By A.C. Smith
Something has to change. Our schools keep teaching children in the same ways. Too many kids are dropping out instead of getting a full education. We need teachers who really care about the students and who are doing things the right way. We need to further develop criteria and expect certain standards to be met. Educators should have better training on how to handle and motivate the children, and know how to get the parents more involved. Many teachers think it’s enough to know subject material. They need to be able to relate what they’re teaching to how it applies in society. Furthermore, money that’s set aside for schools should be eligible to go to any of them, and only to those that are producing better results.
Congress always argues about how there needs to be competition in business. It needs to be that way with education as well. One company isn’t allowed to grow into a monopoly in industry. We should encourage schools to compete in a similar fashion. Public schools would probably perform much better, and private ones would likely raise the bar on their own programs too. My hope is that someday we can get rid of public schools altogether by privatizing them. That should be the goal. An added benefit is that if all schools are competing with each other, the money will come out of their own funds, rather than our taxes.
Everything should be done by “we the people,” and not the government. I believe that’s what democracy, and America, is all about.
Great post. It’s not easy to cram so much contradiction and misinformation into three short paragraphs, but you’ve done it!
Your last paragraph is nothing short of breathtaking when one considers that 1) “we the people” ARE the government; 2) America is not a democracy but a republic, aka representative democracy, and 3) the absence of government is not democracy; it’s anarchy. Oh, and that preamble from which you draw your “we the people” quote also establishes as a goal the promotion of the general welfare.
Where’s your evidence that teachers don’t care about students or that many teachers think it’s enough to just teach the substance of a given topic? If you’re going to condemn an entire profession, you should have a few facts to back up your claim. Otherwise, you sound like Bill Bennett when he said the crime rate would go down if more black women had abortions. As for what gets taught, why don’t you blame the Bush-driven legislation for chaining teachers to the subjects that are on standardized tests or for appointing as Secretary of Education a man who called the NEA a terrorist organization? And when you say that public funds should go to schools producing better results, you’re contradicting your own lament that teachers teach to the test.
Then there’s privatization, the siren song of those who lack imagination, compassion and foresight. Never mind that a lot of families would be priced out or that community involvement would be displaced by suits and bean counters. Educating children isn’t like making processed cheese and it’s a tragic reflection on this great nation that anyone would think that providing that education just isn’t worth the effort unless someone can make a profit doing it.
ARE YOU SERIOUS!?
We the “People” are the government?
Well, why don’t many of us feel that way? Yes, we should be the government but have you noticed that most people are saying that our government is not doing what the “People” are telling them to do?
We are not a democracy?
We are as close (use to be closer) to democracy than any large country. Yes, technically we are not a pure democracy, but technically I believe we are more of a democracy than each of us are human beings.
Now, the route we are going, we may not be a democracy much longer. We are bringing more policies in place to bring us to a socialist state.
Why does it seem you do not support the efforts to give back more of our nation to “We the People”?
What part of reducing government and giving most of the power directly to the people who are the “real” support (who we should really be relying on) that you do not like?
If competition will bring up standards, explain what you do not like about it and why you may think it is good enough to have things like it is today. Or do you believe competition will not raise any standards?
You emphasized the words “General Welfare”. I think we have done a great injustice to the words. I’ve seen and heard enough about the abuses of what we have now come to think about when we use the word welfare. General Welfare (to me) is something that you may obtain on your own. We seem to have made it something that many people are given and allow themselves to depend on it. I must say that there are legitimate cases for help, but we must agree that there are many abuses.
My definition of General would be General. Like, generally available for someone to obtain for themselves. My definition of Welfare would be in-the-lines of… Well Fair!… People should contribute to something instead of just taking.
Let me say that I believe those who prospered, have a moral responsibility to help the less fortunate, but never by force!
Now, let me address some of the things I understood from your response to my previous post.
Where do you see the words “ALL” in front of what I wrote about teachers? Why does it seem to me that you are more about rhetoric by mincing and distorting words to boast your way of thinking? And you want facts? It seems you can do better with what I am writing by using what should be common sense and understand this is also commentary or interpretations of what I see through my experiences and observations in my lifetime. There are many things I state that I would be surprised if someone would say that they do not see some of the things I observed.
Out of all you wrote, I only noticed one substantive concern that I thought was a legitimate concern that deserves or can be addressed. You are concerned that if we had privatization of schools, a lot of families would be priced out. I hope you will understand how that concern will be answered near the end of this post.
Now for teachers. Don’t take it like I am saying or said that all teachers do not care. I believe a lot of them do. I do believe there needs to be better leadership to bring up our standards. I got much of this from what I understood my aunts to said (God rest their souls), my cousin, in-laws, friends, personal teachers, associates, and so on. I can tell you that all the teachers related to me, do care. I also can tell you that they know some teachers who do not seem to care for various reasons or frustrations. I think most teachers are decent teachers.
I believe competition will help us recognize more and better success. I believe competition will help encourage increased participation and interests in learning. Competition can help reduce bureaucracy and help prepare our children for bigger challenges and continued education beyond high school. Now are you saying that you dispute this? Can you at least say it may work or even that we may want to experiment in certain areas before expanding after we see good results and the community wants it? Or is it better to let you seemingly continue to blame George Bush for all of the ills of the world including the creation of standardized tests during his administration? We can go on quoting radical abortion statements that the majority of conservatives would denounce or we can get ideas from everyone so we can put the ideas through the fire, or real scrutiny.
Now let me continue to address other items in your response.
Are you trying to persuade yourself and/or others that I am contradicting myself through your own twisted interpretations of what I stated in my post?
I am only guessing that you are thinking my discussion, about standards, allude to tests? If that is true, you are far from the truth. I believe standard tests has its place to help with establishing benchmarks, make improvements, or test knowledge, but the primary standards I am talking about are the standards that produce the results of kids being interested and prepared for universities. Standards that cause kids to take pride by staying away from alcohol, drugs, profanity, disrespect, and irresponsible behavior. Can you agree with that?
I also do not know why you seem to criticize me by stating I have a lack of imagination for supporting privatization of schools. If anything, you should say that you think I have too much of an imagination.
Imagine just a little handful of possible examples:
• Parents having more choices for standards taught in schools
• We get to the point that everyone pays for their own child’s education (yes, some will have to be subsidized but hopefully by charity groups, scholarships, job benefits, etc.)
• People who do not have kids in school will eventually not have to be taxed for schools in their area
• Competition will raise public school standards giving the neighborhood more pride and confidence in what is being taught
• Competition will help us teach kids in a way that will make kids actually enjoy and desire to continue through high school and college education
• Parents and others will feel like they have gained some controls back from the government (Priceless!)
Keep in mind that America is the most giving nation according to all I have heard or read. I believe we have regulated and stymied even more giving and care. I believe we had a better atmosphere in the past when there were doctors who gave medical care to those who couldn’t afford it.
I believe with good leadership and support, we can trend back to some of that compassion so we will not have to worry about kids being priced out of education, health care, and the like. If we untie our hands and teach our children right, we can start to change the next generations to get rid of our selfishness for the betterment of all.
And to answer one last comment…
Of course “educating children isn’t like making processed cheese” but by-all-means I do say that “in this great nation” I “think that providing education just isn’t worth the effort unless someone can make a profit doing it”. That “someone” making the profit should be the “kid”!
You both make great points but your missing the central point…..the children
– I think the teachers should be re certificated to ensure they are current. What is wrong with that? My children came from Department of Defense (DOD)schools and also went to school in Oklahoma. When they came to California the work they were bringing home was a grade and a half behind.
– Sending the teachers to seminars to help them become more imaginative in developing new teaching techniques because the new generation of children are lazy and lack self motivation is not an insult to the teaching community. In fact since they are on the front line they should support this.
– I am not of the school of thought that it’s only the teacher’s faults. Hello, where’s mom and dad in this picture. The teachers are supposed to teach academics not teach them manners, responsibility, and decorum. This stuff starts at home.
– I do believe that within the teaching community are some bureaucrats that should not be teaching a cockroach let alone children. In the 90’s a new system was set up to teach the children basic arithmetic. My wife and I were stunned to see our child multiplying 8×8. Bear with me. We stood there and watched the child use the tip of her pencil tapping on strategically placed imaginary dots on the number 8 in order to reach an answer of 64. 8×8=64 pert near took two full minutes. What was wrong with the way we were taught. HERE WE GO. This nonsense was taught in the schools for five years with miserable results.
– What is wrong with competition between the schools. Competition is what drives our economy. Some go mental because there should not be competition between schools. GENIUS…..if your system of failure does not work THINK WE SHOULD TRY SOMETHING ELSE?
Stop the bickering about right and left. Take a walk into your child’s bedroom tonight as he or she sleeps and tell me if politics is going to help your child make a living 20 years from now
Ah… Uncle Smith,
I’m afraid Cady Stanton is just as right as he is wrong.
He is correct in saying that “we the people” are the government. Our govenment is not, however, solely a democracy or a republic. (A democracy is quite simply a government by the people. We vote and are given the opportunity to become a part of our political system, therefore we are given a voice. A republic is a governmental body made up of elected officials. We put our politicians in place to serve the purposes we hoped for when we elected them.) That is why we are called a democratic republic. He is also correct in saying that the absence of government is anarchy.
I must also agree that the privitization of our educational system is a fairly poor solution to the problem. The school systems are facing very clear issues, but Mr. Stanton and I part company over what the cause is. I don’t believe any one cause can be pinpointed. I don’t believe that it was entirely Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” (though it didn’t help). I don’t believe it is the teachers (though they aren’t teaching efficiently). I don’t believe it is the parents (though neither of you brought it up). I don’t believe it is the students (though they cause all sorts of trouble). I don’t believe it is the districts (who essentially must follow orders). I believe this issue is a bit of a never-ending cycle, and we could either split hairs over who’s at fault or we could focus 100% of our attention on how to fix it.
Firstly, let’s understand what’s going on here. The children are acting up. They aren’t concentrating. They aren’t looking far enough into the future. They are spreading disrespect and sloth and slovenliness like a cancer. But wait! Before you say, “Not my child!”, “It’s that other hooligan!”, “It’s that teacher!”, “It’s that president!” Let’s remember, we are not pointing fingers. The children are not performing to standard. The parents are not disciplining effectively (hold your horses!). The teachers are AFRAID to discipline students! The districts are doing an intricate litigation dance between the bold teachers and the livid parents, and Bush enacted a law that said that ALL children must reach a very specific level or else the districts (who are tap dancing as fast as they can) will recieve less money.
NO BLAME GAME! DON’T DO IT! I know you’re tempted, but take a moment to calm yourselves and we move on.
1) Teach ENGLISH and PHILOSOPHY to the level the U.S. used to teach it prior to the 1950’s.
—That serves the purpose of teaching our students how to think. VERY, VERY IMPORTANT! Our children don’t know HOW to think. There is a critical method to thought that helps us to make decisions in all areas of our life. Politics, Math, Science, Common Sense… yes, common sense too. This will help our students of the future to look ahead. This will also help us to be a much more efficient capitalist society.
2) Lay off the litigation. Perhaps, the teachers need to have some semblance of power in the classroom. I’m NOT saying, “Bring on the Corporal Punishment!”, but I do suggest that maybe… just maybe… no student should be able to text during class because the teacher cannot take their cell phones away, or litter the campus with gum and trash, or stand up and curse the teacher out and sit back down without the teacher having an ability to do anything. Why? Because Johnny’s mummy might call and threaten the school if they’ve hurt her ickle-Johnny-boy’s feelings. (I witnessed all of these things countless times in the Californian school system in my junior and senior year alone!) In fact, I suggest that every parent that reads this should pop in some time without fore-warning your child. Watch them through the window, and see if the teacher is always wrong.
3) Districts need to back teachers up. Enough said.
4) We need to stop believing that EVERY child is a bleeding genius! They just aren’t. In fact, in this generation, we may be under-par. I suggest that government-sponsored trade schools be built very near high schools. This way, children that are not reaching the standard goal are given the opportunity to attend a school to learn a trade. They can earn their diploma and a trade certificate at the same time. That is the way Oklahoma’s system works.
My final suggestion should just be common sense for parents, but I must say it. Parents, can we stop allowing our little girls to walk out of the house looking like whores? Please. I d’wanna see it. Also, moms and dads, newsflash! Your little sunshine walked out of the house wholesome this morning, changed in the bathroom, and now parades herself around the school like a dollar-tramp. IF you go to your child’s school and check up on her, AND she is still dressed wholesomely, pat yourself on the back. You have a wonderful child. Parents of boys, just know that your boys are being bombarded with scantily clad women all day long! Also, understand that his hormones are raging. Then, consider the desperate girls who want nothing more than constant attention. Your boys need to know about all sorts of protection and STDs and abstenance and how a single whoopsie may affect their pocketbook in the long run.
Wow… this was not supposed to be this long. lol.
In conclusion, I would like to say that privitization will not work, because:
*if the people are required to pay for their own children’s education, then areas with a poorer population will be grossly underfunded.
*Keep in mind that people who do not have kids must look at their taxes as though it is serving a function for them. They are not so much being taxed to educate someone else’s kid, but rather, they are being taxed to keep someone’s else’s kid in school so that they are not ignorant on the street and looting, pillaging, etc.
*Competition will not raise the standards. Competition will lower the standards so that the illusion that the standards are being met will be complete. (a good example of competition at its worst can be seen in our housing market. First, banks had very clear standards to get a loan. [10% Down, job for a year, 25% of the monthly earnings could be used for a mortgage estimate, etc] Then due to competition with other banks, they began to lower their standards. [5% Down, job for 6 months, legal working citizen of the U.S. with earning statement] Then eventually it all broke down [0% Down, earnings statement please? don’t have one? that’s okay!, is your heart beating?] Likewise, the privitization of our school system may lead to that sort of breakdown.
*The idea that “Competition will help us teach kids in a way that will make kids actually enjoy and desire…” is baseless and even a disjointed theory.
*Also, as stated above. The parents are already abusing the control they have right now.
You said you “think that providing education just isn’t worth the effort unless someone can make a profit doing it.” Then you said that that person should be the kid, but I say nay! Nay! We should ALL profit!
“ARE YOU SERIOUS!?” Of course. Why would I bother posting if I weren’t?
“We the “People” are the government?” That’s the way it works in a representative democracy. That includes school boards.
“Well, why don’t many of us feel that way? Yes, we should be the government but have you noticed that most people are saying that our government is not doing what the “People” are telling them to do?” You need to back up “many” with survey data. Also, if I recall, you oppose any expansion of governmentally-sponsored healthcare. Surveys consistently show the majority of Americans feel otherwise. Assuming I’ve recalled your position correctly, you are asking that elected officials not do what the people want them to do.
“We are not a democracy?” No. If we were, Montana wouldn’t have a voice in the Senate that equals California’s, and George W. Bush wouldn’t have become president in the first place because Al Gore won the popular vote. More importantly, the framers wanted to protect minorities from always being run over by the majority.
“We are as close (use to be closer) to democracy than any large country. Yes, technically we are not a pure democracy, but technically I believe we are more of a democracy than each of us are human beings.” Huh?
“Now, the route we are going, we may not be a democracy much longer. We are bringing more policies in place to bring us to a socialist state.” That’s pundit speak and not worthy of legitimate public discourse.
“Why does it seem you do not support the efforts to give back more of our nation to “We the People”?” Clarify your question and I’ll gladly answer it. I will note that when something that’s public is privatized, that thing is taken from me and all my fellow citizens and handed over to just a handful of people.
“What part of reducing government and giving most of the power directly to the people who are the “real” support (who we should really be relying on) that you do not like?’ Again, pundit speak. “Reducing government” is a mantra that not even its believers really believe. You, for example, think the government should interfere with my reproductive choices.
“If competition will bring up standards, explain what you do not like about it and why you may think it is good enough to have things like it is today. Or do you believe competition will not raise any standards?” Explain the reasoning behind your conclusions and I’ll gladly respond. I’m not going to do your work for you.
“You emphasized the words ‘General Welfare’. I think we have done a great injustice to the words. I’ve seen and heard enough about the abuses of what we have now come to think about when we use the word welfare. General Welfare (to me) is something that you may obtain on your own. We seem to have made it something that many people are given and allow themselves to depend on it. I must say that there are legitimate cases for help, but we must agree that there are many abuses.” Yes, I’ve heard all about those abusers of the interstate highway system. Oh, the horror of all those people driving to work or on behalf of their employers to generate economic activity!
“My definition of General would be General. Like, generally available for someone to obtain for themselves. My definition of Welfare would be in-the-lines of… Well Fair!…” You don’t get to define words. That’s what dictionaries are for.
“People should contribute to something instead of just taking.” You communist.
“Let me say that I believe those who prospered, have a moral responsibility to help the less fortunate, but never by force!” Except those born into wealth, no one prospers without the aid of the public through our stable labor market, patents, copyrights, forms of business organization, access to courts, etc. Expecting that they should pay their fair share is not “force” but a just public policy.
“Where do you see the words “ALL” in front of what I wrote about teachers?” When you say “we need teachers that” it implies we don’t have such teachers.
“Why does it seem to me that you are more about rhetoric by mincing and distorting words to boast your way of thinking?” I neither minced nor distorted. I read, interpreted and responded.
“And you want facts?” Yes.
“It seems you can do better with what I am writing by using what should be common sense and understand this is also commentary or interpretations of what I see through my experiences and observations in my lifetime. There are many things I state that I would be surprised if someone would say that they do not see some of the things I observed.” I have a serious problem with anyone taking their limited worldview and extrapolating it to a nation of more than 300 people. Yes, we’re all a product of the lives we’ve led, but that doesn’t make for a worldview, it only informs it.
“Now for teachers. Don’t take it like I am saying or said that all teachers do not care. I believe a lot of them do. I do believe there needs to be better leadership to bring up our standards. I got much of this from what I understood my aunts to said (God rest their souls), my cousin, in-laws, friends, personal teachers, associates, and so on. I can tell you that all the teachers related to me, do care. I also can tell you that they know some teachers who do not seem to care for various reasons or frustrations. I think most teachers are decent teachers.” Then you should thank me for pointing out that when you develop a written argument, you shouldn’t assume that your audience has all this backgroung thinking of yours. And I mean that nicely. Unstated assumptions are a common problem among writers.
“I believe competition will help us recognize more and better success. I believe competition will help encourage increased participation and interests in learning. Competition can help reduce bureaucracy and help prepare our children for bigger challenges and continued education beyond high school. Now are you saying that you dispute this?” I do dispute it in your framework of privatization. We do have a measure of competition among schools, most prominently in sports but also in academic contests and in school district rankings. From what I’ve seen (yes, my limited worldview), the victors in these contests tend to come from well-funded school districts. The one I live in is among the best in my state, but it costs a lot of money. Privatization isn’t even close to an answer to problem districts. Rather, the solution rests in people recognizing that education is an investment that’s worth the money.
‘Can you at least say it may work or even that we may want to experiment in certain areas before expanding after we see good results and the community wants it?” It depends on the specifics of any particular plan. I’m not going to prejudge.
“Or is it better to let you seemingly continue to blame George Bush for all of the ills of the world including the creation of standardized tests during his administration?” You undermine your own credibility here. Bush successfully advocated for a federal version of what he instituted in Texas. NCLB has resulted in more teaching to the test because schools are afraid of losing money. And he appointed a Secretary of Education who called the NEA a terrorist organization. That, as many say, is what it is, and a far cry from me blaming Bush “for all the ills of the world.” If, as you initially stated, you want teachers going beyond specific subject matter, you don’t get to set Bush’s NCLB aside. It’s intellectually dishonest.
“We can go on quoting radical abortion statements that the majority of conservatives would denounce or we can get ideas from everyone so we can put the ideas through the fire, or real scrutiny.” An unsupported generalization is an unsupported generalization. That was my point. It does make me sad that you limit the denouncing of Bennett’s remark to so-called conservatives. He deserved nonpartisan and loud denunciation, which the left advocated.
“Are you trying to persuade yourself and/or others that I am contradicting myself through your own twisted interpretations of what I stated in my post?” Funny.
“I am only guessing that you are thinking my discussion, about standards, allude to tests? If that is true, you are far from the truth. I believe standard tests has its place to help with establishing benchmarks, make improvements, or test knowledge, but the primary standards I am talking about are the standards that produce the results of kids being interested and prepared for universities. Standards that cause kids to take pride by staying away from alcohol, drugs, profanity, disrespect, and irresponsible behavior.” See “unstated assumptions” above.
“Can you agree with that?” Who doesn’t? That’s like asking whether we can all agree that reducing crime is a good idea. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
“I also do not know why you seem to criticize me by stating I have a lack of imagination for supporting privatization of schools. If anything, you should say that you think I have too much of an imagination.” Sorry, I don’t.
Imagine just a little handful of possible examples:
• Parents having more choices for standards taught in schools
• We get to the point that everyone pays for their own child’s education (yes, some will have to be subsidized but hopefully by charity groups, scholarships, job benefits, etc.)
• People who do not have kids in school will eventually not have to be taxed for schools in their area
• Competition will raise public school standards giving the neighborhood more pride and confidence in what is being taught
• Competition will help us teach kids in a way that will make kids actually enjoy and desire to continue through high school and college education
• Parents and others will feel like they have gained some controls back from the government (Priceless!)”
And the world will be full of magic and moonbeams and pretty, pretty colors! Because you’re dealing in your own conclusions, I’m not going to respond in detail. Again, I’m not going to make your case for you and you have failed to include any argument as to why your conclusions have merit.
“Keep in mind that America is the most giving nation according to all I have heard or read.” I’ll keep it in mind if you explain it’s relevance.
“I believe we have regulated and stymied even more giving and care. I believe we had a better atmosphere in the past when there were doctors who gave medical care to those who couldn’t afford it.” A hundred years ago, anyone could peddle “cures” for diseases, many of which contained cocaine.
‘I believe with good leadership and support, we can trend back to some of that compassion so we will not have to worry about kids being priced out of education, health care, and the like.’ “Trend back” is a phrase that makes me curious. And cynical. It’s easy to think that things used to be simpler and better, but it ain’t necessarily so. Maybe, for example, we could trend back to kids working in coal mines or for piece work or begging in the streets because industry so exploited their parents that the family couldn’t afford not to send them out to bring in some money so that the family could get enough food to stay alive.
“If we untie our hands and teach our children right, we can start to change the next generations to get rid of our selfishness for the betterment of all.” You communist.
“And to answer one last comment…
Of course “educating children isn’t like making processed cheese” but by-all-means I do say that “in this great nation” I “think that providing education just isn’t worth the effort unless someone can make a profit doing it”. That “someone” making the profit should be the “kid”!” So long as the kid is born into money. Under your thinking, the rest might as well be processed cheese because they sure as hell won’t have an education or any of the opportunity that that education could bring.
V.L.T. — Many astute points, except one: Cady Stanton is a woman. 🙂
LOL… my apologies Ms. Stanton and oh!… the irony, for V.L.T. should have considered that. She is as well…
Wow….all of you have great points! And V.L.T. I think you raised some issues that we’ve either forgotten or need to make a better effort to keep in mind. It feels better to live in fantasy land, but doing so is at our own peril. Confronting reality, as ugly as it might be, will only help us in the long run.
Jamie how the heck you can sum this translution up into a small patient paragraph is beyond me, but my sentiments exatly. What ever happened to the “no child left behind” laws, LOL wish compassion was mandatory with teachers of all children, but hey as the saying goes, “you get what you pay for”! OK contradiction may be alcohol induced, try again tomorrow, LOL…..
Melissa,
I know you and all parents with kids in school have a more personal investment (for now) than I do, although society in general will always have a vested interest. I’d be curious to know what solutions you believe are in order besides compassion….
Jamie
A.C. Smith says:
‘Yes, we should be the government but have you noticed that most people are saying that our government is not doing what the “People” are telling them to do?’
How can one be subservient to the other if they are one and the same?