XnForums

There oughtabe a law against children going to school. Let's face it, they won't learn a damn thing except getting knocked-up and expecting everyone else to take care of their little problem. We should get rid of all those child-daycare facilities and kindergarden crap to. All they are is baby-sitting services. Nothing intelligent comes out of such ridiculous bottle-sucking enviroments.

The schools don't need more money. The only thing that the schools need are teachers
who actually know how to teach subjects such as reading, writing, math, history, science,
economics and social studies. The schools should let the parenting of children revert back
to the parents.

A "village" didn't raise me or any generation before me. My Mother raised
my siblings and me by herself. She worked at a job for three dollars a day.

Poverty doesn't necessarily mean immorality.
Get the government out of the parenting business. Get the schools out of social
engineering. That is the solution. Not more money.

clean'

Schools don't need money......guess that's why so many of them are falling down for lack of upkeep.

"Get the schools out of social engineering."

Yeah, and replace with what? Maybe your theological engneering that teaches torture? Just give them kids some crayola's and a print-out of a cross to nail them Muslims and Mexicans to. They'll color with blood-red your enemies and suspects. And don't forget us atheists, color us blood-red to.

The schools that are falling down are in neighborhoods with low income which results
in lower taxes to support the schools. Statistics show that college students who are in the
lower level in academics become teachers. Many cannot even pass the same tests that they
give to their high school students. Poor teachers cannot make good students.

clean'

Low income?

So let the affected students pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, right? Or maybe they're just out of luck.......let the rich get richer.

You really are a dumb ass, but even worse, you're a Social Darwinist.

Statistics show What???? That's even dumber. Phantom statistics.

Where do you get this stuff?

Rush Limbaugh?

Please don't try to blame teachers for your stupidity......I think you (like most rednecks) came by it honestly (inbreeding WILL do that).

Glad you asked....

http://www.maa.org/features/083104pointcallforaction.html

POINT: A Call for Action
By Rick Norwood

Many talented mathematicians have devoted a great deal of time and effort to improving mathematics education in the public schools. There have been a few small successes here and there, but the problem remains as critical today as it was when “A Nation at Risk,” the study that motivated much of this work, was published twenty years ago. A new book entitled Who’s Teaching Your Children, by Vivian Troen and Katherine C. Boles, argues that a large part of the reason why so much money and effort have had so little effect is the lack of qualified teachers and the culture of incompetence that makes it hard to train and to retain good teachers.

It’s all too easy to treat the problem in the abstract. Here are some concrete examples from my personal experience.

A second grade teacher asks students to divide a radially symmetric figure into four equal parts. A student divides the figure into four equal parts with a horizontal and vertical line through the center. The teacher marks that answer wrong. The student complains. The teacher shows the student the “right” answer in the book — the figure divided into four equal parts by two diagonal lines through the center. The teacher asks the student, in a scornful voice, “Do you think you are smarter than the book?” The book does not mention that there may be more than one correct answer.

A third grade teacher teaches students that the way to add fractions is to add the numerators and add the denominators. A college professor points out that this is incorrect, and gives the example “According to your rule, a half chicken plus another half chicken is two fourths of a chicken.” The grade school teacher, defiant, announces, “I’m the teacher. I can teach any way I want and you can’t stop me.”

A grade school textbook teaches that 7 – 4 + 2 = 1, because, according to the rule “My Dear Aunt Sally” we must do the addition before the subtraction.

A principal sitting in on a class where a teacher fresh out of college is teaching hears the teacher say that a square is a rectangle with four equal sides. The principal stands up and tells the class that their teacher is stupid, because everybody knows that a square is not a rectangle.

These stories exemplify the problem: If mathematicians do not have the power to keep blatant errors out of the classroom, we certainly do not have the power to institute reforms.

Who’s Teaching Your Children was written by authors who have broad personal experience as public school teachers. We had better listen to what they have to say. They provide compelling evidence that the trouble with our public schools is a culture of incompetence. According to this book, “…classroom teaching competency is lower now that it has been since the era of the one-room schoolhouse.”

The book and movie Serpico tell the true story of a New York policeman who tried to be honest. He found it impossible. Even though he adhered to the code of the schoolyard, and never tattled on another cop, the other policemen found his honesty intolerable. Who’s Teaching Your Children describes vividly an analogous situation: Incompetent teachers find competent teachers intolerable and drive them away. In one of the most moving stories in the book, the authors tell how an outstanding principal, together with a group of extraordinary teachers, tried to turn one school around. They made the mistake of letting the other teachers see what a low opinion they had of them. “[The other] teachers complained bitterly, some with shaking voices and tears in their eyes, about being snubbed, shut out, or just ignored.” The other teachers were not villains. It is human nature to resent being told you are wrong. But any teacher who tries to do a good job had better be prepared. In her employment folder there will be numerous complaints from other teachers, complaints that she is “stuck up” and “does not get along.”

Public school teachers and principals are largely autonomous in their own domain. Reform efforts fail because incompetent teachers and principals do not want, will not tolerate, reform.

The problem begins in the colleges and universities, where the weakest students are encouraged to be teachers and the stronger students are advised not to be teachers. It continues in the public schools. If a young teacher asks for guidance or advice the older teachers laugh at him behind his back. The effect is clear, and it is quantifiable. According to Who’s Teaching Your Children, “The best teachers are leaving American classrooms at an accelerating rate.” Society at large reinforces the problem because, despite the rhetoric one often hears, people seem to have little real respect for teachers. The common saying, “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach” suggests that we expect that teachers will be incompetent.

As long as the public school culture supports bad teachers and drives out good teachers, our schools will continue to get worse and worse. To attempt reform without addressing this problem cannot possibly work.

People are reluctant to even talk about the problem, both because we do not want to hurt people’s feelings, and because we fear that criticism of incompetent teachers will reflect badly on the many good and dedicated teachers who struggle to survive in a broken system. But the incompetent teachers do not have any qualms about hurting the feelings of the good teachers or about hurting the feelings of inquisitive students.

If we want to make a difference, we have to accept that we cannot drive out or If we want to make a difference, we have to accept that we cannot drive out or change incompetent teachers. We must find ways to fight the system itself rather than getting bogged down fighting individuals within the system. We need to lobby our school boards to hire principals who support good teaching. Most important, we need to encourage good students to become teachers, while being honest about the problems they will face, and we need to support good teachers.

Here are a few things I believe would help. Citizens should start by demanding safe schools. To spend one cent on “Teacher Enrichment” when teachers (and children) fear for their safety is absurd. More than 100,000 teachers are victims of violent crimes in school every year. No wonder people leave teaching.

We should also enforce existing laws to stop incompetent teachers from entering the system. Every year more than 50,000 teachers are hired who do not meet already existing standards. School systems say that there is not enough money to hire competent teachers. It is ridiculous to spend billions testing students when their teachers cannot pass standardized tests. MADD has been successful. How about Mothers Against Terrible Teaching?

As mathematicians we should, when speaking publicly, make clear the difference between our personal opinion and mathematical fact. Say, “In my personal opinion, I do not think we should teach long division.” But also say, “7 – 4 + 2 = 1 is wrong.”

What can the MAA do? One idea is for the MAA to set up a committee to review elementary textbooks, and issue an MAA “seal of approval” for textbooks that are mathematically sound.

I am told that at some universities the least qualified professors are assigned the “Math for Teachers” course. I hope that is not true at my own school, because I teach that course. East Tennessee State University takes education seriously. The College of Education requires nine hours of mathematics for all Elementary Education majors. It is beginning to make a difference. I treasure a comment from one of the professors in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. “I have seen a big change in students’ mathematical abilities and understanding.” Teachers use math on the job every day. Recommend to your College of Education that they require more mathematics, and let them know that you are willing to work with them to insure that their graduates have a profound understanding of fundamental mathematics.

Teachers are the most important people in the world. Without teachers we have no future.

References

National Committee on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk. USA Research, 1983.

Vivian Troen and Katherine C. Boles, Who’s Teaching Your Children: Why the Teacher Crisis Is Worse Than You Think and What Can Be Done About It. Yale University Press, 2003.

Rick Norwood teaches at East Tennessee State University.

It was hardly Rush Limbaugh...

These are educators who understand why children aren't getting educated...
Money has been thrown at the school system for years, and instead of improvement,
with the help of the socialist agenda of the National Board of Education and the NEA,
it is getting worse.

It's the stupid teachers that didn't teach you anything but how to have safe sex,
basket weaving and the Socialist Manifesto that caused you to even make that ignorant statement.

What is wrong with pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps? That is exactly
what this country was founded on. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The role of government is not to guarantee happiness.

But your vision is a socialist government that will take the money from people who did pull themselves up by their bootstraps and give it to people who you think shouldn't have to.

Another perverted ignorant lefty vomiting the same old feces that was spoon fed to him by
Olbermans' Obama Network. Did you enjoy the meal before you threw it up?

clean'

Obviously, this poor FundaGenital Redneck didn't pass any Physics classes.



He probably got an "A" in Social Darwinism, though.

Ya gotta love these dolts who are so quick to reference phantom statistics that supposedly prove their inane claims.......and when asked to produce the statistics--they spam in a long article that lacks those statistics.



I guess, being as fence-post stupid as they are, they just think nobody will notice.

Hey jerk....Answer the question...What is wrong with pulling yourself up by your bootstraps?

clean'

Sorry, you'll have to figure this one out by yourself.

I already know the answer...Entrepreneurs are the life blood of the
economy. Without them, the government couldn't levy taxes that pay for roads,
schools, public works or any number of things. Almost 50% of Americans don't even
pay income tax. But you want to increase the tax on those who did pull themselves
up by their bootstraps. What's the matter, afraid that you won't get yours?

Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, started a small five and dime store in Rogers, Ark.
He failed many times.. No one believed that what he wanted to do was feasible.
But, he was persistent and made it a success. He opened another and then another.
Today Wal-Mart is the largest retail corporation in the world, with over a million employees.

My niece is working for a company that has profits of thirty million dollars a month.
Seven years ago, the owner of the company was mowing lawns for a living.

The list is long...every one has the same opportunity. But, you want Daddy Obama
to drive the car while the "children" sit in the back seat. You are one of those children
that are depending on someone else to do for you what you are unwilling to do for
yourself...

You are a sad excuse for a human being...I really pity you.

clean'

I don't need anybody to do anything for me, so I can't imagine what you're talking about.

Maybe you're just babbling incoherently again.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

I realize that you can't imagine what I'm talking about...and you can't imagine that people
need to help themselves instead of relying on the government.

How much do you give to charity? Lets look at how liberals and conservatives compare in giving to charities,
shall we?

March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
georgewill@washpost.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

If you want to start a discussion about giving..maybe you need to talk to your liberal
friends first.

clean'

What's their definition of charity?

For example......do they include giving designated for Fascist FundaGenital churches?

I'm sure they would include that.

That's probably how they distort that segment of their predictably fake statistics.

Giving to promote hateful churches is obviously not a valid expression of charity.

Really, you Fascists should be ashamed of yourselves.

Pax!

Where can I get a T-Shirt that says: "STOP ABORTIONS! Get a Vascetomy NOW!" ? Imagine all the fun sexual encounters men can have with women who want to have sex but don't want to get Knocked-up. I bet Krystal Palin could be the poster girl for sexual freedom.