis on language basics in the lower grades and really pounding that into kids when they are still earnestly learning. Teh schools often focus on silly things when the kids are young and yet their brains are like sponges. Math too.

Yeah, the problem my wife was having at her school was that it was an English as Second Language class. These were all kids who had spoken Spanish their entire life, and are now in Grade 3, and in addition to learning English, have to take the same tests everyone else does, IN ENGLISH.

Programs that teach these kids English - that falls under your heading of "silly things" that aren't reading and math.

Lynn7

06-09-2007, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I don't think anyone who has dropped out of high school has looked back on it and not regretted it. Kids simply need to stay in high school. It keeps them out of trouble. Cutting funding to schools, pre-schools, and after school programs will only increase crime and the poverty rate. No teacher in the country would support the idea that American schools are properly funded. Pre-schools and after-school programs would really prevent kids from getting into trouble and developing bad habits, but these programs require funding that's been getting cut for years now.

Rich parents don't spend thousands of dollars on pre-school for nothing, they understand that many of their childs habits and behaviors later in life will be attributable to the things they learn within the first 6 years of life.

IF money is thrown at the schools and left to the schools to figure out it will be wasted. Schools always waste money. I have seen it first hand many times.

Have you heard of Montessorri schools (?sp) They have intensive learning in the young preschool years but they have found that the kids who attend that school are way ahead of regular kids only until about 3rd grade or so and then the kids tend to even out. On the other hand I do think that kids learn best in the early school years and will retain that stuff as they might not retain in preschool.

What has been found to have the best long term impact on kids is a steady loving enviornment in the first year of life. Unfortuantely, so many people are placing kids in day cares when they are just babies and they don't get that personal care. Some people have to work cause of singleness or poverty but there are way too many people choosing not to stay home with their kids cause they would "go crazy" I have met many people who say this. Staying home the first year is the best investment you can make. Short of that, make sure the day care environment is a good one.

The Postmaster General

06-09-2007, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
IF money is thrown at the schools and left to the schools to figure out it will be wasted. Schools always waste money. I have seen it first hand many times.

Again, and louder, no one is saying throw money at schools. We are very specific in what we think the money should be spent on. You were very specific in recent posts about what you think the money should be spent on. Everyone agrees that behavior training, and programs are a big part of a solution.

On the other hand, NCLB, fully and completely does throw money at schools, leaving it up to them as to how it should be spent. Even more, it takes money from other schools that require programs that you have personally vouched as being necessary, and then it throws the money at other schools, which usually use it for teacher bonuses, or to buy plasma screen TVs for the media center.

I've see it first hand all the time.

Lynn7

06-09-2007, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Who said throw money at schools? That's what NCLB does. They give cash money rewards to schools that get As and Bs. I'm talking about funding programs that do everything you think would be just fantastic. What's your problem with that?

And everything you say that would help the schools - None of this is accounted for in NCLB, and in actuality is a distraction to prevent those sorts of things. How the hell is a teacher going to have time to learn about one of her kids when she's spending 6 out of 8 hours a day practicing for a SCAT?

There's something you said earlier though that just occurred to me:

Yeah, the problem my wife was having at her school was that it was an English as Second Language class. These were all kids who had spoken Spanish their entire life, and are now in Grade 3, and in addition to learning English, have to take the same tests everyone else does, IN ENGLISH.

Programs that teach these kids English - that falls under your heading of "silly things" that aren't reading and math.

I think that the first year a kid is in school who does not speak English should be spent learning English all the time----then they can start learning the other stuff. The fact that the powers that be set up these nutty tests to expect kids who are not English speaking or are learning disabled and are expected to pass these tests shows how wacky it is to keep throwing money at people who are not using their heads. And don't go placing the blame on the Bush administration- there is blame to go around at all levels of education.

And teachers should not be having to spend so much time learning how to teach to the tests. If the teaching was on solid facts then the tests would prove that out but the teaching is often off and that is why they have to scurry to learn how to teach to the tests at the last minute. I did some teaching too so I do understand how this works. I was trying to teach kids how to approach literature for the state test but that is something they should have been learning about from the start when they were reading story books. Plots, conflicts, characterization etc can all be taught a lot sooner than 9th grade. By high school the teaching should become deeper but they should not be hearing this stuff for the first time. well, whatever. I guess we will not solve the problems in schools but I hope that they will be addressed over time. I think the testing is a good first step. How they handle the school failures remains to be seen.Bush is out of office next year so it depends on who gets in. Hillary also beleived in educational accountability.

Lynn7

06-09-2007, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Again, and louder, no one is saying throw money at schools. We are very specific in what we think the money should be spent on. You were very specific in recent posts about what you think the money should be spent on. Everyone agrees that behavior training, and programs are a big part of a solution.

On the other hand, NCLB, fully and completely does throw money at schools, leaving it up to them as to how it should be spent. Even more, it takes money from other schools that require programs that you have personally vouched as being necessary, and then it throws the money at other schools, which usually use it for teacher bonuses, or to buy plasma screen TVs for the media center.

I've see it first hand all the time.

Your state handles things differently than mine does. Our failing shcools will be taken over by the state to run as I understand it. That should be interesting, lol! As if the state will do any better! If a school is failing though it gets a lot of negative press and a LOT of pressure to improve so they generally do improve without the state coming in.

The Postmaster General

06-10-2007, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think that the first year a kid is in school who does not speak English should be spent learning English all the time----then they can start learning the other stuff.

Agreed, to an extent. I think they should be learning other things as well - That is to say that, for instance, you didn't teach you kids just how to speak before you worked on other things. Everything can be incorporated - Maybe Summer programs would be good - But there are no Summer programs for ESOL kids if the state takes money away after those kids couldn't pass an English test. It's a circle, no doubt. However, the out I see in the circle lies in the education system since they are the ones who have the burden to teach at all costs. That being said, if there is no one supporting the education system (as opposed to just testing them) then it turns into miracle work.

The fact that the powers that be set up these nutty tests to expect kids who are not English speaking or are learning disabled and are expected to pass these tests shows how wacky it is to keep throwing money at people who are not using their heads. And don't go placing the blame on the Bush administration- there is blame to go around at all levels of education.

Well, most of the school officials are aware of these problems and have been finding VOLUNTEERS to work with students on the tests, grade their papers interpretively to see if they have the concepts and other facets.

As far as blaming "the Bush Administration" - Is this what it's all about for you? Defending George Bush?

Don't worry, though - I don't blame that Bush. I blame Florida Governor Jeb Bush for rushing his brothers plan into action without any rounded input from his own state educators.

And teachers should not be having to spend so much time learning how to teach to the tests. If the teaching was on solid facts then the tests would prove that out but the teaching is often off and that is why they have to scurry to learn how to teach to the tests at the last minute. I did some teaching too so I do understand how this works. I was trying to teach kids how to approach literature for the state test but that is something they should have been learning about from the start when they were reading story books. Plots, conflicts, characterization etc can all be taught a lot sooner than 9th grade. By high school the teaching should become deeper but they should not be hearing this stuff for the first time. well, whatever. I guess we will not solve the problems in schools but I hope that they will be addressed over time. I think the testing is a good first step. How they handle the school failures remains to be seen.Bush is out of office next year so it depends on who gets in. Hillary also beleived in educational accountability.

What are you talking about learning tests "at the last minute"? That's not what's happening. Don't you read about this stuff --- They spend THE ENTIRE YEAR focused on 2 tests. 6 hours a day. This isn't playing "catch up" - it's playing "we have to teach kids who don't speak English both how to speak English and how to master these skills in 16 weeks."

I beg you to take your teaching degree to South Florida and get back to me a few years, because I keep hearing you say things, and it translates to -- "I don't get it! Everyone I know has no problem learning." I'm sure you hear something from me as well. But I mean, really - you said you taught some kids literature basics, and you sort of admitted that it was somewhat hard, and that they should have already known it by that point --- Okay, I'm just guessing, but this was in Massachusetts, one of the most literate states, right?

The thing is - I totally get how it might be a lot easier where you are at. I get that.

electriclite

06-10-2007, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove

Don't worry, though - I don't blame that Bush. I blame Florida Governor Jeb Bush for rushing his brothers plan into action without any rounded input from his own state educators.

What are you talking about learning tests "at the last minute"? That's not what's happening. Don't you read about this stuff --- They spend THE ENTIRE YEAR focused on 2 tests. 6 hours a day. This isn't playing "catch up" - it's playing "we have to teach kids who don't speak English both how to speak English and how to master these skills in 16 weeks."

I beg you to take your teaching degree to South Florida and get back to me a few years, because I keep hearing you say things, and it translates to -- "I don't get it! Everyone I know has no problem learning." I'm sure you hear something from me as well. But I mean, really - you said you taught some kids literature basics, and you sort of admitted that it was somewhat hard, and that they should have already known it by that point --- Okay, I'm just guessing, but this was in Massachusetts, one of the most literate states, right?

The thing is - I totally get how it might be a lot easier where you are at. I get that. [/B]

Lemme give Bubba a little former Floridian back up here.

Although I had already graduated from highschool the year before Dubya took office, I already had the chance to experience politically motivated school testing.

The first for me was the FCAT, which is given at all grade levels and was also meant to test the quality of the education given at Florida schools across the state. What the test NEVER took into account was the fact that in South Florida there was a higher population of non-english speakers, aka Cuban refugees, than other parts of the state. These kids might have arrived in this country (on something that could be best described as more of a floatation device rather than a boat) at best, last year and at worst last week. Some of those kids were my classmates.

These kids were just as required to take the FCAT as those of us who have spoken English all our lives. Now I was a smart kid so I was placed in Honors English classes and we had to be prepped every year on how to take the test, rather than, you know, actually study English Lit, like one would imagine an Honors class should be. On top of this the pressure was on us to make up for the lower grade that the ESOL kids would undoubtedly receive. We were responsible for pulling up the entire school's grade.

And now they figure, instead of spending 6 weeks out of the year prepping kids on how to take a test, (and not actually teaching them stuff they're supposed to be learning) that they're going to stretch that whole 6 weeks into a whole year.

I'm guessing its still the Honor kids' responsibility to pull the ESOL kids' weight.

Just like generally throwing money at a problem doesn't help solve it, generally giving tests and not taking into account the ethnic demographic of a particular school's student body does not help the problem.

Thrizzle

06-10-2007, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
IF money is thrown at the schools and left to the schools to figure out it will be wasted. Schools always waste money. I have seen it first hand many times.

My high school had great academic performance, was in a high income area, and had more money than it needed. A quarter million was spent on a useless language lab while inner city schools were cutting back on teachers and textbooks because they couldnt afford it.

Lynn7

06-10-2007, 09:45 PM

These tests should be a tool to help diagnose what is going wrong in the schools that kids are not learning. If the problem is that a lot of the kids can't speak English then the solution would be pretty straightforward.

I was at a party today and this woman was telling me that she is a substitute teacher and that where she was teaching recently, they were not allowed to write a student's name on the board and if the students wanted to talk in class, the teachers were not to stop them unless there was a test going on. Is that nuts or what? She told me some other stuff too but I can't remember what it was but it was really dumb administration nuttiness. It may come to me later.

The Postmaster General

06-10-2007, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
These tests should be a tool to help diagnose what is going wrong in the schools that kids are not learning. If the problem is that a lot of the kids can't speak English then the solution would be pretty straightforward.

How they heck is a Scantron going to diagnose language deficits? We are talking about multiple choice tests, with maybe about 10% devoted to essay/short answers.

It's weird. You have all these good ideas that I agree with, but continue to not accept that these ideas aren't feasible because of the current state of NCLB.

I was at a party today and this woman was telling me that she is a substitute teacher and that where she was teaching recently, they were not allowed to write a student's name on the board and if the students wanted to talk in class, the teachers were not to stop them unless there was a test going on. Is that nuts or what? She told me some other stuff too but I can't remember what it was but it was really dumb administration nuttiness. It may come to me later.

A teacher got raped by a student in South Florida. What does that have to do with standardized tests not being a viable tool for penalizing schools through their funding? Yeah, you're right. There's a lot of craziness. Okay. Great. Hey, guess what? They have standardized exams that can identify behavioral problems, or potential issues with students, but those tests cost money. Maybe instead of "throwing money at" schools that score high on FCATs and helping a bunch of upper middle class teachers finance another SUV, they should divert some money into implementing behavioral programs in the schools that are having problems.