OT: Racist Math questions for 3rd graders in Georgia

[sayheykid1]

Because of the obscene amount of money they get for being glorified babysitters. Most public school teachers I've met in my life are some of the most useless, lazy complaining human beings I've ever met.

Public schools are obsolete. Most of the things one used to have to learn in a classroom or library can be learned on the internet. They should all be closed, and parents should be afforded a voucher for private or home schooling. In New Jersey that voucher would be $22K per student (the average amount spent per child because of the army of councelors, assistant principals & other burocrats (including landscapers & janitors they refuse to privatize). In California 50 cents of every tax dollar we pay goes to those institutions of waste. Imagine if they just gave $66K to a parent of 3 to home school 3 kids. 3 to 1 student to teacher ratio sounds pretty good to me.

Or they could take $22K & send 'em to a school that doesn't suck out loud like rich people get to do now (including the President of the United States). Maybe even split what's left over between the school & the parents so the school is motivated to be efficient and parents would hold 'em accountable. <------ Freeking brilliant idea!

Public school in 2011 is the dumbest idea since carpool lanes.

Oh and like 40% or so of high school kids drop out. If I had kids they'd be in junior college classes at age 13 because the material is so freeking easy.

I don't have any kids, I don't want to pay some parent to keep their kid home and let him play on the internet all day and get obese and I don't want to pay for faith based education by unaccredited teachers and preachers.
The CA public school dropout rate in 2011 was 18%.
Were you in Jr College at age 13?

 

[threelittleturds]

Frederick is a rare name? lol
You think lesson about a slave named Fred had some tie in to the story of the life Frederick Douglass.

Looks like he landed on the 'Go Wild' square.

 

[NinerSickness]

Wow Sick. Your ignorance is truly shining through in this thread.

Wow imac. Your ability to make ad hominem statements without any substance to them is really showing in this thread. If yo'ure going to criticize have a reason.

SayHey, I was going by memory; and I don't know if the rate has gone down since the study I saw from the Mannhattan Institute ('07 I believe; and I doubt they've gotten better), but the dropout rate then, according to them, was 35% in California.

There are a lot of different statistics on this subject though; this is just based on the percentage of 9th graders who earn a high school diploma in 4 years.

However you look at it California is a disaster. I don't know if it's any better in Canada, imac, but down here it's a friggn' mess. So don't go throwing the word "ignorance" around when I read an extremely dry, boring statistic filled book specifically on this subject just as a hobby to become less ignorant about it.

No I wasn't in Junior College as 13. I wish I were; my Junior College classes were easier than my high school classes. I understand why people are suspicious about home schoolers and the potential problems it might pose, but those problems are extremely small compared to the waste & neglect in public schools. That's why home schoolers, in EVERY study I've ever seen kick the living crap out of public schoolers in test scores. From '07-'08 for example. The average home schooler scored:

In the 89th percentile in reading
84th percentile in language
84th percentile in math
86th percentile in and science
84th percentile in Social Studies
88th percentile in the core studies (reading, language and math).

Think smaller kid to teacher ratios. Those statistics are from the U.S. Department of Education. So people who worry about home schoolers not getting an education are like people who worry about flying in a plane accross the country versus driving because the plane might crash.

 

[MHSL82]

The average home schooler scored:

In the 89th percentile in reading
84th percentile in language
84th percentile in math
86th percentile in and science
84th percentile in Social Studies
88th percentile in the core studies (reading, language and math).

Think smaller kid to teacher ratios. Those statistics are from the U.S. Department of Education. So people who worry about home schoolers not getting an education are like people who worry about flying in a plane accross the country versus driving because the plane might crash.

But look who is home-schooling their kids. Those who are currently home schooling their kids are motivated parents who can afford to spend the time with their kids, at least in some supervisory role. I just graduated from law school and my wife was a school counselor before I moved to get the law degree. We could and may home school.

However, if you throw 22K at people to home school their kids, those stats in the 80's will surely drop. What I would do is encourage private schooling and help with vouchers for that and only that. Those who want to home school still will and they will continue to get those grades. Then, I would encourage parents to get involved in their kids education if they choose not to private-school it rather than bitching how the teachers aren't doing their jobs. A lot of the learning is done outside of the school and without good parents, these kids don't learn it at home (after school). Teachers are supposed to teach, and those who aren't should be fired. And that's where I agree with you about tenure. But the school hours aren't the only time in which a student needs to do the work. It isn't a 9-5 job. So there's improvement needed everywhere from the students to the teachers to the parents.

I don't trust that those who sit by and bitch about the system are truly sitting down with their kids and helping them. They are bitching just to bitch rather than saying, "to hell with this, I'll help them". They'd rather just blame the school system, which of course deserves blame, but at the end of the day their kids are dumber. It would be nice for the system to work, but if it doesn't you need to take charge. These are their children after all. These parents who don't do anything because that's the teacher's job will truly take the initiative and teach their kids if given 22K free money? I'm sorry, I'm just not that optimistic.

Do they really feel better now that they have someone to blame? (Yes, a little like One by U2) It's like those who lament and laugh at the US falling to China. Would it make them feel better to blame Bush or Obama? Would it make them feel better to laugh at it or would it be better to go do something to help this country? I'll admit I have not done anything significant yet to help my country, but I also don't look at it like a joke some people do. I hope to help in the next thirty years and I know it'll be little, but you surely won't find me joking about it. (Sorry, I guess I've just heard too many people think it's funny around me)

Obviously there are problems with public schooling, but these problems can be approached in many aspects rather than 22K vouchers to parents. I don't trust however the government to fix these problems so I'm with you there, just don't know if vouchers really get them off the hook and whether vouchers will achieve what they in theory are supposed to. Have there been any real life examples of wide spread voucher programs that worked? Is education a right in which private schools will be dragged down because the government once again effectively nationalizes the private schools?

It's like how the HMOs have worsened health care. My dad's a surgeon and he's told me times in which the HMO has sent him and his colleagues memos on how to streamline the costs by using less safe procedures, where statistically is safe to an average patient with that problem but would be unsafe for the very patients the doctors are seeing. It would seem that health care officials would understand that some cases are more complicated than others. It's like trying to use the average amount of paint for a standard house on a mansion. Maybe the painter should know the size of the house?

I'm just worried that the government who has screwed up the education system and welfare system and social security system would further screw up the voucher system, when in effect people who have no business to home school would do so (like those who buy a house when they clearly can't afford it, or go on welfare when they haven't applied for a job - not all, but there are plenty who at minimum have been placated by welfare checks - though I do believe many if not most are working hard to get out of their situation and are unlucky/prejudiced against.)

Man, that was long, got that out of my system... for now.

 

[NinerSickness]

But look who is home-schooling their kids. Those who are currently home schooling their kids are motivated parents who can afford to spend the time with their kids, at least in some supervisory role.

EXACTLY! CAN AFFORD TO. That's why I suport school vouchers for private and home school. Both would be drastically less expensive and more effective than the piece of crap public system.

However, if you throw 22K at people to home school their kids, those stats in the 80's will surely drop.

It would never get as bad as public schools though simply because a kid with a real authority figure around and lots of attention (as opposed to being one of 35 kids in a class) will not only do better on tests; they'll do better in life.

I don't trust that those who sit by and bitch about the system are truly sitting down with their kids and helping them. They are bitching just to bitch rather than saying, "to hell with this, I'll help them".

Look at it this way: parents who want to home school their kids or send 'em to private school can't because they can't afford to. If they received vouchers to do what THEY thought best for their kids, instead of getting force fed a cookie cutter failure of a system and being taxed to high hell for it, they would be able to help their kids a lot more. But instead private schoolers and home schoolers have to pay for their own kids' education AND everyone else's. That's why the public school system can usually only be escaped by rich kids or those who win a charter school lottery. Parents want to help their kids; they usually have so little time to do so.

These parents who don't do anything because that's the teacher's job will truly take the initiative and teach their kids if given 22K free money? I'm sorry, I'm just not that optimistic.

The "free money" just goes to an abyss of unacountable waste anyway! If you knew 29 other parents (hypothetically; I don't know what the exact ratios are) and pooled your money to hire a great teacher & a security guard & a janitor and rent a classroom & materials to teach them all how much would you pay? $660,000? I don't think you would. BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING ALREADY! The question is who should get that money? Should it be parents? Or should should it be principals, assistant principals, more assistant principals, counselors, psychologists, landscapers, janitors, "heads of diversity," the ferderal department of education, state department of education, local departments of education, the text book cartel, office workers... basically an ARMY of bureaucrats you literally have to pay until the day they die!

Obviously there are problems with public schooling, but these problems can be approached in many aspects rather than 22K vouchers to parents.

No it can't. It really can't. It will never work. It will always be wasteful, ineffective and benefit only rich kids. Remember that you're paying that money anyway! Right now! The money is there; it's just the money doens't go to help kids; it goes to prop up pensions.

Have there been any real life examples of wide spread voucher programs that worked?

Hell yes! In Washington D.C. One of the first things Barac Obama did when he was elected was end the D.C. voucher program that was a huge success.

Is education a right in which private schools will be dragged down because the government once again effectively nationalizes the private schools?

Not if the government never gets to decide where the money is spent. It's all about who decides where the money goes. There will be moron parents in my idea who do nothing to help their kids, but there are already a lot more moron parents who already do nothing to help their kids. The ones who WANT to help their kids would be able to afford to do so if they got the money instead of the government.

It's like how the HMOs have worsened health care.

Subsidies always inflate the prices of things. Corn, college tuition, health care, etc. Vouchers would would help bring down health care spending too (which is why I like the Paul Ryan plan).

I'm just worried that the government who has screwed up the education system and welfare system and social security system would further screw up the voucher system.

Your worries are founded. There will be problems any way you do it. I just think with the track record private & home schoolers have they deserve a little more freedom over the disasterous track record of public schools.

 

[sayheykid1]

Wow imac. Your ability to make ad hominem statements without any substance to them is really showing in this thread. If yo'ure going to criticize have a reason.

SayHey, I was going by memory; and I don't know if the rate has gone down since the study I saw from the Mannhattan Institute ('07 I believe; and I doubt they've gotten better), but the dropout rate then, according to them, was 35% in California.

There are a lot of different statistics on this subject though; this is just based on the percentage of 9th graders who earn a high school diploma in 4 years.

However you look at it California is a disaster. I don't know if it's any better in Canada, imac, but down here it's a friggn' mess. So don't go throwing the word "ignorance" around when I read an extremely dry, boring statistic filled book specifically on this subject just as a hobby to become less ignorant about it.

No I wasn't in Junior College as 13. I wish I were; my Junior College classes were easier than my high school classes. I understand why people are suspicious about home schoolers and the potential problems it might pose, but those problems are extremely small compared to the waste & neglect in public schools. That's why home schoolers, in EVERY study I've ever seen kick the living crap out of public schoolers in test scores. From '07-'08 for example. The average home schooler scored:

In the 89th percentile in reading
84th percentile in language
84th percentile in math
86th percentile in and science
84th percentile in Social Studies
88th percentile in the core studies (reading, language and math).

Think smaller kid to teacher ratios. Those statistics are from the U.S. Department of Education. So people who worry about home schoolers not getting an education are like people who worry about flying in a plane accross the country versus driving because the plane might crash.

Why should I pay some parent to keep their kid home or to send them to a religious institute? I don't care if people home school their kid, I just don't want to subsidize them to do so.

Statewide Graduation Rates - Year 2011 (CA Dept of Education)
The graduation rate is 75% and the dropout rate is 18%

 

[NinerSickness]

Why should I pay some parent to keep their kid home or to send them to a religious institute? I don't care if people home school their kid, I just don't want to subsidize them to do so.

You're already subsidizing their education. It's just you're giving them one that sucks in comparison (obviously that's not your fault).

 

[sayheykid1]

EXACTLY! CAN AFFORD TO. That's why I suport school vouchers for private and home school. Both would be drastically less expensive and more effective than the piece of crap public system.



It would never get as bad as public schools though simply because a kid with a real authority figure around and lots of attention (as opposed to being one of 35 kids in a class) will not only do better on tests; they'll do better in life.



Look at it this way: parents who want to home school their kids or send 'em to private school can't because they can't afford to. If they received vouchers to do what THEY thought best for their kids, instead of getting force fed a cookie cutter failure of a system and being taxed to high hell for it, they would be able to help their kids a lot more. But instead private schoolers and home schoolers have to pay for their own kids' education AND everyone else's. That's why the public school system can usually only be escaped by rich kids or those who win a charter school lottery. Parents want to help their kids; they usually have so little time to do so.




The "free money" just goes to an abyss of unacountable waste anyway! If you knew 29 other parents (hypothetically; I don't know what the exact ratios are) and pooled your money to hire a great teacher & a security guard & a janitor and rent a classroom & materials to teach them all how much would you pay? $660,000? I don't think you would. BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING ALREADY! The question is who should get that money? Should it be parents? Or should should it be principals, assistant principals, more assistant principals, counselors, psychologists, landscapers, janitors, "heads of diversity," the ferderal department of education, state department of education, local departments of education, the text book cartel, office workers... basically an ARMY of bureaucrats you literally have to pay until the day they die!



No it can't. It really can't. It will never work. It will always be wasteful, ineffective and benefit only rich kids. Remember that you're paying that money anyway! Right now! The money is there; it's just the money doens't go to help kids; it goes to prop up pensions.



Hell yes! In Washington D.C. One of the first things Barac Obama did when he was elected was end the D.C. voucher program that was a huge success.



Not if the government never gets to decide where the money is spent. It's all about who decides where the money goes. There will be moron parents in my idea who do nothing to help their kids, but there are already a lot more moron parents who already do nothing to help their kids. The ones who WANT to help their kids would be able to afford to do so if they got the money instead of the government.



Subsidies always inflate the prices of things. Corn, college tuition, health care, etc. Vouchers would would help bring down health care spending too (which is why I like the Paul Ryan plan).



Your worries are founded. There will be problems any way you do it. I just think with the track record private & home schoolers have they deserve a little more freedom over the disasterous track record of public schools.

How do you know that home schooling kids that are or would be in public schools will be more effective? How do you know that private schools that would pop up would do a better job than public schools?
You rail against subsidies in the same post in which you recommend additional subsidies.

 

[NinerSickness]

How do you know that home schooling kids that are or would be in public schools will be more effective? How do you know that private schools that would pop up would do a better job than public schools?

Because they do already. By a HUGE margin.

You rail against subsidies in the same post in which you recommend additional subsidies.

I didn't recommend additional subsidies. The subsidies are already there. I recommend that parents decide how that money is spent rather than government. If anything the subsidies should be lowered; but private & home schools deserve the same amount of money as public schools.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

EXACTLY! CAN AFFORD TO. That's why I suport school vouchers for private and home school. Both would be drastically less expensive and more effective than the piece of crap public system.



It would never get as bad as public schools though simply because a kid with a real authority figure around and lots of attention (as opposed to being one of 35 kids in a class) will not only do better on tests; they'll do better in life.



Look at it this way: parents who want to home school their kids or send 'em to private school can't because they can't afford to. If they received vouchers to do what THEY thought best for their kids, instead of getting force fed a cookie cutter failure of a system and being taxed to high hell for it, they would be able to help their kids a lot more. But instead private schoolers and home schoolers have to pay for their own kids' education AND everyone else's. That's why the public school system can usually only be escaped by rich kids or those who win a charter school lottery. Parents want to help their kids; they usually have so little time to do so.




The "free money" just goes to an abyss of unacountable waste anyway! If you knew 29 other parents (hypothetically; I don't know what the exact ratios are) and pooled your money to hire a great teacher & a security guard & a janitor and rent a classroom & materials to teach them all how much would you pay? $660,000? I don't think you would. BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING ALREADY! The question is who should get that money? Should it be parents? Or should should it be principals, assistant principals, more assistant principals, counselors, psychologists, landscapers, janitors, "heads of diversity," the ferderal department of education, state department of education, local departments of education, the text book cartel, office workers... basically an ARMY of bureaucrats you literally have to pay until the day they die!



No it can't. It really can't. It will never work. It will always be wasteful, ineffective and benefit only rich kids. Remember that you're paying that money anyway! Right now! The money is there; it's just the money doens't go to help kids; it goes to prop up pensions.



Hell yes! In Washington D.C. One of the first things Barac Obama did when he was elected was end the D.C. voucher program that was a huge success.



Not if the government never gets to decide where the money is spent. It's all about who decides where the money goes. There will be moron parents in my idea who do nothing to help their kids, but there are already a lot more moron parents who already do nothing to help their kids. The ones who WANT to help their kids would be able to afford to do so if they got the money instead of the government.



Subsidies always inflate the prices of things. Corn, college tuition, health care, etc. Vouchers would would help bring down health care spending too (which is why I like the Paul Ryan plan).



Your worries are founded. There will be problems any way you do it. I just think with the track record private & home schoolers have they deserve a little more freedom over the disasterous track record of public schools.

You didn't really address MHSL's main point: how do you verify that parents are in fact home-schooling their kids instead of just collecting a check and letting their kids do what they will? That seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

I'm open to a voucher system, but paying parents to home school is far too easily abused. At best I might consider some sort of tax break for parents who home school.

Btw, your $22K figure is from NJ, the state that spends the most in the country on education per student (and, it's worth mentioning, has one of the more effective educational systems). The figure in most states is much closer to $12K than $22K. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to keep using the highest figure in the country as your example?

 

[NinerSickness]

You didn't really address MHSL's main point: how do you verify that parents are in fact home-schooling their kids instead of just collecting a check and letting their kids do what they will? That seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

How do you verify if a kid doesn't just go to school & zone out all day & go smoke weed with his friends at 2:45? You can't. There will always be stupid and incompetant people. But the averages are on my side - like I said: by a HUGE margin.

Btw, your $22K figure is from NJ, the state that spends the most in the country on education per student (and, it's worth mentioning, has one of the more effective educational systems). The figure in most states is much closer to $12K than $22K. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to keep using the highest figure in the country as your example?

Fair enough. I'll use my home state of Commufornia. I can't find the current pupil - teacher ratio, but in '07 it was 25. Per pupil spending varries by district. (LAUSD spent $29,780 per pupil in '07 by the way). Can't find the average, so let's use your figure of $12K. That's still $300K per year in a classroom (it would be $744,500 in LAUSD). That's out of control. $300K for 3/25ths the attention a parent of 3 could give their kids.

By the way: LAUSD math proficiency: 43%. English? 44%. But some people are worried about home schoolers?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

How do you verify if a kid doesn't just go to school & zone out all day & go smoke weed with his friends at 2:45? You can't. There will always be stupid and incompetant people. But the averages are on my side - like I said: by a HUGE margin.



Fair enough. I'll use my home state of Commufornia. I can't find the current pupil - teacher ratio, but in '07 it was 25. Per pupil spending varries by district. (LAUSD spent $29,780 per pupil in '07 by the way). Can't find the average, so let's use your figure of $12K. That's still $300K per year in a classroom (it would be $744,500 in LAUSD). That's out of control. $300K for 3/25ths the attention a parent of 3 could give their kids.[/i]

One of my problems with your idea is that it gives preference to people who are themselves educated and threatens to create an uneducated or poorly educated underclass. I suppose I should say it threatens to maintain rather than create, as we already have that, but I think this exacerbates it. Parents without an education are not in a position to teach their own kids, regardless of how much attention they can give them. This favors wealthier families and two-parent households.

And you still havent' addressed the crucial problems with paying people to "home school" without any sort of proposed enforcement mechanism. Not to mention you're basically creating a welfare payment system based on the number of children a family has. Do you really support that?

 

[NinerSickness]

One of my problems with your idea is that it gives preference to people who are themselves educated and threatens to create an uneducated or poorly educated underclass.

So does the current system. That factor is EXACTLY the same.

Parents without an education are not in a position to teach their own kids, regardless of how much attention they can give them.

Then they could take the $12K or whatever and send 'em to private school and get a refund for 50% of the difference at the end of the year. Or they could just use the whole $12K and send 'em to public school and get nothing back.

This favors wealthier families and two-parent households.

The current system benefits wealthier families! Now only rich kids get a good education, and the rest of us schmucks have to settle for craptastic public school (like I did).

And you still havent' addressed the crucial problems with paying people to "home school" without any sort of proposed enforcement mechanism.

There could be a standardized reading & math test & a 3 strikes thing. I'm hesitant to support that because it can be abused, but I'd be open to it. Fail 3 times and you have to send your kid to private or public school maybe. Even with no enforcement it would be no different than public school kids who get no education.

Not to mention you're basically creating a welfare payment system based on the number of children a family has. Do you really support that?

There ALREADY is a welfare system for how many kids people have. Except that welfare money never makes it to the kids; it goes to state bureaucrats.

You see what would happen? That $12K figure, which NEVER goes down... ever... in the current system, would start to decline without any ill effects because private / home schoolers can already do it better & cheaper than public schools.

 

[sayheykid1]

You're already subsidizing their education. It's just you're giving them one that sucks in comparison (obviously that's not your fault).

I don't want to encourage people to have children that they can keep home and collect $22k per kid and do absolutely nothing.

 

[sayheykid1]

Because they do already. By a HUGE margin.

That is not a good argument and you know why.

 

[NinerSickness]

I don't want to encourage people to have children that they can keep home and collect $22k per kid and do absolutely nothing.

Which is why, as I replied to Crimson, they could have some sort of minimal standardized testing standards if that were a point of contention. And home schoolers would kick those tests' asses most of the time like they alreday do.

 

[sayheykid1]

How do you verify if a kid doesn't just go to school & zone out all day & go smoke weed with his friends at 2:45? You can't. There will always be stupid and incompetant people. But the averages are on my side - like I said: by a HUGE margin.




Fair enough. I'll use my home state of Commufornia. I can't find the current pupil - teacher ratio, but in '07 it was 25. Per pupil spending varries by district. (LAUSD spent $29,780 per pupil in '07 by the way). Can't find the average, so let's use your figure of $12K. That's still $300K per year in a classroom (it would be $744,500 in LAUSD). That's out of control. $300K for 3/25ths the attention a parent of 3 could give their kids.

By the way: LAUSD math proficiency: 43%. English? 44%. But some people are worried about home schoolers?

Do you have a link to these figures?
Public School Per-Student Spending Increases As State Funding Decreases | Fox News

Are you going to try become a public or private school teacher?

 

[sayheykid1]

Which is why, as I replied to Crimson, they could have some sort of minimal standardized testing standards if that were a point of contention. And home schoolers would kick those tests' asses most of the time like they alreday do.

More bureaucracy? That system seems like it would need a lot of administration.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

This one sets up a lot like the Tiger ex-wife story. People are inclined to make snap judgments but background info can completely change the context.

 

[NinerSickness]

I don't think that system I suggested would need a lot of administration at all. Not compared to the current system anyway. And I definitely want to go in to public school teaching. For the money. Easy.

By the way this isn't my ideal system. Ideally there would be no public school, and educations would acquired the same way people acquire food. They would go out and get them, and people would compete against each other to do it better. And if people were very poor I would support a voucher for them to get their kids an education the same way I support food stamps. But it would only be for poor people of course.

P.S. I don't know if the figures we've been using includes money given to retired people in the education system. Does anyone know if that is included? It should be. It's eventually could be the biggest chunk.