You admit as much when you mention your checkbook (and I'm sure your car payment, mortgage, credit cards, bank account, etc, etc, etc.)
Art class didn't teach you how to manage your finances, did it?
The correct way of saying it would be "I, FF, didn't choose to do much with math, professionally".
Art or music?studied those so called extras, and now make a great living because of one of them.
If math did nothing for you, how do you know you make a great living? Or how much to charge at all?
As I said, I'm not against art. I'm against art at the expense of vital, universal, basics. Math. Reading/writing. Science.
You, the individual, can choose the reject them. That does not make your abandonment valid for all in the system.
ON this, I'm a big liberal. I demand the State mandate we do it my way for everyone for whats best for society as a whole. You 1%'ers can get your art and music from private sources.
Without basic math skills, and basic bookkeeping/economics, you are not a functional or productive member of our society.
Without basic life skills, and basic science knowledge, you are not a functional or productive member of our society.
Save the florid prose for the Union Meeting kiddo. This isn't an all or nothing, one or the other argument. It's a matter of prioritization and budgets.
If there is only enough money and/or quality teachers to teach something, it better something vital first. Art is wonderful, music even more so, both are strong passions in my own life, but neither are vital, neither are mandatory in terms of building a functional member of society, and both can be persued by those interested outside of school.
If you folks can figure out how to get kids to read, write, know math and bookkeeping and basic life skills AND learn some art, thats on you, the public education system from top to bottom.
Do a better job as a system, more efficiently, and you can toss in all the art and music your school districts budget can afford. But only if it does not effect the learning of the more vital life skills.
Last edited by Warfish; 07-17-2012 at 11:14 AM.
Everybody wins, especially the kids. After all, that's what it's all about, right?
Last edited by copernicus; 07-17-2012 at 01:39 PM.
Despite your hatred of those who pay for this system, we will continue to have our say, if only at the ballot box and via our free speech rights. Try to remember, you serve us, serve society and specificly the taxpayers who pay for every penny you make and your school spends. We taxpayers do not serve you.
The idea we shouldn't have a say....well, I will agree to disagree with such a viewpoint. You are not a part of some ruling class, above the rest of us, and beyond our criticism or direction. Your demanding, self-protectionist, insular and at times hateful (towards taxpayers) rhetoric here is evidence of why proper oversight by the taxpaying public is so vital for our public services to operate reasonably and responsably, and in line with our (taxpayers) expectations and desires.
So predictable. Even threw in a NCLB reference.
This is verbatim what the teacher's union tells you to say to maintain your time on the beach.
You simply have no evidence of this, as usual. Kids that don't want to learn simply don't want to learn, whether it is "too much on their plate" or not. The number of kids that would benefit from more school far, far outweighs the few that are already a lost cause. The kids you talk about above are a small percentage of the whole. But then again, why would you consider the big picture if it doesn't suit your narrative?
I for one attended regular (both private and public) schooling, and was home schooled 3 months in the summer while the teachers got tan. Did me just fine. More than fine.
The school calendar is as it is not to make sure we don't "overwhelm" students. You might want to study a little history of your own profession. It has everything to do with farming, and nothing to do with learning. Studies have shown in addition to more learning, retention times in children would also increase. Tell me: what other countries have 13 weeks consecutively away from school?
Your true colors are showing. The evidence overwhelming favors the pros over the cons (the biggest of which as far as I can see is "air-conditioning" - lol, as if that can't be overcome) of a year-round system for the students. Try being honest for once that you oppose this for the teachers and your precious time off, that no one else in the working world gets.
For once I can say I agree with President Obama.Originally Posted by Wikipedia
A year round school system is something I fully support.
There is abundant data that students lose significant amounts of knowledge over their three month summer break. I believe that children DO need some time unwind and "just be kids," but this time should be spread out in 1-2 week periods throughout the year rather than a concentrated big break during the summer.
And is it me (answering Tater above), or do we (as in the J.I. Poli-Sci Forum) have an overabundance of Teachers, Professors or those married to Teachers/Professors.
It's like half of our regulars have some personal tie-in the PUblic Education. That seems rather higher than average.
Just checking -- if school was lengthened to 12 months, would that imply a pay raise for educators, or would that be their "reasonable service" for what they already receive?
I've heard a lot of extrapolating teacher's pay over 12 months, and it's not usually mentioned in a positive light so I was wondering what the jury thought . . .