Teachers Union Enemy No. 1

It isn't about money for an excellent education, it is all about decent (non tenured) teachers. Otherwise its just mediocrity for nearly all.

Arlen wrote: The decline of public schools began with the teaching of "cursive" in "Middle School".
The intellectual underachiever "teachers" who introduced "cursive" (instead of "script") and "Middle School" (instead of "Junior High") were the ones who began of the decline of academic rigor necessary for a solid education.

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted on this board. Thanks for the laugh.

T

hillfarmer wrote: Unlike public schools, charter schools in Colorado do not have to accept students with disabilities. Once the current board gets done with Jeffco schools, disabled kids will have no where else to go but underfunded public schools. Money is already flowing to Jeffco charter schools and that flow is undoubtedly going to increase.

:banghead: The current breakdown is if a student gets to go to a charter half the money gets to stay with his old school so they disabled remaining child would actually have more funds. But lets go with your plan to keep our best and brightest trapped and bored in underperforming schools. Brilliant! Chain them to the disabled kids right?

not interested wrote:

Arlen wrote: The decline of public schools began with the teaching of "cursive" in "Middle School".
The intellectual underachiever "teachers" who introduced "cursive" (instead of "script") and "Middle School" (instead of "Junior High") were the ones who began of the decline of academic rigor necessary for a solid education.

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted on this board. Thanks for the laugh.

What I am saying is that the brightest lights are not teaching. They dumb down what is taught because they do not understand their own discipline. The best method in which you can judge your mastery of your subject is your ability to create understanding in your students. Obviously, judging by the decline of our educational ranking worldwide, our teachers are inferior.
In the '60s those high school graduates that should have gone into the trades, went to college and got a teaching degree instead.
But, laugh away!

Arlen wrote:

not interested wrote:

Arlen wrote: The decline of public schools began with the teaching of "cursive" in "Middle School".
The intellectual underachiever "teachers" who introduced "cursive" (instead of "script") and "Middle School" (instead of "Junior High") were the ones who began of the decline of academic rigor necessary for a solid education.

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen posted on this board. Thanks for the laugh.

What I am saying is that the brightest lights are not teaching. They dumb down what is taught because they do not understand their own discipline. The best method in which you can judge your mastery of your subject is your ability to create understanding in your students. Obviously, judging by the decline of our educational ranking worldwide, our teachers are inferior.
In the '60s those high school graduates that should have gone into the trades, went to college and got a teaching degree instead.
But, laugh away!

And it started when "script" became "cursive" and when "Jr High" became "Middle School?"

FredHayek wrote: T

hillfarmer wrote: Unlike public schools, charter schools in Colorado do not have to accept students with disabilities. Once the current board gets done with Jeffco schools, disabled kids will have no where else to go but underfunded public schools. Money is already flowing to Jeffco charter schools and that flow is undoubtedly going to increase.

:banghead: The current breakdown is if a student gets to go to a charter half the money gets to stay with his old school so they disabled remaining child would actually have more funds. But lets go with your plan to keep our best and brightest trapped and bored in underperforming schools. Brilliant! Chain them to the disabled kids right?

not true. In Colorado, charter schools get 100% of per pupil revenue.

I haven't studied it enough to take a strong position on charter schools, but here are some thoughts.

When I was in public schools the schools already had a "two tiered" system starting in middle school where you began to get different teachers for different subjects. There usually was a teacher in each subject (usually math and English) for the average students and one for the stronger students. But that may not of been practical for small schools. It may not of been good for self esteem, but it seemed to work. And later in high school some students opted for more advanced college placement courses, often at a local JC.

If a charter school is hurting public schools, wouldn't the main reason be because it is outperforming the public schools? If so, I don't see how that is a bad thing, at least for those in that charter school. And if the public school has that two tiered system, it seems to me the students who are motivated should still do OK. Teachers can help with the motivation, but I think most of it comes from the parents and how they raise their kids. Most kids don't have to be a genius to do well, just have whatever it takes to get the motivation to succeed. So if a charter school is doing well in motivating their students, that should be encouraged IMO. Same goes for public schools.

I think we actually have a three tiered (or more) education system. Don't forget the private schools. Yes, you have to pay, but many offer scholarships. It is noticeable that many politicians who determine much of what goes on in public schools, end up sending their kids to private schools. So much for everyone being equal, but if the public schools just aren't working regardless of the money spent, I'm not sure what else there is to do. We just can't dump otherwise motivated kids into a terrible educational environment. And there is little chance in converting the unmotivated kids as well.

agreed, there was 2-tiers back in the 1970s, college and non-college with different courses and final exams. How the heck I ever made it thru the college tier is still a mystery, I was smart but not motivated at all.
I was more interested in chicks and motorcycles!
:rofllol

not interested wrote: And it started when "script" became "cursive" and when "Jr High" became "Middle School?"

It's called "dumbing down" and check ScienceChic's last post, she is perfectly happy with it.

ScienceChic wrote: In my kids' Jeffco Public School, kid learn cursive in 3rd grade. After that, they get to choose themselves whether they write cursive or not.
They also have access to computers in the library and in their rooms, have created presentations in Powerpoint already, get homework emailed, access shared docs in Google, and for my son who hates writing, being able to type a writing assignment up in Word and email it back to his teacher is a wonderful option to have.

I do believe that no knows that "cursive" was previously called "script" before the childish renaming of it. And the avoidance of writing shows laziness and a reluctance to learn with effort.