Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 124

Thread: NYC Standardized Spanish Exam

  1. #101
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4495146]Not suprised at your response. Typical, blame tests instead of scratching the surface a bit deeper and seeing how utterly unprepared most kids in Public School are, for test, life and the real world.

    But hey, you're just a low paid, unappreciated, self-sacrificing martyr, giving up your life for us ungrateful heathens, right? Almost Jesus-like.

    Shoukldn't you be in cla.....on, right. You're off now. My bad.[/QUOTE]

    Horrific post. Honestly. But a good example of what an ad hominem attack is. Its the kind of tactic used when you don't have the facts;

    [I]An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, [B]is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[/B] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[/I]

    But inside of your horrific post you lay the seeds to the foundation of the very argument used against you;

    [I]"Typical, blame tests instead of scratching the surface a bit deeper and seeing how utterly unprepared most kids in Public School are, for test, life and the real world."[/I]

    It should not be the responsibility of Johnny's school teacher to be the his parent, counselor and psychologist. But that is the reality of what many teachers face today-and its not just in urban schools (another ignorant misconception).

    I usually attempt to stay out of threads that deal with education because the majority of the posts are simply inaccurate. Just because you once attended public school or have a child enrolled or have a friend who is a friend of a teacher does not mean you understand what its like to walk a mile. Its much like the professional boxing fan who thinks he is an expert because he has gotten into a lot of fights growing up.

    Test scores? Explain, using all of your in-depth knowledge and experience, how you correlate test scores with teaching ability in low income areas? How do you evaluate two teachers working with students from opposite economic back rounds, and language barriers using one standardized test?

    Or maybe that does not matter because you believe that the students come into school on equal footing. And maybe you believe in this too;

    [IMG]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_582/12974745656SsGnd.jpg[/IMG]

    [U]Remember your check list for your next horrific post;[/U]
    1. bust the union
    2. work longer hours and full year without added compensation
    3. Add more daily responsibilities for a teacher to include acting as their parent and psychologist.
    4. fire the teachers who don't like #2 and 3 (as well as the teachers who are paid more because new teachers cost less). They are just school teachers anyway so they don't really do anything.

    This is how I remember school so it can't be that hard of a job;

    [IMG]http://www.thefashionspot.com/images/stories/TheBreakfastClubFlashback250_f.jpg[/IMG]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-22-2012 at 03:13 PM.

  2. #102
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Axil;4498302]That's very nice, and i agree that students are over tested right now. I agree that the implementation of standardized testing has been poorly executed.


    However... you completely side stepped my question. What metric is fair way to objectively evaluate teacher performance Copernicus? Is one of the tests you like a good way to evaluate your success as a teacher? If not how should it be done. If i'm an administrator, and i need to reduce the number of teachers i have, what tools and metrics should i have at my disposal to make a good decision, that's fair for both the students and teachers?[/QUOTE]

    Principal and assistant principal evaluations that range from classroom management, specific lesson content, and classroom environment.

    But looking at the big picture, if we are going to evaluate teachers using standardized tests then how would we evaluate the art teacher? Phys ed? Speech teacher? The music teacher?

    We are really going to spend all this tax paying money on a standardized test in art? No to mention the most important in adding more tests for children?

    If you think that standardized testing for math and English are most appropriate then who in their right mind would want to teach it knowing they can be fired if they get a class of underachievers or simply bad students?

    Pay English and Math teachers more? We've gone down the road of merit pay, as a teacher I dont think it works because there are far too many variables and cheating/stealing would be a big issue to monitor. But lets just say for argument sake we allow merit pay. How much more will you pay the English and math teacher per year $5,000? 10,000? Would $5000 or $10,000 more a year be worth it if you knew that the government could just create a very difficult test when there are too many teachers who are making top salary and they want to cut budget? (they already are)
    Last edited by copernicus; 06-22-2012 at 12:59 PM.

  3. #103
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    468
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4498162]The tenure system at private Universities is about retention of Professors that schools want to keep to attract students in an open marketplace. Teachers in private institutions who aren't offered tenure are basically being shown the door. The tenure system in the Unionized public schools is based on simple seniority protected by the Union. There is no tenure in public schools thats based on retention of students in a competitive market.[/QUOTE]

    The tenure system is in most, if not all, public and private universities and colleges in the United States. Lecturers, adjunct professors, and research professors are off the tenure track and they can be shown the door. Promotion to associate professor or professor through a strong record of published research, bringing in research grants to your department, mentoring graduate students, academic visibility, and teaching gets you tenure. The academic tenure system was created to guarantee the right to academic freedom and protects the teacher and/or researcher when they dissent from authority or spend time researching topics with little commercial value (e.g., theory). The existence of it has little to do with attracting students in an open marketplace. Retention of professors through tenure is a byproduct of guaranteed job security.

    The negative aspect of the tenure system is that tenured professors will shut down and become unproductive weight on the system. Aging, irrelevant professors that slime their way to retirement do drag departments down and gradual turn-over occurs only with retirement or death. Europe and Australia have moved away from the tenure system and have long-term contracts with less stringent reviews. Thatís something Iíve view as a possible solution.

    I have no experience with our primary and secondary schools and I donít know what goals have to be met to make tenure. My point is that the tenure system can exist without a union and vice versa. The terms arenít interchangeable.

  4. #104
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=copernicus;4498414]Principal and assistant principal evaluations that range from classroom management, specific lesson content, and classroom environment.[/quote]

    If that was shown to work, and is a more accurate and cost effective way to determine teacher quality i would be all for it. However i am skeptical that principals and assistant principals would be as concerned with getting the best education at the cheapest price, as the average tax payer ought to be.

    [QUOTE=copernicus;4498414]
    But looking at the big picture, if we are going to evaluate teachers using standardized tests then how would we evaluate the art teacher? Phys ed? Speech teacher? The music teacher?

    We are really going to spend all this tax paying money on a standardized test in art? No to mention the most important in adding more tests for children?
    [/quote]
    You are correct that the arts cannot be evaluated objectively. I would question the need for teachers dedicated primarily to the teaching of art, music or drama. I believe there is value in a child being engaged in art, however it is dwarfed by value in being able to read and perform basic mathematical operations.




    [QUOTE=copernicus;4498414]
    If you think that standardized testing for math and English are most appropriate then who in their right mind would want to teach it knowing they can be fired if they get a class of underachievers or simply bad students?

    Pay English and Math teachers more? We've gone down the road of merit pay, as a teacher I dont think it works because there are far too many variables and cheating/stealing would be a big issue to monitor. But lets just say for argument sake we allow merit pay. How much more will you pay the English and math teacher per year $5,000? 10,000? Would $5000 or $10,000 more a year be worth it if you knew that the government could just create a very difficult test when there are too many teachers who are making top salary and they want to cut budget? (they already are)[/QUOTE]

    Let me address your last comment first. If the government decides they need to reduce the number of teachers, they should not be making new tests. They should have the ability to reduce the number of teachers. If they government decides they need to reduce the average teacher wage, they should be able to reduce the number of teachers making higher wages. This is a very basic function of operating any business, that should not take near the amount of effort it does in the public school system.

    I agree there has been a lot of corruption involved in trying to determine the merit of teachers. While that is a serious hurdle, it does need to be overcome. If the quality of a teacher cannot be accurately measured, there is no benefit to paying teachers more than minimum wage, or having any requirements pursuant to the hiring of teachers. Without a measure of merit, how can you determine if any of these things succeed in improving a child's education. That is the goal, yes?

  5. #105
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4498383]Horrific post. Honestly. But a good example of what an ad hominem attack is. Its the kind of tactic used when you don't have the facts;

    [I]An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, [B]is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[/B] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[/I]

    But inside of your horrific post you lay the seeds to the foundation of the very argument used against you;

    [I]"Typical, blame tests instead of scratching the surface a bit deeper and seeing how utterly unprepared most kids in Public School are, for test, life and the real world."[/I]

    It should not be the responsibility of Johnny's school teacher to be the his parent, counselor and psychologist. But that is the reality of what many teachers face today-and its not just in urban schools (another ignorant misconception).

    I usually attempt to stay out of threads that deal with education because the majority of the posts are simply inaccurate. Just because you once attended public school or have a child enrolled or have a friend who is a friend of a teacher does not mean you understand what its like to walk a mile. Its much like the professional boxing fan who thinks he is an expert because he has gotten into a lot of fights growing up.

    Test scores? Explain, using all of your in-depth knowledge and experience, how you correlate test scores with teaching ability in low income areas? How do you evaluate two teachers working with students from opposite economic back rounds, and language barriers using one standardized test?

    Or maybe that does not matter because you believe that the students come into school on equal footing. And maybe you believe in this too;

    [IMG]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_582/12974745656SsGnd.jpg[/IMG]

    [U]Remember your check list for your next horrific post;[/U]
    1. bust the union
    2. work longer hours and full year without added compensation
    3. Add more daily responsibilities for a teacher to include acting as their parent and psychologist.
    4. fire the teachers who don't like #2 and 3 (as well as the teachers who are paid more because new teachers cost less). They are just school teachers anyway so they don't really do anything.

    This is how I remember school so it can't be that hard of a job;

    [IMG]http://www.thefashionspot.com/images/stories/TheBreakfastClubFlashback250_f.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    You could have simply wrote: "I am a teacher. We are above being judged. We deserve whatever pay and benefits we request, they should not be questioned by the uninformed public who pays us. Any failure is a failure of parents and student. We teachers, we are perfect and deserving of so much more. You, the public, are ignorant."

    A teacher is special, doing special work beyond the comprehension of a mere non-teacher layman, so special it warrants any level of pay they get and more. Teachers are selfless. We know because they tell us they buy supplies. And they all do their best, and thats good enough.

    They cannot be judged by test results.

    They cannot be judged by grades.

    They cannot be judged by their students.

    After all, Teaching is like working a Cops Beat in Detriot at night, and all fault or failing lies with greater socio-economic failings, surely driven by Anti-Education Republicans no doubt.

    Put simply, do not question the Teachers. Do not question their work. Do not question their quality. Do not question their benefits. Do not question their complaints.

    They are better than us laymen. And we're simply lucky to have them.

    I understand. Whatever view it is men like you, and Copernicus, are tryng to put forth, the above is how it reads to me. That teachers should not, and can not, face the same judgement I, and my private sector coworkers, face every day. To believe they should, or that their compensation should be questioned, is unacceptable and must be stopped. That we mere laymen are not good enough or smart enough or understanding enough to judge, despite being the source of money for their employ.

    Thats my reading of these threads.

    And I respectfuly disagree, and will continue to vote (locally) accordingly. But I thank you for your feedback on the issue.

    And I'm sorry you think I am "horrific" because of the viewpoint I hold on this issue. I'm believe that I more than willing to fund Education in America, I am passionate about education and foster it in my own family, but only if that funding, that trust, comes with many changes, starting with how educators and the education system are judged and compensated.

    P.S. I apologize, I don't have any funny picture to link today.
    Last edited by Warfish; 06-22-2012 at 06:52 PM.

  6. #106
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4498340][QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4498186]

    :D

    CPSE is a typo. That's the Committee on Preschool Special Education; I'm dealing with the CSE, the Committee on Special Education. New York's school districts each have CSEs which are responsible for identifying children who may need special education or related services (such as extra testing time, paraprofessional aides, etc.), evaluating them, and recommending and providing services.

    An IEP is an Individual Education Plan, which is the plan of services the school is required to create under the IDEA Act. (In my son's case, it's actually an IESP [Individual Education Services Plan], since that's what they call it when the kid in question is in a private school within the district). The plan is required to be developed at a meeting of the IEP Team, which is comprised of representatives of the Committee, at least 1 parent, representatives of the school (including general and special education teachers) and a parent-advocate member of the Committee. They make recommendations and develop a plan of services that the school district must follow.

    A para is just shorthand for a paraprofessional - a non-teacher in the school to serve the student's more individualized needs (such as providing physical help to handicapped kids or crisis management to children with emotional issues).

    My son (who is absurdly bright and insightful, and I'm not just saying that as a proud parent) has some emotional control issues; he is impulsive (diagnosed ADHD-Impulsivity type) and experiences very intense emotions (when he gets angry or upset, he gets [B]very[/B] angry/upset, regardless of how small the trigger is, objectively). He's learning to control it, but had several incidents in school where he created unsafe spaces for other students or teachers. We tried behavior modification therapy, but he was experiencing things so intensely that he never had the emotional space to develop the controls behavior mod was supposed to reward. We have privately (thank god for my ex-wife's father, who is a wonderful human being) hired a crisis management paraprofessional to work with him in school, and since that time his behavior has essentially dropped back to 1st grade normal and the behavior mod is starting to take (basically, the para is helping create the emotional space that allows him to actually learn control). He's flourishing academically.

    Despite the fact that the law requires the CSE to keep him in a general ed classroom if at all possible, the CSE's proposed IESP for him is to take him out of a general education classroom and shove him into a self-contained special ed class (i.e. only special ed students). They've taken the position that assigning him a crisis management para would not allow him to remain in a general ed class - which is absurd since actual experience demonstrates that it absolutely would. I'm in the process of drafting a brief and collecting affidavits for the due process hearing demand we will file (in which an impartial hearing officer will review their denial of services).[/QUOTE]


    Thanks man. Needless to say, I wish you the best of luck in your hearing. It sounds like your little one is making progress, which I hope continues ad infinitum.

  7. #107
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4498863]You could have simply wrote: "I am a teacher. We are above being judged. We deserve whatever pay and benefits we request, they should not be questioned by the uninformed public who pays us. Any failure is a failure of parents and student. We teachers, we are perfect and deserving of so much more. You, the public, are ignorant."

    A teacher is special, doing special work beyond the comprehension of a mere non-teacher layman, so special it warrants any level of pay they get and more. Teachers are selfless. We know because they tell us they buy supplies. And they all do their best, and thats good enough.

    They cannot be judged by test results.

    They cannot be judged by grades.

    They cannot be judged by their students.

    After all, Teaching is like working a Cops Beat in Detriot at night, and all fault or failing lies with greater socio-economic failings, surely driven by Anti-Education Republicans no doubt.

    Put simply, do not question the Teachers. Do not question their work. Do not question their quality. Do not question their benefits. Do not question their complaints.

    They are better than us laymen. And we're simply lucky to have them.

    I understand. Whatever view it is men like you, and Copernicus, are tryng to put forth, the above is how it reads to me. That teachers should not, and can not, face the same judgement I, and my private sector coworkers, face every day. To believe they should, or that their compensation should be questioned, is unacceptable and must be stopped. That we mere laymen are not good enough or smart enough or understanding enough to judge, despite being the source of money for their employ.

    Thats my reading of these threads.

    And I respectfuly disagree, and will continue to vote (locally) accordingly. But I thank you for your feedback on the issue.

    [B]And I'm sorry you think I am "horrific" because of the viewpoint I hold on this issue.[/B] I'm believe that I more than willing to fund Education in America, I am passionate about education and foster it in my own family, but only if that funding, that trust, comes with many changes, starting with how educators and the education system are judged and compensated.

    P.S. I apologize, I don't have any funny picture to link today.[/QUOTE]

    Another ad hominem retort so there is no point in another exchange. But to be clear, I thought the content of your post was horrific, not you. I don't believe in personal attacks.

  8. #108
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [IMG]http://x70.xanga.com/433e166700332282262826/b224984900.jpg[/IMG]

  9. #109
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4499139][IMG]http://x70.xanga.com/433e166700332282262826/b224984900.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    This is an insult to all the hard working dual earning families that have kept their families together, set examples for their kids to get an education, work hard and support their families.

    The fact is the majority of women under 30 in the US are choosing to have children out of wedlock and many of them are chossing to have children with men they would never consider having a permanent relationship with. What does that have to do with the stress of two incomes?

    When institutions continue to take over the responsability of families, family structure itself gets replaced by institutions.

    What kind of liberal would suggest that parents give up career and education? Most liberals I know look down on women who stay home to raise their children. Working and education are good examples for kids and there is no good reason that two income working families can't hold together a solid nuclear family.

    This is the kind of poster I would expect from a right wing nut job.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-23-2012 at 11:18 AM.

  10. #110
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4499139][IMG]http://x70.xanga.com/433e166700332282262826/b224984900.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Could it be that the social move away from responsabillity, accountabillity, discipline and consequences has, in part, resulted in irresponsible, unaccountable, undisciplined kids who are never made to face the consequences of their actions?

    Could it be that the social move to "every kid is equal, every kid is a winner" has made being the best no longer relevant to many chilkdren, since they are tought over and over that even if they work hard, they are just equal to everyone else, and that everyone else is a winner too?

    Could it be that the continuous excuse making for poor students that it's always someone elses fault, their parents, their teachers, their socio-economic class, historic racism, current racism, etc, etc, means they are not to blame for anything they do?

    Could it be that the social move away from the stigma that used to be attached to divorce, broken families and unusual family units has led to a situation where many no longer feel they have to have a "traditional family unit"? Could it be that the lack of stigma and ongoing social welfare provided to multi-partner, multi-child parents who cannot support those children has led to a feeling of entitlement, that they have a right to do this without consequence or social stigma?

    I agree with both the claims in the poster. Parents choose to both work. It's not mandatory, they choose it. Conversely, when both parents choose to work, they have to pay for daycare, but they also (in large part) pay for many many things they do not "need" but want, including more expensive cars, homes, technology and more. Parents also choose to both work, because women today were raised in a femminist era that encouraged them to work, not a bad thing to be sure, but a side effect is they (mothers) feel equally valid working as their men.
    Last edited by Warfish; 06-23-2012 at 11:39 AM.

  11. #111
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4499146]This is an insult to all the hard working dual earning families that have kept their families together, set examples for their kids to get an education, work hard and support their families.

    The fact is the majority of women under 30 in the US are choosing to have children out of wedlock and many of them are chossing to have children with men they would never consider having a permanent relationship with. What does that have to do with the stress of two incomes?

    When institutions continue to take over the responsability of families, family structure itself gets replaced by institutions.

    What kind of liberal would suggest that parents give up career and education? Most liberals I know look down on women who stay home to raise their children. Working and education are good examples for kids and there is no good reason that two income working families can't hold together a solid nuclear family.

    This is the kind of poster I would expect from a right wing nut job.[/QUOTE]

    where does it suggest that a women should stay home and give up here career? I did not create the poster but I feel pretty confident that the intention was not to advocate the regression of female rights. :confused:

    My understanding is that the intention was to show that the cost of living has risen to such a degree that it makes raising children much more difficult. If anything, it acknowledges the obvious that its almost impossible for most married couples to have one parent stay at home.

  12. #112
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4499151]Could it be that the social move away from responsabillity, accountabillity, discipline and consequences has, in part, resulted in irresponsible, unaccountable, undisciplined kids who are never made to face the consequences of their actions?

    Could it be that the social move to "every kid is equal, every kid is a winner" has made being the best no longer relevant to many chilkdren, since they are tought over and over that even if they work hard, they are just equal to everyone else, and that everyone else is a winner too?

    Could it be that the continuous excuse making for poor students that it's always someone elses fault, their parents, their teachers, their socio-economic class, historic racism, current racism, etc, etc, means they are not to blame for anything they do?

    Could it be that the social move away from the stigma that used to be attached to divorce, broken families and unusual family units has led to a situation where many no longer feel they have to have a "traditional family unit"? Could it be that the lack of stigma and ongoing social welfare provided to multi-partner, multi-child parents who cannot support those children has led to a feeling of entitlement, that they have a right to do this without consequence or social stigma?

    I agree with both the claims in the poster. [I]Parents choose to both work. It's not mandatory, they choose it. Conversely, when both parents choose to work, they have to pay for daycare, but they also (in large part) pay for many many things they do not "need" but want, including more expensive cars, homes, technology and more. Parents also choose to both work, because women today were raised in a femminist era that encouraged them to work, not a bad thing to be sure, but a side effect is they (mothers) feel equally valid working as their men.[/I][/QUOTE]

    Its been my experience that for lower and middle class families, it has become less of a choice to raise a family with 2 or more children with one spouse not working.

    Is it impossible? no, but its not very realistic. College tuition alone would force the parents to both work. And if one of the spouses do not get decent health care benefits forget about it.

  13. #113
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,463
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4499151]Could it be that the social move away from responsabillity, accountabillity, discipline and consequences has, in part, resulted in irresponsible, unaccountable, undisciplined kids who are never made to face the consequences of their actions?[/QUOTE]

    No.

    Stop being an old fogey that shakes canes at stuff. Jesus H Christ, you old bastard...I'll start sending your Metamucil and Sanka.

  14. #114
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,432
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4499151]Could it be that the social move away from responsabillity, accountabillity, discipline and consequences has, in part, resulted in irresponsible, unaccountable, undisciplined kids who are never made to face the consequences of their actions?

    Could it be that the social move to "every kid is equal, every kid is a winner" has made being the best no longer relevant to many chilkdren, since they are tought over and over that even if they work hard, they are just equal to everyone else, and that everyone else is a winner too?

    Could it be that the continuous excuse making for poor students that it's always someone elses fault, their parents, their teachers, their socio-economic class, historic racism, current racism, etc, etc, means they are not to blame for anything they do?


    Could it be that the social move away from the stigma that used to be attached to divorce, broken families and unusual family units has led to a situation where many no longer feel they have to have a "traditional family unit"? Could it be that the lack of stigma and ongoing social welfare provided to multi-partner, multi-child parents who cannot support those children has led to a feeling of entitlement, that they have a right to do this without consequence or social stigma?

    I agree with both the claims in the poster. Parents choose to both work. It's not mandatory, they choose it. Conversely, when both parents choose to work, they have to pay for daycare, but they also (in large part) pay for many many things they do not "need" but want, including more expensive cars, homes, technology and more. Parents also choose to both work, because women today were raised in a femminist era that encouraged them to work, not a bad thing to be sure, but a side effect is they (mothers) feel equally valid working as their men.[/QUOTE]

    More money for illegals less $ for other services.

  15. #115
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,039
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4499155]Its been my experience that for lower and middle class families, it has become less of a choice to raise a family with 2 or more children with one spouse not working.

    Is it impossible? no, but its not very realistic. [B]College tuition alone would force the parents to both work.[/B] And if one of the spouses do not get decent health care benefits forget about it.[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps if college were looked at as a luxury (as it has traditionally been), and not as the one true path towards success and self worth, some financial hardship could be avoided by the lower/middle class.

    Higher education has been overvalued both from an economic and educational standpoint for years. With the economy how in decline, we're going to have start accepting that fact for what it is, and stop demanding a college degree as a hunting license for most jobs over minimum wage.

    Here are some interesting expert opinions on the issue
    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-subprime-college-educations/2012/06/08/gJQA4fGiOV_story.html[/url]

    [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0202/Does-everyone-need-a-college-degree-Maybe-not-says-Harvard-study[/url]

  16. #116
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Axil;4499387]Perhaps if college were looked at as a luxury (as it has traditionally been), and not as the one true path towards success and self worth, some financial hardship could be avoided by the lower/middle class.

    Higher education has been overvalued both from an economic and educational standpoint for years. With the economy how in decline, we're going to have start accepting that fact for what it is, and stop demanding a college degree as a hunting license for most jobs over minimum wage.

    Here are some interesting expert opinions on the issue
    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-subprime-college-educations/2012/06/08/gJQA4fGiOV_story.html[/url]

    [url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0202/Does-everyone-need-a-college-degree-Maybe-not-says-Harvard-study[/url][/QUOTE]

    I agree. As a teacher I caution my students to explore other avenues of secondary education beyond college. In this economy it is wise to consider learning a trade that will make your services in demand regardless of how the economy is functioning. It is a shame because there are a lot of benefits to having a college education beyond getting a career but that is a luxury that in many cases, cannot be afforded.

    But to my overall point, it is very expensive to raise a family today even if one or more of your children do not go to college. Even sending them to a trade school is pricey, although less so then many colleges. At the end of the day you find a way to do the best you can for your children. But the idea that it is not necessary for both parents to work is not realistic.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-24-2012 at 04:36 AM.

  17. #117
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4499155]Its been my experience that for lower and middle class families, it has become less of a choice to raise a family with 2 or more children with one spouse not working.

    Is it impossible? no, but its not very realistic. College tuition alone would force the parents to both work. And if one of the spouses do not get decent health care benefits forget about it.[/QUOTE]

    That explains why single mothers are choosing to have children as the norm in this country.

    Here's a clue, liberal housing and welfare laws in the 60's and 70's lead to an entire generation of children being raised in single parent households. Guess what it has become a societal norm.

    Example matters. Working matters, we define ourselves to a large extent by the work, it's a very positive thing and working couples who are married have a responsability to each other and their children no matter what the stress and strain to be good parents and work out the issues in their marriages. Libs ignore that their policies encouraged families to break up for money and housing and they created a generation of kids who don't know how to treat a spouse let alone raise kids as part of a family unit. It takes a village yes but first it takes two parents with a serious level of commitment toward each other. If it was simply a matter of families breaking apart under the strain you might have a point. The reality is the norm today is single parents having kids out of a personal choice. Why not its all they knew and society encouraged it.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-24-2012 at 05:02 AM.

  18. #118
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4499409]That explains why single mothers are choosing to have children as the norm in this country.

    Here's a clue, liberal housing and welfare laws in the 60's and 70's lead to an entire generation of children being raised in single parent households. Guess what it has become a societal norm.

    Example matters. Working matters, we define ourselves to a large extent by the work, it's a very positive thing and working couples who are married have a responsability to each other and their children no matter what the stress and strain to be good parents and work out the issues in their marriages. Libs ignore that their policies encouraged families to break up for money and housing and they created a generation of kids who don't know how to treat a spouse let alone raise kids as part of a family unit. It takes a village yes but first it takes two parents with a serious level of commitment toward each other. If it was simply a matter of families breaking apart under the strain you might have a point. The reality is the norm today is single parents having kids out of a personal choice. Why not its all they knew and society encouraged it.[/QUOTE]

    Excellent post and perspective. No doubt the policies from the 60s and 70s, while well intended, created a whole other set of problems as a result. Liberals sometimes fail to understand that these programs which, in some cases are necessary, created a hand to mouth mentality as well as an opportunity to game the system and skew the best intentions.

    With that said, those policies alone did not create the family issues we have today; remember they were created in response to issues that had [I]already [/I]occurred. The breakdown in family structure happened generations ago in poor families for many reasons. But in recent times, the middle class (what is left) has joined the poor in dealing with some of these family issues. Traditional middle class families which were prominent in the 50s are evaporating because the middle class jobs are evaporating thus creating a great strain on the families. The end result is that the divorce rate is high and more "middle class" children then ever before are being raised in single parent homes. In the end money matters and many of the decent jobs, with benefits (which are crucial to families with children), are not returning unless something meaningful happens to the health care system in this country. The jobs will not be returning thanks to a combination of antiquated skills and greed.

    Bottom line; we can debate how we came to this point in America but what is certain is that, for most people, it is harder to raise a family in 2012 then it would have been in previous generations. Well intended social programs have become enabling in some cases but pure old fashioned greed disguised as capitalism has also damaged our country as well. The end result is a generation of children being raised in less then ideal conditions.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-24-2012 at 06:01 AM.

  19. #119
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4499414]Excellent post and perspective. No doubt the policies from the 60s and 70s, while well intended, created a whole other set of problems as a result. Liberals sometimes fail to understand that these programs which, in some cases are necessary, created a hand to mouth mentality as well as an opportunity to game the system and skew the best intentions.

    With that said, those policies alone did not create the family issues we have today; remember they were created in response to issues that had [I]already [/I]occurred. The breakdown in family structure happened generations ago in poor families for many reasons. But in recent times, the middle class (what is left) has joined the poor in dealing with some of these family issues. Traditional middle class families which were prominent in the 50s are evaporating because the middle class jobs are evaporating thus creating a great strain on the families. The end result is that the divorce rate is high and more "middle class" children then ever before are being raised in single parent homes. In the end money matters and many of the decent jobs, with benefits (which are crucial to families with children), are not returning unless something meaningful happens to the health care system in this country. The jobs will not be returning thanks to a combination of antiquated skills and greed.

    Bottom line; we can debate how we came to this point in America but what is certain is that, [B]for most people, it is harder to raise a family in 2012[/B] then it would have been in previous generations. Well intended social programs have become enabling in some cases but pure old fashioned greed disguised as capitalism has also damaged our country as well. The end result is a generation of children being raised in less then ideal conditions.[/QUOTE]

    Outrageous property taxes as a result of uneconomically justified salaries for PUBLIC UNION employees have driven much of business out of suburban areas.

  20. #120
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4499420]Outrageous property taxes as a result of uneconomically justified salaries for PUBLIC UNION employees have driven much of business out of suburban areas.[/QUOTE]


    In my state, most of the desirable suburban towns to live in have blue ribbon school systems that are on par with (or better) then many private schools. The people love living in these towns and many of the residents that have children of school age do not want to move because, despite the high taxes, the public school system is part of the appeal. As for businesses, these towns have business centers that are like upscale malls with high end stores.

    The notion that all public schools are failing is another talking point. And the notion that PUBLIC UNIONS are the root cause of our current economic crisis in this country is an insult.

    Do we need to reform the system? Absolutely. Does the union need to make more concessions? Without question. But busting unions (whatever unions are left) is another step towards fascism. My argument remains the same; if you want to reform special interest groups then do it across the board and fairly. But based on the recent decisions of the Supreme Court we know that won't be happening.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-24-2012 at 10:45 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us