Hi Andy ---
Interesting. My wife is an educator. 3rd Grd. She agrees that this would not only be a good thing but a GREAT thing. Most Americans are not aware of how many dollars are spent out of the pocket of teachers in the classrooms they teach in. 95% or more in some cases of the materials you see posted on the walls in classrooms today are PAID FOR BY TEACHERs out of their own pockets! The PTAs help tremendously - but usually to rais money in fundraisers to buy CAPITAL equipment and to fund school renovations. Sad, but true. At least in the North East.

My wife has purchased, file cabinets, bulletin boards, storage boxes, donated our old PCs, paid for even small book cases out of necessity. Sure they are hers, and she gets to keep them, but they are not in my home, they are in the school! Not one penny reinmbursed other than a small tax deduction!

I just asked her, for this comment, what she thought of the plan you described. She said, "It will never happen." "Not that the NEA would not support it, all teachers would support it as well as the unions, because not enough money EVER makes it into the classroom." "School Administrators, not the NEA Teachers Union would be the onse that would say NO they could not afford it." [ Too many people confuse the two dynamics - zzb]

"After all", she said, "Somebody has to pay for the the gross mismanagement, and the 'good old boy politics' in the schood districts around the country." "THAT's where the real waste is".

The NEA has the worst Public Relations for teachers. They should be behind something like this 100%, but she suspects they are in the pockets of Dept of Education infrasturcture and like all powerful lobbies, have their own particular palms to grease.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ZZ Bachman / ZardozZ News & Satire Portal

i gotta go with ZZ on this one..

far too many times the Teachers are blamed for so much that really belongs in the hands of the School Administrators (not part of the NEA) as well as the local schoold boards (also nto part of the NEA, but elected locally and the officials that set the budgets and how the money is spent)

let the Fed put money into it's unfunded mandates, and shift more of the actual revenue into the classroom and out of the Superintendant's office and it can be nothing but good

would that all folks on the GOP side were the same type of thinking, ethical "conservatives" that George Will is..

that i could live with

Excelsior!

Yes.. George will has his moments..

Wait and see who screams about it...

I don't blame teachers, I blame the teachers union. I know plenty of great teachers. I have teenage daughters and teachers and admin folks know who I am. I know where the waste is and I agree with the gross mismanagement theory, but somehow, I still know that the NEA will bitch about this issue.

Only 65%? Why not more like 80%? That's typical of what private schools spend in the classroom. Most of the rest goes for facilities and utilities and almost none of it goes for administrative personnel.

Whatever happened to the idea of teacher/administrators? I'd like every administrator to be required to be a teacher and to teach one class in addition to their administrative duties.

Dave

Dave,
Very observant. Few private schools that I know of give out free lunches or truck their students to and from school. Nor do they have many psychologists and counsellors to provide services that may or may not be needed.

I've seen articles where administrators complain that rural districts will be hurt hardest because of the extraordinary transportation needs of students. While I'm sure they have large transportation budgets, I would like some numbers as to whether they are hit disproportionately harder.

>>Very observant. Few private schools that I know of give out free lunches or truck their students to and from school. Nor do they have many psychologists and counsellors to provide services that may or may not be needed.<<

True enough. When my daughter went to an urban public school some years ago when we lived in the city, all the kids could easily walk to the school with the exception of a small number of handicapped kids.

>>I've seen articles where administrators complain that rural districts will be hurt hardest because of the extraordinary transportation needs of students. While I'm sure they have large transportation budgets, I would like some numbers as to whether they are hit disproportionately harder.<<

I wonder in the case of rural schools why parents, who have to drive to get to work or anywhere else, can't drive the kids to school on the way. Even here in Texas the rural schools aren't that insanely far from where folks actually live.

If bidgetary strictures were put on schools and teachers were put in charge of the schools themselves, then I bet they would come up with ways to save money in other areas to keep the teacher salaries at a reasonable level.

Dave

That's BULLSHIT! I went to catholic school most of my life and I was ALWAYS bussed to school. In some instances I had to take 2 or 3 different busses to school.

I just heard on the radio up here in the blue state of Oregon from a retired school teacher that back in the day it used to be one administrator for every 7 teachers now it's more like 3 or 4 administrators to every 7 teachers. Easy way to make sure that more money gets to the classroom is to get rid of these administrators that serve no function and if you've spent any time in a school you know damn well that there are plenty of them!

Dave Nalle sez..
*I wonder in the case of rural schools why parents, who have to drive to get to work or anywhere else, can't drive the kids to school on the way.*

put aside tha in some rural school districts the facility can be as much as 20 or more miles away...many times in the opposite direction form where the parent(s) have to go..

who is going to drive them home at 3-4 in th eafternoon when they get out of school?

in the case of southern Maine..many parents work in and around the Boston area..leaving their homes as easrly as 5 am...add in that some might have children in grade school opening at 8 am..as well as middel or high school kids that can start from 7-9 am...

logistically school buses make far too much sense, most especially since budgets have tightened and many districts are consolodated into single facilities to save costs

i heartily agree that money can be saved...and SHOULD be...so more can be put directly into the classrooms....

but you need the buses..

Excelsior!

Perhaps we could get the administrators jobs driving busses and save a few bucks that way?

Dave

There you go...add it to there job description at least that way some of them will be earning an honest paycheck!

heh..fair enough..if they can pass the test, they can drive for all i care..

the problem here is who determines where the schoold budgets money is spent..

in most districts i am aware of , it is the locally elected school board that determines most things, as well as hires/supervises the Superintendant/Principal that is running the school

rather than go after those that are trying to educate..perhaps more accountability on those that actually decide where the money is spent?

Excelsior!

That's the deal with this 65% thing gonzo. They're getting ready to vote on it in AZ. Making it mandatory that all schools in AZ use 65% of all money IN THE CLASSROOM. I guess people are getting tired of school boards and the NEA running things and want to change things.

like i said above andy..i got no problem with it, i went to Henry Hudson..remember?

imagine walking from east lincoln ave, near Posten funeral home (of Clerks fame) to HH...and back

now i did it a few times...but every day?

lots of ways to use the money that is there to make the schools better...my whoel point has been it's the job of the School Boards to do so...but far too easy for some folks to blame the teachers for things they have nothing to do with

fire the superintendants and impeach the school boards!!!

Excelsior!

I know it's not the teachers. I fought for teacher pay raises in AZ...they do much better in Virginia Beach. This is an administrator problem and a school board problem, not teachers. Part of that 65% is teacher pay.

HH still standing? Damn, I thought I was old!

class of 79 andy

but it is good to see two folks with the same background and widely disparate views on many things find a common ground

cut the waste from administrative crap..get more money to the classrooms where it belongs..

Excelsior!

Guess I am old...class of '77.

I also heard on the radio today that this 65% plan was put out on a poll with an 80% approval rate.

Common ground is always good. To bad those assholes in DC can't figure it out!

andy sez..
*Common ground is always good. To bad those assholes in DC can't figure it out!*

again we agree...twice in one day...

check hell for a snowball fight plz...tnx

Excelsior!

Having served on a school board I can tell you that they are mostly made up of amiable fools who basically rubberstamp whatever the superintendent puts infront of them. Every once in a while you get someone who wants reforms and they immediately get crushed by a huge wave of parents and teachers frightened into a stampete against change by the NEA.

BTW, the Class of 77 blows away 79 in all possible ways, Gonzo.

Dave

now Mr. Nalle..i don't know you well enough for you to "blow" me away in any manner...

but thank you for offering...

{8^P~~~~~~

and i can believe it about the schol boards being bullied...so we are back to the superintendants?....and who is supposed to be watching them for oversight if not the school boards?...some county or state mechanism i would guess...?

Excelsior!

I just loooooove this thread.

Here we have conservatives and libertarians who usually whine for less big government control of their schools in favor of LOCAL control, suddenly find themselves arguing that the local school boards they themselves have elected are just too stoopid to run the school district after all.

Their solution? Big government intervention, of course!

Bwahahahahahaha!

I'm stil for less big government control, but I also want less bureaucratic control. The problem isn't the school boards, it's the administrative apparatus and the power of superintendents. We need smaller school districts, more directly answerable to the communties where the schools are located. Decentralizing and giving control back to the parents and the teachers will also help encourage parent involvement since they'll feel like they might actually be able to make a difference.

Dave

Dave, which is it?

In in comment #20, you assign a lot of blame to the "amiable fools" on school boards who merely rubber stamp the plans of those awful superintendents [who, by the way, are hired by the school boards!].

You also give teachers and parents a big piece of the blame. Now you're saying if only the teachers and parents could have more say, things would be hunky dory? These are the same people who can't think for themselves, right? If it's not the evil NEA, it would be some local Svengali leading the charge, wouldn't it, since these school board members, teachers, and parents are so easily swayed by someone else?

So, it appears that the beloved democratic process works just dandy, except when it comes to local school boards. Then voters can't be trusted to vote for school board members who have brains, and the board members themselves can't be trusted to set the budgets for their districts or to hire superintendents who won't brainwash them.

The answer isn't voting those incompetent board members out of office! and voting in competent ones! No, it's setting state-level spending laws and making administrators drive school buses!

Sorry, but you and Andy are killing me tonight.

BTW, one of the reasons private schools can spend a higher budget percentage in the classroom than public schools can is because private schools have fewer -- wait for it, it's worth it -- *state mandated* services to provide and state level requirements to meet.

I was gonna quit for the night but a thought just hit me...bhw - if that's the case, why do private schools provide such a better education than public schools?

Lots of reasons, Andy, for those that do.

One big reason is smaller student-to-teacher ratios, which enable more individualized attention.

Another is that private schools are often exempt from giving standardized tests, so they can actually teach content other than how to fill in circles with #2 pencils.

Oh, and private schools are not required to each everyone. They can pick and choose which students they want, so they pick the ones who they think have the best chance of succeeding in their schools. Public schools have to accept everyone, even those students who disrupt class or move at a slower pace than the bulk of the kids.

I would disagree bhw...I think it's more like private schools teach the kids that want to learn...whether it's because parents will kill them if they don't or just because they want to learn...the teacher to student ratio is BS...I had at least 30 other kids in my classes both in grammer and HS. Private schools teach above the state minimum requirements because most are what you would normally call college prep schools. The catholic HS I went to offered NO shop classes. They were geared towards kids going on to college. I would bet the ranch that any kid getting "C's" in a private school would blow away a kid getting "B's" in public school.

I understand that public schools "have to" accept every student. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

I think ANY kid being disruptive in school should not be allowed the priviledge of an education.

Oh yeah, I appreciate you not grouping conservatives and libertarians together too.

Actually, Andy, I did group you together. 8-)

I would say that all young children enter public school "wanting to learn," and that public school itself teaches many of those kids how not to want it any more. Young children are programmed to learn by everything they see and do. Over time, public school undoes that programming for many children.

Also, not all private schools are Catholic schools or follow the Catholic school model. Many of them don't even threaten kids! In fact, some let kids choose their own learning paths, rather than dictate it from the lectern.

The ratio factor is not b.s.; it's real. Many parents choose private schools to get the more personalized education it offers by virtue of the smaller ratios. Your parents probably chose Catholic school for the religion and "discipline," as well as the education. But lots of people don't choose schools based on religion or an old-fashioned model of discipline. Some choose more progressive schools that offer children choice and freedom within a structured environment. And some choose schools that offer total freedom, believe it or not. These kinds of schools believe in giving students freedom so they actively learn responsibility and self-discipline, rather than learn to be compliant in order to avoid a negative punishment.

There are lots of variations in private schools, probably more so than you think.

Check out the Sudbury Valley School to see a democratic school in which the students control their own education and have total freedom in the school. They can climb trees or watch tv all day if they want. And each student and staff member [they don't call them "teachers" because they're not] gets to vote on every aspect of the school governance -- including staff hirings [so the students essentially pick the staff] -- at school meetings. Students and staff members are equals at this school -- their is no authoritative hierarchy.

Montessori schools offer less freedom than democratic schools, but they still let the kids choose their own paths.

These are just two types of private schools that differ greatly from the Catholic school model. Major themes behind both of them are that a) each student is a unique individual who learns at his/her own pace, b) students are natural learners who learn best when they're pursuing their own interests [rather than studying what adults tell them they should or need to be learning], and that c) students learn by investigation, trial and error ... by actively doing.

In particular, Montessori K-8 schools seem to be becoming more popular in the US -- Montessori is even a popular charter school model.

>>Check out the Sudbury Valley School to see a democratic school in which the students control their own education and have total freedom in the school. They can climb trees or watch tv all day if they want. And each student and staff member [they don't call them "teachers" because they're not] gets to vote on every aspect of the school governance -- including staff hirings [so the students essentially pick the staff] -- at school meetings. Students and staff members are equals at this school -- their is no authoritative hierarchy. <<

I went to one of these schools - an 'open classroom' type school. One year of that in Junion High caused me to have to take summer school just to qualify for high-school's basic requirements. That sort of school is not for everyone. Though I guess it would be good preparation for Hampshire College.

Dave

BHW: "You also give teachers and parents a big piece of the blame. Now you're saying if only the teachers and parents could have more say, things would be hunky dory? These are the same people who can't think for themselves, right? If it's not the evil NEA, it would be some local Svengali leading the charge, wouldn't it, since these school board members, teachers, and parents are so easily swayed by someone else?"

Do try to read more carefully, BHW. I know it's hard after an education in government schools, but I know you can do it if you try. I didn't fault teachers, I faulted the NEA. Not the same thing. And I didn't blame parents for being easily swayed, I blamed the entrenched bureaucracy and powerful superintendents for manipulating them. Take the NEA and the educational bureaucracy away and parents and teachers might be able to work together to produce something positive.

Dave

>>One big reason is smaller student-to-teacher ratios, which enable more individualized attention. <<

Utter bull. I went to the best private high school in the United States and we regularly had classes with a student to teacher ratio DOUBLE that of typical public schools today. The same was true of successful public schools of two generations ago.

>>Another is that private schools are often exempt from giving standardized tests, so they can actually teach content other than how to fill in circles with #2 pencils.<<

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. To maintain accreditation private schools have to administer standardized assessments of their students every year. They have had to do this since long BEFORE it became common for a lot of public schools - we did it when I was in private elementary school 35 years ago. My daughter just finished up her ITBS tests last week, in fact.

Dave

Utter bull. I went to the best private high school in the United States and we regularly had classes with a student to teacher ratio DOUBLE that of typical public schools today.

Congratulations, Dave. Your experience does not define all private school experiences.

BTW, did you go to Andover? It's certainly a fine high school. The ratio there is now 5:1, with an average class size of 13.

The same was true of successful public schools of two generations ago.

Was it? Were classes really 50-60 students strong? My mother claims her classes in an inner city school had about 25-30 kids.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. To maintain accreditation private schools have to administer standardized assessments of their students every year.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, but you apparently don't.

In Massachusetts and some other states, private schools do not have to administer standardized tests EVER, never mind every year.

Here's an article to show I'm right, from a source you probably like.

I went to one of these schools - an 'open classroom' type school.

If it was an "open classroom" school, it wasn't a Sudbury school. Entirely different animal.

Do try to read more carefully, BHW. I know it's hard after an education in government schools, but I know you can do it if you try.

I read very carefully, Dave. Perhaps that "best private h.s. in the US" didn't teach you to write what you mean to write?

I didn't fault teachers, I faulted the NEA.

You faulted both when you said:

Every once in a while you get someone who wants reforms and they immediately get crushed by a huge wave of parents and teachers frightened into a stampete against change by the NEA.

If teachers and parents are so easily frightened and manipulated "into a stampede against change," they must not be very bright. Surely, our savvy American voters/parents/teachers can see through the NEA and other bureaucratic manipulations, can't they?

Ironically, I'm not the biggest fan of the NEA, either, but you're trying to have it both ways.

>>I went to one of these schools - an 'open classroom' type school.

If it was an "open classroom" school, it wasn't a Sudbury school. Entirely different animal.<<

The description sounds very much the same.

>>I read very carefully, Dave. Perhaps that "best private h.s. in the US" didn't teach you to write what you mean to write?<<

Perhaps that explains Al Gore's ridiculous book.

>>If teachers and parents are so easily frightened and manipulated "into a stampede against change," they must not be very bright. Surely, our savvy American voters/parents/teachers can see through the NEA and other bureaucratic manipulations, can't they?<<

When their kids are involved parents are very emotional and reactive. The fault still lies with the NEA.

DAve

bhw says - BTW, one of the reasons private schools can spend a higher budget percentage in the classroom than public schools can is because private schools have fewer -- wait for it, it's worth it -- *state mandated* services to provide and state level requirements to meet.

Why is it b, that every time I call bullshit on you you come back with some crap like, I wasn't talking about the kind of private school YOU went to. You tell both Dave an me that we don't know what we're talking about and we both attended private school and Dave has kids in one! I think if public school was a person, you'd kneel down in front of it and worship or maybe something worse! What are you, president of the NEA?

BHW is just indoctrinated. He's bought into the whole 'government as parent' ideology which is destroying the country, and can't see anything that comes from government or its partners like the NEA as possibly being bad for him. Government and the NEA protect him from having to take responsibility for his own life, so he'll defend them in the face of all reason and evidence to the bitter end.

Dave

So you qualify yourself as some kind of an authority on BHW now?

Interesting.

Especially since I'm not a "he."

I just call 'em like I see 'em, JR. Nothing BHW has posted suggests that I'm wrong in my conclusions - except my conclusion that BHW is a male, in which I stand corrected.

Dave

if I may speak for BHT (seems to be the thing to do) - she sees alot of ragging on the NEA, the teachers, the parents, etc., but scat getting done to solve worsening problems in education.

maybe it's the students - too much lead as youths

Mark

sorry bhw

Isn't BHT a popular food preservative?

The problem isn't that people don't want to solve the problems, but that they are blocked from every direction, either by government or school boards or other parents who are afraid of change.

The NEA feeds this fear of change to preserve its own power. They block legislation which would benefit teachers, purely out of resistence to any change in the way public education is structured. It's as if they fear that any change or improvement would reveal how absolutely destructive their influence on the system has been.

Dave

Why is it b, that every time I call bullshit on you you come back with some crap like, I wasn't talking about the kind of private school YOU went to.

All I said Andy is that Catholic schools are not the only type of private schools, that there are many more kinds of private schools out there that differ from the Catholic school model by a wide margin. And then I cited some so that you could see the kinds I was talking about.

Both you and Dave assume that your experiences define everyone else's. Dave thinks that just because the state of Texas requires standardized tests in private schools that ALL states require them in private schools. That's just false. Notice he hasn't tried to contradict the Cato Institute article I linked to?

All Dave can do is come back with fiction about what I believe about the NEA, when I never said one positive thing about the NEA on this thread. In fact, I said that I'm not really that fond of it.

I've gone on the record in other BC threads saying that I think public schools should be smaller and offer different choices to parents than what's typically offered now. Basically, I favor school variety and choice within the public school system, including the choice to opt out of state regulations and state mandated testing.

I like debating with you, Andy [but I'm not so sure you like debating with me]. But Dave can't handle it when someone points out flaws in his arguments. So he starts making shit up and going on the personal attack.

Everything I have said is verifiable about private schools today. If it's not, feel free to correct me.

I think if public school was a person, you'd kneel down in front of it and worship or maybe something worse! What are you, president of the NEA?

Have you actually read ANYthing I've said about public schools? I don't really like them because I think they turn out mindless drones more often than not. I teach college writing, so I see the results of 12 years of compulsory public school every week.

Plus, I said:

I would say that all young children enter public school "wanting to learn," and that public school itself teaches many of those kids how not to want it any more. Young children are programmed to learn by everything they see and do. Over time, public school undoes that programming for many children.

So how you and Dave think I'm all rah-rah about public schools and the NEA, I don't know.

BHW, sometimes responses that are made in immediate response to something YOU wrote, are not just responses to you, but also to a body of opinion expressed in the thread, or held in the general public.

You may be the kicking off point for a comment which is much more broadly applicable than just to the exact specifics of what you say. This isn't just true here, but it's true in a lot of topical discussions in a forum like BC.

So when you think that Andy or I are attributing specific opinions to you which you don't hold or didn't express, it may just be that we're addressing not only your specific point, but also similar general attitudes held by other people or other groups.

In short, just because general comments appear in response to your post, don't take them as specific comments to you when their applicability is much broader.

Dave

So when you think that Andy or I are attributing specific opinions to you which you don't hold or didn't express, it may just be that we're addressing not only your specific point, but also similar general attitudes held by other people or other groups

That's fine, Dave, except that in my last comment I'm responding to specific statements that you and Andy made either directly to me or about me -- you called me out by name or quoted one of my previous comments.

bhw - I love debating with you! You appear to be relatively sane. Actually, I am the only person in the world that's right anyway, so it doesn't really matter what you say! jk!!!

I was thinking back to another post about education and in that one I think we had discussions about the NEA. So, maybe you're not as madly in love with them as I thought you were.

Thanks, Andy. But I'm no more sane than you. 8-)

If I'm remembering correctly, we co-opted a thread on one of Harry Forbes' posts that had nothing to do with education, and he was extremely patient as we wandered off on our looooong tangent.

In general, I think that one-size-fits-all public education is a bad idea, and that the NEA, NCLB, and state regulations all pretty much assure that it's here to stay for a long time, certainly through the next 12+ years when my kids will be in school.

I never claimed to be sane! I've gone off on tangents on so many threads I can't remember them all! You're probably right, damn short term memory loss!

Re comment #42;
"...except my conclusion that bhw is a male, in which I stand corrected."
- Dave Nalle

WHOA!!! Mark it on your calender folks!! Know-it-all Dave Nalle, after being caught in dozens of errors, falsehoods and out-and-out lies (without admission of imperfection), has finally conceded that he was wrong about something.

What is amusing is how someone as all-knowing as Nalle portrays himself could mistake the handle of Bitch Has Word as a "he"...

Folks, if we'd all be less swift to name call, and more willing to ignore names called, this site would be more pleasant. I know it is hard, I am gulity of firing off a note in haste and hitting "Post" but I think iit is more effective to not respond to the rude posters, but to ignore them completely. If we all did this, they'd soon find themselves all alone, at least until they learn manners.

I am always surprised when my assumptions about the gender of BC posters is proved false. There are a lot more females posting here than I first realized.

>>What is amusing is how someone as all-knowing as Nalle portrays himself could mistake the handle of Bitch Has Word as a "he"...<<

I thought BHW were initials. What the hell does 'Bitch Has Word' mean? I'm afraid I'm a bit too old to be part of the hip-hop culture you kids subscribe to.

Dave

Dave - I like you bud, but bitch has words is pretty clear to me...problems?

I'd say that it's probably a good thing to check the links of the people that are posting...I mean you would expect the same. I know that your web site is elitist pig, even though you still haven't linked to me and I've responded to your link and even e-mailed you about it. You're linked on my site!

As far as I'm concerned bhw is a good lady, a little misguided(I still love you b), but a good lady just the same. I think all die hard liberals are a bit misguided, but I still love discussing stuff with her. bhw is one of the most prolific posters around, makes her kind of hard to ignore. Guess you need to get to know her.

also, she's been posting here for a long time, I'd have figured you had it figured out by now! You're disapointing me DN.

SFC - you might be suprised to learn how civil BC is in comparison to much of the forum world. I had to shut down the openness of my site - (a local news and editorial rag) - due to public ignorance about libel laws - (too many locals yakking about other locals). Still trying to figure out what to do about this.

Mark

I thought BHW were initials.

Big Hairy Woman.

So watch yourself, Texas boy.

What the hell does 'Bitch Has Word' mean?

My site was going to be "bitch has nerve," as in, "I can't believe she said that." Then I changed it to "word," to just refer to my writing in general [which I do too rarely these days, sadly].

I'm afraid I'm a bit too old to be part of the hip-hop culture you kids subscribe to.

I am too.

As far as I'm concerned bhw is a good lady, a little misguided(I still love you b), but a good lady just the same.

As my husband says, "That's no lady, that's my wife."

Thank you for your kind words, Andy. I guess I'll wait until tomorrow to hassle you about the "misguided" thing.

I know how some other forums are, that's why I spend my time here.

bhw - I told you that I'm always right, that means you must be misguided!