Education

BeefJerky

inspiredsports wrote: »

I refrained from stating it before, but the reasons for my belief that it would have been good to reinforce the behavior beyond elementary school were manifold, the biggest being any denomination church is a great social institution beyond whatever belief system it supports.

Churches don't hold a monopoly on "great social institutions." There are many excellent non-religious alternatives out there. Assuming your children are good people and associate with other good people, I fail to see how that argument holds any water.

mrbigbluelight

CNH wrote:

The other problem here is how "little" we actually value our teachers. They're burdens! They ask for too much! They have off in the summer. They have Unions! IS there "anything" good about them I wonder??? I've rarely seen so "maligned" a profession with so little in resources (that are always being reduced and cut, cut, cut). BTW. I have no vested interest here, not a member of any union I'm in Higher Education at the private college level. But it hurts me to see how those who are preparing my students for me are treated and paid. Their salaries, for the most part are lower middle class IMO.

Reminds me of a 60's quote by Lenny Bruce (should be adjusted for inflation):
?The kind of sickness I wish Time had written about, is that school teachers in Oklahoma get a top annual salary of $4000, while Sammy David, Jr. gets $10,000 a week in Vegas.?
Yes, there are those that say teachers ask for too much. Yes, they do "only work 9 months out of the year". Yes, they do have Unions.
And none of that is the problem, IMO.
I would respectfully suggest that those who suggest Teachers' Unions are the problem should imagine this scenario:
Magic wand. Wave it. Poof ! Teachers unions are gone. Think the problems will now go away, that we can know get the Educational System back to where it should be ? I would respectfully say that the problem would become MUCH worse.
Why worse ? Because a large source, IMO, of the problems will still remain: Administration.

InspiredSports wrote:

When they are evaluated by the building principal (from twice per year for newer teachers to once every two years for seasoned teachers), they are marked down for lesson performance that deviates from the standard, whether that deviatiation is under or OVER the norm. They are penaluized for over-teaching, meaning being better than the low standard expected.

"Evaluated by the principal" and penalized for over-teaching. This is a problem caused by school administration. The union could be, or I dare say, SHOULD be, an avenue to rectify this problem. If teachers go to their Business Agent, provide viable, workable solutions, and the BA/union doesn't act on the issue, then they are part of the problem, too. That problem can also be resolved. Persistence is the key, whether dealing with administration or any Union. Rock the walls of Jericho, whether they are Administration or Union.
Peer pressure at work shouldn't be a reason to not go against the flow, IMO, to make things right. Peer pressure shouldn't be an excuse for students, so it shouldn't be an excuse for teachers.

"The unions (and specifically the atmosphere the unions have created between staff members and administrators) work quickly to beat the teachers into becoming the worst they can be."

I am, of course, not familiar with the local that you deal with, IS. My ex-wife was employed as a staff member at a local school district. After a probationary period, she had the opportunity to join the local branch of the NEA ( might have been the AFT ?). She did, and I asked her if I could tag along just to see how her union meetings went. BTW, I had to promise her I'd keep my mouth shut. I have difficulty with that, but recognizing that it was her turf and her gig, I did. Long story short: I don't ever recall seeing such a scared group of adults in my life. Absolutely flabbergasted at how fearful and cowed this group was. Not by any Union thugs, but by fear of School Administration. Without that local to at least negotiate the basics (work rules, etc), this group would have turned into complete jellyfish. Strictly my opinion, though, and just sharing a personal experience. Anecdotes never prove a point. But I would respectfully submit that if local School Admistrators use the excuse, "We can't do anything, the NEA is too powerful !" that one might consider viewing that as a red-herring.
BTW: my advice to my ex-wife after the meeting: "Keep your mouth shut".

tonyb

BeefJerky wrote: »

I was raised as a Christian, but made my own choice to follow the path to agnosticism regardless.

Cool man, what ever rocks your boat. If I may suggest, do alittle reading up on history on what exactly agnostics were back in the day. Over time, agnosticism has been boxed into, maybe even hijacked by atheists who believe in no god, period. Even if you look up definitions today, an agnostic is refered to as being almost one in the same with an atheist. Just for the record, I was brought up a catholic, I am Italian after all.

In the early days of christianity, many followed Jesus. Some thought of him as a prophet, others as the son of God. Matter of fact, the Jewish themselves take the stance that he was a prophet, nothing more. While on principle alone, agnostics liked his teachings but never could swallow a being, a god, they could not see nor could not prove. They did not believe a god existed within the walls of a structure/church, but within ones self. By believing this, they also believed one could elevate themselves to be " Christ like", by following most of the principles Jesus taught. Remember, they thought of him as a man, not a god. I guess one could say the attraction was to more so the moral priciples Jesus was teaching than to the concept of one all powerfull god. These so called agnostics were believed to be closer to Jesus than most others. To say an agnostic is void of belief is somewhat deceptive.

After all, do we not get our moral standings today from religion, regardless of which it is you believe ? To say one is absent of religion, one would also assume absent of moral standing. Regardless of which religion is followed. If not, then you have to ask the obvious, where do we get our morals from ? Man made laws ? Designed to govern a population of civil obedience ? Hmmm.....you can ponder that for awhile.
Sure, one can say religion is the main cause of wars through out history, and they'd be right. But having some moral standing, some religion, I believe has benefited society more than taken away. Extremists aside that is. Every religion has that fringe that just seems to go over the top, yes ? Even the ones with no religion have extreme fractions, atheists to be more pointed.

Meanwhile, back to schools.

I think as individuals, as parents, we have to start demanding things change. Demanding more of our elected leaders, and in some cases try and wrestle back control of our local schools. Parents need the availabilty of choice in there childs education and with that the availability of where their tax money is best spent that would further and benefit their childs education the best. Does that sound more viable than just blindly handing your kids over to a government agency and hoping for the best ? Does to me.

tonyb

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

my advice to my ex-wife after the meeting: "Keep your mouth shut".

.....and thats the problem. Once one becomes afraid to have discussion, then someone elses ideals are being jammed down your throat.

inspiredsports

BeefJerky wrote: »

Churches don't hold a monopoly on "great social institutions." There are many excellent non-religious alternatives out there. Assuming your children are good people and associate with other good people, I fail to see how that argument holds any water.

I did imply churches "hold a monopoly", just that I am familiar with the church as a great social institution.

You stated, "I fail to see how that argument holds any water."

I guess I can't answer that unless . . . . Will you share with me how old your kids are?

tonyb

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

. Peer pressure shouldn't be an excuse for students, so it shouldn't be an excuse for teachers.

You forget, a teacher needs the job, a student doesn't.

Unions are there to protect teachers, not students. Administrators do what ? Ensure a curriculum is being taught, standards are being met.....but by who's standards....by who's curriculum ? One your community chose ? Or some agency 1000 miles away that holds allegiances to Unions ?

Unions are not the sole problem, but do contribute to the downward spiral of the system as a whole.


Need to clarify something. My previous post makes an assumption that simply isn't true. That one needs religion to hold a moral footing. Didn't mean it to sound that way but I can now see it did indeed. I appologize for that folks.

inspiredsports

Ooops

In post 69 I meant to write, "I did NOT imply churches "hold a monopoly . . . "

BeefJerky

tonyb wrote: »

Cool man, what ever rocks your boat. If I may suggest, do alittle reading up on history on what exactly agnostics were back in the day. Over time, agnosticism has been boxed into, maybe even hijacked by atheists who believe in no god, period. Even if you look up definitions today, an agnostic is refered to as being almost one in the same with an atheist. Just for the record, I was brought up a catholic, I am Italian after all.

For me, agnosticism is truly a neutral point of view. I don't have any real belief either way. Maybe a god exists, maybe one doesn't. I truly don't know, and I'm okay with that.

In the early days of christianity, many followed Jesus. Some thought of him as a prophet, others as the son of God. Matter of fact, the Jewish themselves take the stance that he was a prophet, nothing more. While on principle alone, agnostics liked his teachings but never could swallow a being, a god, they could not see nor could not prove. They did not believe a god existed within the walls of a structure/church, but within ones self. By believing this, they also believed one could elevate themselves to be " Christ like", by following most of the principles Jesus taught. Remember, they thought of him as a man, not a god. I guess one could say the attraction was to more so the moral priciples Jesus was teaching than to the concept of one all powerfull god. These so called agnostics were believed to be closer to Jesus than most others. To say an agnostic is void of belief is somewhat deceptive.

Very interesting reading.

After all, do we not get our moral standings today from religion, regardless of which it is you believe ? To say one is absent of religion, one would also assume absent of moral standing. Regardless of which religion is followed. If not, then you have to ask the obvious, where do we get our morals from ? Man made laws ? Designed to govern a population of civil obedience ? Hmmm.....you can ponder that for awhile.

Sure, many of our morals come from religion. However, those religious writings are written, put together and translated by man. So, in essence, I would say that they certainly are man-made laws, or at least have a significant influence from man. Whether or not a particular religion is real or not, it certainly can inspire humans to follow it and its teachings

Sure, one can say religion is the main cause of wars through out history, and they'd be right. But having some moral standing, some religion, I believe has benefited society more than taken away. Extremists aside that is. Every religion has that fringe that just seems to go over the top, yes ? Even the ones with no religion have extreme fractions, atheists to be more pointed.

Yes, every religion (and really any group of people), will certainly have their share of black sheep. That goes for families too, well at least my own. I feel pretty neutral about this subject, however. I'm not sure that religion has either benefited or caused more problems. I think it may be closer to a 50/50 ratio, but that's just opinion.

BeefJerky

inspiredsports wrote: »

I did NOT imply churches "hold a monopoly", just that I am familiar with the church as a great social institution.

You stated, "I fail to see how that argument holds any water."

I guess I can't answer that unless . . . . Will you share with me how old your kids are?

I have no children yet. However, my ultimate goal will be for them to be happy in whatever life they choose. Whether it involves religion or not, I don't care, as long as they are happy. I don't expect them to hold exactly the same set of beliefs I do, nor do I understand why they should; they are individual human beings, not clones. Besides, I consider religion (or lack thereof) a personal thing. Therefore, it should be up to an individual to find their own path in life when it comes to religion. If that path differs from their parents, that is great; after all, it is their own personal path in life.

However, I will give a parent's perspective, specifically my mother's. She raised me as a Christian, but is fully accepting of my choice to be an agnostic. She is simply happy that I am happy in life. She is in no way disappointed, nor should she be.

And, I still fail to see how that is a valid argument. Just because church is one (of many) "great social institutions" doesn't mean that your children are in any way missing out on good social situations and relationships. However, maybe you can further explain your thought process on the matter.

tonyb

BeefJerky wrote: »

IHowever, I will give a parent's perspective, specifically my mother's. She raised me as a Christian, but is fully accepting of my choice to be an agnostic. She is simply happy that I am happy in life. She is in no way disappointed, nor should she be.
.

Bingo....as a parent, what more could you ask ?
We all have different paths in life, different beliefs, none of which should diminish anothers.

markmarc

Most of you know that I've taught in K-8 parochial schools for 18 years now. What amazes me to this day is so many people still blame the minor symptoms instead of focusing on the main diseased components.

Every successful school public or private has something in common, PARENTS who hold themselves and kids accountable. In all my years I have had only 2 parents miss conferences. Most of my friends who teach in public school average about 50% after 6th grade.

Local control is critical. The sad thing is that a bunch of well-meaning legislation from both sides of the aisle have only made things worse. Flexibility has been replaced with blind standardization. The Dept. of Education was created in 1979 to assist in enforcing civil rights of equal educational opportunities. The idea was to get school districts out from court supervision. Those times have passed and this Dept. needs to close and the money returned to each state to use at it sees fit for educational purposes.

For those that complain about certain curriculum being taught. Starting on Tuesday, my students begin their study of Ancient Greece in Social Studies, during their literature class they will be studying Greek Mythology. The kids love it and believe it or not a well-rounded student becomes a more successful adult. This integration is called inter-disciplinary learning and has been around for hundreds of years (though it disappeared from many public US schools for a period of 20 years from 1975-95). My students previous unit was Ancient Egypt, with the interdisciplinary learning coming in Math with some simple geometry, science class with the moving of the stone blocks for the pyramids, and in Religion the students studying Exodus and watching 20 minute segments of the Ten Commandments.

All is not perfect in parochial schools. Due to the economy we have had to take in students (and parents) who struggle with their roles and responsibilities. I've seen an increase in students with little work ethic. When parents ask me for solutions I tell them to get the kids out picking berries for some of the local farmers. A week bent over in the field works wonders.

Every parent that comes to visit our school is told first, that they are the PRIMARY educator of their child(ren). Without them what the teachers give to them will have much less impact.

tonyb

Nice post Mark, and you hint at some of the same things I did. Local control is key. You are in a Parochial system though and that lends itself to alittle more latitude with teaching style and curriculum. I'm glad to hear the things you are doing though, gives me hope.

You have to remove some layers of administrative B.S. though to make some headway in all this. Too many chiefs and not enough indians as they say.

Picking Berries ?? LOL !! Ya know....I like your approach, I dig it, I really do. Kudo's to you for being forward thinking. Public school would have you drawn and quartered for telling a parent such nonsense.

I guess we can thank Bush for having teachers teach to a standardized test. This leaves them no time to teach anything else and one has to wonder if that wasn't planned out from the git go. We have to change this a step at a time. Though we all know they aren't exactly open to change in any sense of the word. Parents have to start opening their mouths, otherwise you get what is forced upon you, like it or not.

inspiredsports

BeefJerky wrote: »

I have no children yet. However, my ultimate goal will be for them to be happy in whatever life they choose. Whether it involves religion or not, I don't care, as long as they are happy. I don't expect them to hold exactly the same set of beliefs I do, nor do I understand why they should; they are individual human beings, not clones. Besides, I consider religion (or lack thereof) a personal thing. Therefore, it should be up to an individual to find their own path in life when it comes to religion. If that path differs from their parents, that is great; after all, it is their own personal path in life.

However, I will give a parent's perspective, specifically my mother's. She raised me as a Christian, but is fully accepting of my choice to be an agnostic. She is simply happy that I am happy in life. She is in no way disappointed, nor should she be.

And, I still fail to see how that is a valid argument. Just because church is one (of many) "great social institutions" doesn't mean that your children are in any way missing out on good social situations and relationships. However, maybe you can further explain your thought process on the matter.

Thanks for the clarification.

While nothing is 100%, I've found groups centered around the church to offer a slightly better sense of direction than some others.

Additionally, just the expectation that the kids are awake by 9Am on Sunday morning getting ready for church acts as a govenor of what they are up to on Saturday night.

Their presence in church might lead them to attend a Sunday night youth group where there is less likeliehood of a joint being fired up, a wine cork being popped, shoplifting at the mall or a condom being slipped on.

When you add up the ages of the 4 I still have at home, I have 80 child-years of experience under my belt, so I think halfway know what I'm talking about. And don't forget, after 6th grade, I didn't make it an issue that my kids stay involved with the church. And guess what, none of them stayed involved.

Your experience will be your own when you get started. Good luck with that.

DMara

This thread comes back every year. same ****, same players, just a different name :biggrin:

tonyb

DMara wrote: »

This thread comes back every year. same ****, same players, just a different name :biggrin:

So by my count thats 3 times....judging from when you joined.

Hardly think the education of someones children is....how did you put it ?.....sh$t.

Be happy to hear your thoughts on the topic at hand though.

DMara

tonyb wrote: »

So by my count thats 3 times....judging from when you joined.

Hardly think the education of someones children is....how did you put it ?.....sh$t.

Be happy to hear your thoughts on the topic at hand though.

My thought on the topic is to avoid it in public forums at all cost :biggrin: And the **** I'm talking about is not about education

tonyb

DMara wrote: »

My thought on the topic is to avoid it in public forums at all cost :biggrin:

Gotcha.....explains why you chimed in on the thread then.....I think.

I'm actually pretty proud of the conversation so far, we even tip toed around politics, religion, and still kept things in a proper civil discoarse. Nothing wrong with talking about idea's and expressing ones opinions on the subject of education. Isn't that how we solve things, by talking about them,hashing out ideas ?

It's when conversation is stiffeled that you can bet someone else is forcing their will on you.

BeefJerky

inspiredsports wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

While nothing is 100%, I've found groups centered around the church to offer a slightly better sense of direction than some others.

I can understand this, and I think it also might have something to do with ones religious beliefs and experiences. I'm sure that my agnosticism has affected my views on different social groups, just as your Christianity has affected your views.

Additionally, just the expectation that the kids are awake by 9Am on Sunday morning getting ready for church acts as a govenor of what they are up to on Saturday night.

Interesting point.

Their presence in church might lead them to attend a Sunday night youth group where there is less likeliehood of a joint being fired up, a wine cork being popped, shoplifting at the mall or a condom being slipped on.

I hate to say it, but I've seen and experienced things in church youth groups that were far from wholesome. I'm sure it depends on the particular church and people, but it isn't necessarily a safe haven for children.

When you add up the ages of the 4 I still have at home, I have 80 child-years of experience under my belt, so I think halfway know what I'm talking about. And don't forget, after 6th grade, I didn't make it an issue that my kids stay involved with the church. And guess what, none of them stayed involved.

However, you don't really know whether they would have stayed involved even if you had made them continue with church. In other words, your choice may not have been what caused them to choose they path that they did.

Your experience will be your own when you get started. Good luck with that.

Thanks. I'm sure I'll need it! I know children can be a handful, and that's something my mother has made abundantly clear to me. Bless her heart for putting up with me and my antics throughout my childhood and teenage years.

rromeo923

Biggest problem with our schools today is the lack of gym class. There I said it!

mrbigbluelight

tonyb wrote: »

.....and thats the problem. Once one becomes afraid to have discussion, then someone elses ideals are being jammed down your throat.

Absolutely agreed, Tonyb. Hate to put up quotes, but as a wise person once said, "All it takes for evil (wrongdoing) to prosper is for good men (women) to do nothing".

markmarc

Like all unions, teacher unions have both good and bad to them. Many still obstruct the implementation of the Akron (or Dayton, I can't recall which) Plan, which was created in the 1980's with support from union and administration as a way to retrain or remove inferior teachers from the classroom. It's actually pretty simple. A weak teacher is identified, they are given a choice, accept supervision and training by a master teacher or leave. After one year the teacher is evaluated with one of three scores: successful completion, a second year of training, or outright dismissal. Many poor teachers quietly leave the profession unable to humble themselves. The rest go thru the process. In Oregon this is a statewide standard. I wish the NEA (though most teachers join it for low credit card rates and liability insurance) would support this program. It works and the unions that have implemented it are better off. But most of all the students benefit the most.

tonyb

rromeo923 wrote: »

Biggest problem with our schools today is the lack of gym class. There I said it!

LOL....Biggest problem ?? Dunno about that....but I will agree the absense of it, along with the arts, doesn't bode well for producing a well rounded student.....which once apon a time was the objective.

tonyb

Mark, I wish that was the case among more teachers unions. Of coarse the opposite side of the coin in that is who is idendifying the teacher, and by what standards are they using to say a teacher is "weak". Also some will suggest no such standard exists, thus you simply can't identify a weak teacher. I say hogwash to all that, but the unions will support that train of thought to keep jobs. After all, that is their main gig for existance, not the education of a child.

I have a hard time personally on Union involvement with education. The two just do not compliment each other and always seem to get in the way of solutions, keeping things from change. I just don't see the benefit of union involvement as it pertains to the benefit of the child. One can argue union involvement can bring forth a better quality teacher, but I think we can all agree thats not necessarily the case. Plus you can still pay a teacher the same if not more, if the individual districts had more control over the process. Just my .02

markmarc

Tony, I can tell you it isn't hard to identify a weak/struggling teacher. Educators in every building know who are best and strugglers in their building. In my school a few years ago we had a young teacher who it became quite clear within three months didn't have a strong foundation. Originally, they were quite popular with the kids and parents with their enthusiasm. But as time went on the cracks in the facade exposed a big problem, the kids weren't learning at the appropriate level. The partner teacher is a master educator by any measure couldn't get this teacher to work together. In all subjects the students didn't come close to reaching basic levels of material covered as the other class, as well has the success level. The standardized tests further bore out the weakness. The principal developed a plan of improvement and several of us attempted to work with this teacher, but it didn't work.

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

LOL....Biggest problem ?? Dunno about that....but I will agree the absense of it, along with the arts, doesn't bode well for producing a well rounded student.....which once apon a time was the objective.

More kinds these days are leaving school more "well rounded" than ever before. It just depends on how you define the term. Lack of P.E. is a contributing factor to the higher obesity rates we see in kids these days, but they would rather blame it exclusively on dietary considerations alone. California has taken the first steps toward regulating sugar as a drug, which they consider more dangerous than pot, tobacco or alcohol!

cnh

Don't disagree with too much above. But when I went to public school. Our school taxes were HIGH, our High School had good people, the Unions had more power and I received one of the FINEST educations your Tax Dollars can buy. Second to none. Got me a full scholarship at an elite Liberal Arts College which led me to advanced degrees from an Ivy League University, which ultimately led to me teaching at a school very much like the College I first attended.

All the things people lament above were not really impediments in my education as I remember it. I don't remember the "community" being the most important element in local education then. But a concern for providing the best for our brightest students. Which is certainly what I had. We also had business and vocational training for those who didn't go on to college. Maybe it was just a time when "money" was plentiful and no one was trying to "cut" anything. In fact, I suspect that's what was responsible for my education because it was during a high point in the American economy, in Unions, in Industrial production, in Economic dominance, and so on.

As far as I can see all of our current problems lie in the fact that the "golden years" are long behind us and we're beset with nickle and diming education and a lot of other programs in this country. In other words, since there is no more American prosperity and Capital dominates all of our thinking (which it did not in my time!), we don't and may never again have the resources to have the public schools we once did.

Money is a huge issue here. And we can return ALL the control we want to the local level and individuals but if they have NO "funds" what are they going to do? Ask their teachers to teach more and more students for less and less money in worse and worse conditions because "everyone" is trying to save on their 'taxes' and doesn't think investing that money in education is a good idea?

Oh well. Maybe it's someone else's turn to have a good school system? Because the American Economy can NO longer sustain one. Meanwhile, F-ing Zuckerberg's Facebook is worth 100 Billion...that's hilarious if it weren't so damn tragic! American priorities? Where are they?

cnh

tonyb

Don't know about other areas, but when you look at the money side, it goes up almost every year where I live, but that money is eaten up by union contracts, administration costs, so a child see's little benefit to throwing more money at schools. Most area's by me are at the 12-13 grand per student level. Thats college kind off money.

So when a referendum comes up to vote for more money for schools, now people are saying no to it. Doesn't mean you don't care about education, it means you have to change the way the money is spent. Lets face it, wages do not keep up with rising costs of everything so the wallet is constantly under attack.

The powers at be though refuse to change and instead cut kids programs, increase class sizes all to anger the parent into accepting the fact that more money is needed. Same goes for the federal level. The first things cut are for the seniors, but they will never do more with less, cut spending/costs on unnessesary programs, grants, subsidies. Much like a normal buisness would operate, you cut the fat first before charging more for a product or service.

So I would argue that schools have the funds, what they do with those funds is another story.