Election q: what's important to you?

All they seem to be doing the last two years is teaching kids how to take those tests. My daughter came home the other day and told us that her teacher informed the whole class that if they did poorly on the test then their parent's taxes would be going up.

 

Education is the most important to me. I make my living in the public education space. My concern: it takes around $10K per year to educate a child in Texas but the state only provides about $6200 per year. Gov Perry says it is close to $11K but he is "cooking the books" to make it appear that way.

Meanwhile, kids are failing at an alarming rate. In some districts, they have no money for resources but they are building a new football stadium and buying new football uniforms. I guess that tells you what is important in Texas.

 

Most teachers do not have that much time during the day to properly plan for the next day/week and grade papers, answer parents questions, etc. Every teacher I know either goes to work an hour or so early or works an hour or so after work. It's still not late (I know what that feels like ) but obviously most people don't know about that aspect. In service days without the kids? Usually they have to attend training or prepare for upcoming parent/teacher conferences, not the day-to-day stuff. They do also have to meet with parents, and since most of them work, that doesn't happen during the day either. All part of the gig, but most people don't consider it. All you hear is that "they have summers off" yada, yada, yada... (Which is nice, for sure!)

I didn’t mean to make it sound like teachers had it bad, in fact I believe my posts said it was a decent gig but only that they aren’t paid enough. I’m surprised how many people think teachers are over paid; my comments were more directed towards them. When you compare their education requirements and their responsibilities (image the responsibility and influence they have over kids!) with green engineers (for example), it’s a big gap in pay. As for education requirements for teachers, to be certified they HAVE to have a Bachelors degree. In the state of Ohio, all new teachers (for the past couple of years) are required to get their Masters within so many years (I don’t know the exact number). Every year all teachers have to have xx credits in continuing education. Some of that can be “fluff” from seminars, etc, but not all of it. Many school districts do not reimburse the teacher’s tuition at all, some do some percentage and a very few pay for it all. So we are going to require you to continue your education but we aren’t going to pay for it, and we’ll still pay you less than you would make in the business sector. Compare that again to the business sector, most jobs don’t require you to continue your education beyond the training they provide and if you do they will reimburse you for it. Again, just to make sure everyone is clear on this: I didn’t say teachers had it bad, but they are NOT over paid. Most teachers know all of this before starting and do it anyhow.

As for firing teachers for teaching the test, you’ll be firing almost all of them in certain grade levels. Funding is directly attached to the results of these tests. Also keep in mind teachers do not make up the curriculum, the school districts do.

As for Bush's plan taking years to work, the fact is that it is not and will not work. That's ok, I'm not calling him a piece of shit over it, but it has to be fixed, adjusted, whatever. It probably has some good points (I'm still looking) and I believe the intentions were good... That's why I am interested to what the candidates (including him) have to say...

 

90% of all teacher in-service days are used for Professional Development. The demands on teachers are very high. They must create a scope and sequence that matches state standards, write a lesson plan, course syllabus, and in most states they have to teach to a standardized year end test. This means they teach to the test which prevents true understand of the subject matter imo. They have to this with zero resources while making about $30K a year.

 

There are alot of pressures on teachers. It is horseshit that they are forced to teach the exam. Keep in mind guys, teachers shouldn't be creating a new lesson plan everyday. The same lesson plans should be used and just modified each year as necessary. Too damn many teachers re-invent the wheel. Plus lesson plans aren't that damn difficult to write and they should be shared as much as possible.

That is also crap that the teachers aren't getting paid for continuing education. But then again, hospital employees have some of the worst medical benefits out there. Hmm kind of ass backwards I would say. Most technical or certification-required jobs require continuing education.

That is interesting that Ohio can force teachers to get a Masters but doesn't help with tuition. Interesting meaning that sucks.

TEACHERS ARE DEFINITELY NOT OVER PAID. They are alot like cops and firefighters... never appreciated until you are affected directly.

 

That sucks.

I actually got accused of teaching exams before when teaching in the Navy's nuclear field. Then I asked my accusers how I could teach a test I had never seen? They quickly shut their damn pieholes... plus I threatened to bust their asses.

 

You expect President Bush to educate your kids? Try placing education shortfalls a little closer to home. He has more important things to do.
You don't have to wait years to know if we were intentionally mislead about the war, we weren't. The issue was Saddam's failure to comply with resolution after resolution to allow weapons inspections. We should have gone in years ago, the first time he started playing games with the inspectors.
The tax cuts were a step in the right direction, but candidates who support the Fair Tax will get my vote. It would be the single biggest step we could make to get this country headed in the right direction.
Abortion isn't going to change and should not.
Gun control is one issue the Feds should get involved in. The cities and states that make it difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns should be made aware of the Second Amendment.
Crime would drop drastically if the Feds would take a realistic approach to drugs. They didn't learn a thing from Prohibition.

 

yes isr. (wait for the rediculous reply)

 

Re: Re: Election q: what's important to you?

Before you vote, you should do a little more research on the impact the Federal Goverment (starting with the Prez) has on education. You should also review what President Bush's platform contained the last time he was elected. I didn't ask him to educate my kids, nor do I expect/want him to. He PROMISED to work to improve the school system. I suspect more than a few people voted for him because of that promise (I did). He DID pass a bill (or a serious of bills) to that effect, remember "Leave no Kid behind?" Public schools get a huge percentage of their funding from state and federal goverments. Without the Fed funding (which his bills control) the districts either have to cut teachers, programs, maintenance budget or attempt to raise local taxes usually in the form of levies. The bottom line is that his programs have not and will not have the desired effect (read the posts in this thread for some examples), they should be changed or somehow explain how they may eventually work (good luck on that one). Silly ol' me, expecting a Prez to do what he promised...

As for the reason behind the war, I in no way don't believe that we didn't do the right thing and I fully support our troops, but the Prez based it on two things (to my recollection) 1) Iraq is an immediate threat to the US and 2) he HAS weapons of mass destruction. To me, neither have been proven without a doubt one way or the other. The weapons inspections was a last ditch attempt to appease the UN, not why we went to war. (Forgive me if my memory is foggy, that's how I remember it). I do agree we should have cleaned his ass out years ago...

I too like the Fair Tax approach...

 

Sorry Slider but the prez has a lot to do with educating kids. Read the mandate called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The president has control of what federal money is received by the schools and if there is one thing that educates kids, it is money.

If school districts dont not show improvement in annual yearly progress (AYP) related to standardized tests they are put on probation. If after another year the students still do not pass the standardized test, they district has to pay for tutoring services. In the third year if students do not pass the district must pay to transport the student to the school of their choice, and in the 4 year if they do not pass the district is taken over by the state and all leadership replaced. This was mandated by NCLB which is President Bush' law. So, the President has a tremendous impact on educating children.

You are spot on with the other issues raised in your post. I also wonder how big of a factor gay marriage is going to be this election year?

 

Actual results don't bear out on this. Washington DC has an extremely highly funded system which produces terrible results.
In the past few decades, school funding has been increased at a rate far higher than inflation, while student test scores have steadily dropped.
Massachusetts is a great example, they have had a funding initiative underway for over a decade, plowing incredible amounts of money into the system. Lawrence MA alone receives over 90 million a year from the state alone, yet they have one of the highest drop-out rates in the state and their students test at very low levels.

Unfortunately, funding has never been tied to results. Bush's system is not the answer, however. School funding has already been increased tremendously while Bush has been in office with no positive results (or public acknowledgement). In fact, there are only increased demands for even larger increases. The fact is, no amount of money will ever be enough or improve the public school system.

The only thing that will work is to let the parents choose to put their kids in a private school and take their money with them.
The good teachers who are doing their jobs can then seek employment with the private schools. Public school administration will then be required to run their schools like a business, that is, get results for the money spent. As long as public schools have access to the taxpayers open wallet with no requirements to do a good job, extra money put into the system will be wasted, just as it is now.

 

most private schools are funded less per student then public. Often with much better student out come. I know locally the ratio is almost $3 public to $1 private.

 

While this is true, this is a good example of statistics not telling the whole story. The main reason that students typically do better in private schools is (drum roll please) the PARENTS. This is right to Brad's point (which was an excellent one). The folks that pay for their kids to go to school usually are more involved with their kid's education and do whatever they can to make sure they do their best. There are definately parents in public schools that do that, mine did and I intend to with my kids, but you also have the rift-raft trash that only use their kids to increase the size of their goverment checks. This is why (IMO) the voucher system didn't work as well as it was expected. No matter where your kids go to school, if you as the parent aren't involved and informed, it is very rare the kids will do well. This is also why many less-funded rural schools do better than mega-funded schools in cities, like DC. In general, people who own property are more involved in their kids and communities than renters. The school district where I live is small, not that overly well funded, and not necessarily that weathly of a community (not poor, more working-middle class on average) but it is consistantly rated as one of the highest districts in Ohio. Why? The parents are involved. Brad is correct that is item #1. But that does not absolve the district, or any candidate who promises to help improve education from responsibility. We've all heard the saying that our number 1 resource is our kids... Don't cut funding, that will only make it worse. Rather, make the schools responsible for the quality of the product. Prez Bush plan was to do just that, but it isn't working. Learn from it and move on... It isn't going to be easy...

 

Re: Re: Re: Election q: what's important to you?

Looks to me like Bush kept his promise. More funding for education with accountability in the form of tests. The problem is school systems trying to get the funding without having to actually teach.
Your memory has been fogged by too much media spin. Saddam agreed to dismantle his WMDs, which he had used on many occasions so we know they exist, and allow inspectors to verify the weapons were destroyed. This was the agreement that kept the US from finishing the Gulf War in '92. He never lived up to his agreement, hindering inspectors and finally ejecting them in, I think '98. We should have shown him we were serious the first time he blocked the inspector access.
What you refer to as a last ditch appeasment was the last of many.

 

So the President pushed the funding through in an effort to to improve education with the provision that there is accountability. I'm not sure what else is expected of him in this area.

 

This should be a non-issue but needs to be settled once and for all. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Election q: what's important to you?

I never said he didn't try, I said it isn't working, time for a new/different/better plan. I think your interperation of the problem is wrong, about what I would expect Rush Limbaugh to say. "Can't be a Republican President's fault, it must be the evil school administrators and those over paid teachers! Hey, anyone seen my pain killers?!"

Oh, I remember all the WMD agreements and the inspectors being blocked many times. The sat photos of the inspectors going in a complex and trucks going out the back. I agree 100%, no doubt we should have done it them. I also remember a certain President stating in his state of the union address that we had intelligence that Iraq was trying to buy nuke materials from (I think it was ) South Africa. He (and his staff) also said numerous other times that he knew for a fact he still had the weapons. Right now neither item has been proven, and in fact I believe the nuke and the alumimun missile parts have been proven to be debuked... As I recall, it was more like "He has WMDs, let's get him! See, he won't even let us look! That's proof! He's the biggest threat to our national security!" rather than "He has turned away the inspectors again, let's get him!" as reason given for the war. But I agree 100% that it really is to early to be certain that the WMDs didn'tdon't exist. While we were f*cking around with the UN, it would have been easy for him to sneak them out...

But back to the real question of the thread: what do you plan to look at (in regards to current issues) in the candidates you vote for? My answer was quite simple, what are they going to do about education in this country. Instead of blindly defending (or critizing) the current adminstration, what do the rest of you regard as your number one consideration?

 

Make sure that the method of accountability actually indicates something useful? I like the idea, but it needs some more work...

 

Why?

Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, confers very specific legal rights to the spouse. Why should gays not have the same legal rights as straight couples? Legally, a marriage creates a separate entity in the eyes of the law. You now have you, your spouse, and the married couple together as separate legal entities. Married couples also have legal rights to make decisions for their spouses. Why shouldn't a gay couple have that same right?

If you don't approve of it, then don't get married in a gay ceremony. Beyond that, it doesn't concern anyone who's not standing at the altar at that moment.

By the same token, if consenting adults want to engage in polygamy, I don't have any problem with that either. All we're talking about is the legal right to join yourself together with another person. Gender issues and what you poke where don't enter into the equation as I see it.

 

well I think they should have a legal friends and family plan.