ijusluvit....I personally have great respect and appreciation for your family's contribution to education. My wife is a retired teacher and administrator who worked in a large system. One of the things that troubled her was those little notices in her school mailbox from the teachers union advising them to vote for the democrats because they supported the teachers. Of course they were printed and copied on school paper and school time. Time taken from teaching obligations they profess are "for the kids." She also belonged to the union but never agreed with their political activism using the school communications system to lobby for candidates. Have you ever received those little union arm twisters in your school mailbox or is it just a northeast thing?

Donna,most private parochial schools get to pick who gets in either through an exam or by who can afford the tuition. This method tends to cull the poor and the average or under average achievers out. If any of these students do turn out to be trouble-makers they are dismissed and sent back to the public schools. I also think that parents who sends their child to a private school tend to value an education more than some parents and if the tuition is high enough the pocketbook becomes an issue also. I also think that if you look at their curriculum compared to a public school curriculum the basics are valued much more. Most private schools stress the core subjects.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

The despair, frustration and the lack of hope I feel in Donna's post asking for sweeping change in the educational system makes me sit up and take notice. IMHO, that type of frustration; although justified and based on proven facts, sometimes leads to the wrong kind of change.

In her post Donna hinted at the ruination of our educational system by the ineptness of tenured teachers and the greed of unions. To criticize her, IMO, for the broad sweeping comment made out of frustration to get rid of all of the teachers and to start over is the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't think Donna deserved the comment. Donna, like me, you and tens of thousands in this country are frustrated. If our frustration is vented amongst our families, friends, coworkers and on forums like TOV and stops here it does serve a purpose. But it shouldn't stop there.

After we educate ourselves and are justifiable riled up, we have to express our opinions through our right to vote. Not just on the state and national level, but more importantly, on the local level. I can't give up on a world that my grandfather worked to build and my 90 year old father fought to give me and the lifestyle that I and my hardworking husband work to substain.

My grandfather, born in 1893, was raised on a farm in Virginia where the railroad had never even laid a track. His family, like most in that generation, were strong-willed, hardworking, and self-sufficient. He dreamed of being a school teacher. He managed to get educated and borrow a neighbor's horse to get to a railroad station to ride for days at the promise of a teaching job in the coalfield in the Common School system.

To quote Diane Ravitch, author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education , "I have not changed my fundamental belief that all children should have a great education that includes not just basic skills, but history, literature, geography,, civics, the arts, science, foreign languages, and physical education. I have never changed my wish that all children should have well-educated teachers who love their subjects and are well prepared to teach them to their students. I have never changed my skepticism about fads, miracles, and silver bullets, which come and go with great frequency in U.S. education. I have never abandoned my respect for the men and women who teach children and do the daily work that others (including me) talk and write about."

We must go back to the days when our teachers were taught to teach our children.

PS Sally Jo, God bless you for being a school teacher. No offense intended, I'm just saying this outta frustration, but please learn to use spell check. We all make mistakes, but saying you are a former teacher and not spelling "teacher" or "graduation" correctly...??

Excellent post BK. I can see that you gave it much thought and you articulated it very well.
I respect people in any trade or profession who admits the faults and wants to improve them and not turn a blind eye.

Originally Posted by waynet

Donna,most private parochial schools get to pick who gets in either through an exam or by who can afford the tuition. This method tends to cull the poor and the average or under average achievers out. If any of these students do turn out to be trouble-makers they are dismissed and sent back to the public schools. I also think that parents who sends their child to a private school tend to value an education more than some parents and if the tuition is high enough the pocketbook becomes an issue also. I also think that if you look at their curriculum compared to a public school curriculum the basics are valued much more. Most private schools stress the core subjects.

I think we have reached common ground, waynet. I personally know parents of average students who are going into debt and are living in sub par conditions in order to give their children a decent education. In any event, if they don't attend college after high school, they will still be miles ahead of the average government (public) school graduate.

" Can someone who is more articulate and conversant with this stimulus thing answer a simple question for me? According to the link provided, over 400,000 education jobs were created or saved by Obama's stimulus funding. How will it be funded next year?

Can anyone give an example of a stimulus incentive that will not require the continuous, increasing and perpetual infusion of equal or greater future tax dollars?

I would also like to know who the recipients of the education stimulus cash were and how they were selected.....or would that be connected. "

I'm not articulate and don't have a lot of knowledge with the stimulus, but I'll give your questions a try for the sake of discussion.

Unless another stimulus is passed, there won't be any more of the money that created or saved those jobs. Unless the money is in the local budget, the jobs will be cut. This money was, IMHO, a blown up life preserver with a leak and no life boat in sight. States and local governments will have to tighten their belts.

According to an excellent article in the NY Times, "About $65 billion of the $100 billion in education stimulus money went to states in three pots: $39.5 billion as part of a stabilization fund intended to bolster the finances of state public education systems, $13 billion for the federal program for poor students known as Title I, and $12.2 billion for students with disabilities. Congress directed the rest of the $100 billion to smaller initiatives, including $4.3 billion to a school improvement grant program the Obama administration calls Race to the Top."

Localities had to apply for the money through the state. I think distribution on the state level is based on a complex formula which includes, among other things, a ratio which consists of a daily count of students at each particular school.

I'll have to think about an example of a stimulus incentive that will not require continuous, increasing and perperutal infusion of equal or greater future tax dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/ed...=10&sq=&st=nyt

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

" Can someone who is more articulate and conversant with this stimulus thing answer a simple question for me? According to the link provided, over 400,000 education jobs were created or saved by Obama's stimulus funding. How will it be funded next year?

Can anyone give an example of a stimulus incentive that will not require the continuous, increasing and perpetual infusion of equal or greater future tax dollars?

I would also like to know who the recipients of the education stimulus cash were and how they were selected.....or would that be connected. "

I'm not articulate and don't have a lot of knowledge with the stimulus, but I'll give your questions a try for the sake of discussion.

Unless another stimulus is passed, there won't be any more of the money that created or saved those jobs. Unless the money is in the local budget, the jobs will be cut. This money was, IMHO, a blown up life preserver with a leak and no life boat in sight. States and local governments will have to tighten their belts.

According to an excellent article in the NY Times, "About $65 billion of the $100 billion in education stimulus money went to states in three pots: $39.5 billion as part of a stabilization fund intended to bolster the finances of state public education systems, $13 billion for the federal program for poor students known as Title I, and $12.2 billion for students with disabilities. Congress directed the rest of the $100 billion to smaller initiatives, including $4.3 billion to a school improvement grant program the Obama administration calls Race to the Top."

Localities had to apply for the money through the state. I think distribution on the state level is based on a complex formula which includes, among other things, a ratio which consists of a daily count of students at each particular school.

I'll have to think about an example of a stimulus incentive that will not require continuous, increasing and perperutal infusion of equal or greater future tax dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/ed...=10&sq=&st=nyt

Good job BK....

Question...

Did not a few governors question accepting funds due to the condition attached to continue in the future ? Does this not make us even more dependent on federal government ?

I love to read. I hope you do too and my links to articles isn't annoying. The Wall Street Journal has a story that answers each of the questions about stipulations in the 2009 Stimulus Package. And yes, some states like Texas and Indiana turned down parts of the money.

How can it not make you dependent on the federal government? Combined deficits for the states for the 2010-2011 fiscal years is expected to total more than $260 billion. BILLION

According to the article, "stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.

"Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.

"One provision prohibits states from cutting Medicaid benefits or eligibility below levels in effect on July 1, 2008. That date, not coincidentally, was the peak of the last economic cycle when states were awash in revenue. State spending soared at a nearly 8% annual rate from 2004-2008, far faster than inflation and population growth, and liberals want to keep funding at that level."

To me it's sorta like taking a payday loan. You know the kind where they charge you astronomical fees and interest against a loan based on your upcoming paycheck. If you can't pay it back, the payday loan people will keep extending the loan and interest until you spiral into such a mess you may never recover.

I say, try every thing possible to survive and wait until you get your paycheck.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...460370644.html

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

I love to read. I hope you do too and my links to articles isn't annoying. The Wall Street Journal has a story that answers each of the questions about stipulations in the 2009 Stimulus Package. And yes, some states like Texas and Indiana turned down parts of the money.

How can it not make you dependent on the federal government? Combined deficits for the states for the 2010-2011 fiscal years is expected to total more than $260 billion. BILLION

According to the article, "stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.

"Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.

"One provision prohibits states from cutting Medicaid benefits or eligibility below levels in effect on July 1, 2008. That date, not coincidentally, was the peak of the last economic cycle when states were awash in revenue. State spending soared at a nearly 8% annual rate from 2004-2008, far faster than inflation and population growth, and liberals want to keep funding at that level."

To me it's sorta like taking a payday loan. You know the kind where they charge you astronomical fees and interest against a loan based on your upcoming paycheck. If you can't pay it back, the payday loan people will keep extending the loan and interest until you spiral into such a mess you may never recover.

I say, try every thing possible to survive and wait until you get your paycheck.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...460370644.html

Just wanted to respond to you to say that your links certainly dont bother me at all, fact is I LOVE them, as I am also a voracious reader....not a great poster but also post quite a few links.

I also like to read BOTH sides....some of the news sites (I like realclearpolitics) will give you opinion pieces from both sides of the aisle and I enjoy reading both. I also KNOW when I read some others it is skewed but that is ok as long as I know it !

Keep the informative links coming.

BK....your posts are always well thought out and the links interesting, relevant and anything but annoying. Count me with those that appreciate the time you put into "spreading knowledge". Keep them coming.

Bucco & Cabo,

Since respect and recognition of good posts is now in order, I'll pass along a pat on the back to you two, with a comment:

Bucco, Don't assume that because I object to the 'education sucks' position I don't think there are problems with politics, funding etc. It's just that I have personally seen amazingly good things done in schools of all kinds. I have seen standards rise (do you know what percentage of students graduated from high school in 1950 vs 2000?) I have seen many kids and families survive incredible poverty and other disadvantages then prosper because of their schooling and some educators who took a personal interest in them. Schools are fundamentally good and society needs to continue strong support to make them even better. Forgive me, but that includes financial support.

Cabo, Never in forty years did I see a political flyer in a school mailbox. Nor did I see a political endorsement of any kind in a school related document. In our diverse metropolitan area of in New York State, it would have been a public scandal if anyone was caught using school supplies for political purposes. Even the evil groups (teachers unions) were scrupulous about not showing any political preferences except by direct mail to members or in meetings outside of the school environment.

Cabo,I must agree with ijusluvit. I taught school for 35 years in CT. and never found anything in my mailbox telling me who to vote for. Did the Education association endorse a candidate? Of course. Did anyone put a political statement in my mailbox telling me who to vote for.....never. There are lots of things wrong with our educational system but political intmidation is not one of them.

Originally Posted by waynet

Cabo,I must agree with ijusluvit. I taught school for 35 years in CT. and never found anything in my mailbox telling me who to vote for. Did the Education association endorse a candidate? Of course. Did anyone put a political statement in my mailbox telling me who to vote for.....never. There are lots of things wrong with our educational system but political intmidation is not one of them.

Sorry to hear from a Teacher that Political intimidation is not the problem.
How did did you miss that it is all about unions and politics.

I really dont care what the post is about. I will repeat,I was never intimidated to vote for anyone ,ever whether it be my local union or the national union.

Originally Posted by cashman

Sorry to hear from a Teacher that Political intimidation is not the problem.
How did did you miss that it is all about unions and politics.

And I am sorry to say that as wild generalizations go, this is a All-Time Whopper. There is no basis of truth in your statement.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

And I am sorry to say that as wild generalizations go, this is a All-Time Whopper. There is no basis of truth in your statement.

That should be "this is an All-Time Whopper." Just kidding. Having a little fun this morning.
One thing stands out in one of your posts. You give the statistic that there are more high school graduates in the year 2000, as compared to 1950. That seems like a very hollow statistic standing on it's own merit with nothing more to add to it.
What is more important is the quality of education that the diploma represents, not how many diploma's are given out on any particular year or generation.
I once read that the high school graduate of yesteryear was the equivalence of a second year in college today. Many educators complain that a large percentage high school graduates of today need remedial classes to catch up to college standards and they are shocked at what the high school graduates don't know.

Now, this is a generalization and your miles may vary, but I have personally talked to 20 and 30 year olds and I am amazed at what they do not know. When did they stop teaching the basics?
Now before you get your panties tied in a knot, I, in no way, am blaming the teachers as much as I am questioning the people who construct the curriculum.
Do any teachers here agree or are they so deeply entrenched in the system that they do not see the trees from the forest?