I'm a teacher. Here's why I am cheering my new freedom from unions

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Sounds like you are still smoking .

How bout some details ?

Years ago when I got my first driving job, I delivered goods from one part of our company to another. There was a gun who unloaded me, and he was a nice fellow, but he was only there half of the time.

The curiosity got the best of me, so I asked his replacement one time why the regular receiver was only there part of the time?

He told me that the guy was an alcoholic. At lunch time, he would run to the bar and get plowed. Of course the company didn't allow him to drive a tow motor, so every time the got drunk they sent him home for the other half of the day.

I asked why our company just didn't fire the guy? He answered because he was in the union, and the union forbade the firing of a union worker for getting drunk on the job provided he was a member of AA which this guy was.

I only worked that job for a year, but that drunk was still with the company when I left. Today, if you get drunk on the job (non union) you are rightfully discharged from your duties.

The idiots were the management who negotiated that little tidbit in the contract and let it stay. They are the ones responsible for not saying no.

They could have said no, and the union could have went on strike. Back then (later 70's) companies were scared to death of unions. I have first hand seen several of our customers either forced out of business, or out of state or country because of unions. That's how much power and influence they had.

I could write a book on my union experiences.

For about the hundredth time it has been posted on this thread, the vast majority of schools are barred from striking. Catch a clue man!


The reason you anti-union know-it-alls can't seem to get anything right is you like to ignore facts.

Go back and read what I wrote. I was talking about unions in general--not specifically teachers unions. But as long as you brought it up, we have had many teachers strikes here in the Cleveland area. The latest one a few years ago in Strongsville, Oho. You can look it up if you like.

Your elected officials are to blame, and not the teachers. Teacher's are denied the right to strike in the vast majority of school systems in this country.

 

[Unkotare]

You are wrong, but it’s not entirely your fault.

I am quite copacetic with the accuracy of my assessment. Standardized tests have not improved education. And the most certainly have not resulted in a more informed and knowledgeable population.

Have you noticed that many of the countries with whom American students are unfavorably compared rely on very high stakes standardized test in their educational systems? Have you noticed that?

They also actually teach REAL math, physics and other REAL science, reading and writing.

....

So, the tests aren’t hampering REAL education?

Yes, they are. When time is spent on memorizing rote tests instead of actual learning, that hampers real education.....

"memorizing rote tests"? WTF does that mean?

 

[boedicca]

I'm don't know about the union stuff affecting what a teacher can do in a classroom, but I do know all the geniuses at the dept. of education do everything they can to prevent teachers from teaching. Over a month a year, they force teachers to teach students to take a test that does nothing for college admissions.

Again, standardized testing is the only way to make sure people are being taught. I'm a big fan of it. The problem is whats in the test. It should be basic stuff, easy and then you can move on to more difficult things.We had a test in high school (my sr year we were doing the test but we didn't have to pass, but the classes afterward did) And man was it easy, I don't know how anyone could fail it......it was like a citizen ship test.......it's easy crap, how does anyone not know such basic things?

BALONEY!

The best way of making sure students are being taught is parental oversight and involvement.

Standardized tests are gamed; and all students end up being "taught" is how to pass a bogus test. That is not education.

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

The best judges of learning are the local people responsible for the kids. Curriculums were stronger and resulted in better educated students overall before the Feds ruined things.

Guess what? The federal government has not ever dictated curriculum. You don't understand the terms you are using.

So you think things are not better today than 40 years ago? When I attended school, we had no such thing as Advanced Placement classes, no dual enrollment programs with colleges, and we were lucky to have qualified teachers for the advanced math and science classes. The only computer was accessed via teletype in a one classroom.

I suggest a good dose of reality may soothe your cognitive dissonance.

Guess what - the Feds have overreached and interfered with education across the country via funding and then burdensome reporting and compliance.

Ever wonder why the growth of administrators has dwarfed that of in-classroom teachers?

 

[sealybobo]

Social security and medicare

You mean if they vote Republican, they won't get SS and Medicare?

You know it's the GOP's dream to do away with these socialist programs. You know you believe they are unconstitutional. You guys deny your real motives while you slowly chip away at things like ss, medicare and roe v wade.

Admit you believe you'd do better if they did away with those programs and you invest that money yourself, which you wouldn't. You're already having a tough time making ends meet. You would just spend that money and we'd have to take care of you if you could no longer work.

SS is a great program. I may die at 66 and never take a penny out. But I may also live to be 100 and then I'll collect for the rest of my life. What a great program that you guys want to destroy.

And we are waiting for Republicans to make healthcare more affordable.

They polled 100 Republicans. They all like the Affordable Care Act but they hate Obamacare. Dumb fucks.

I don't know that social programs are unconstitutional, but without a doubt it was not what our founders intended, in fact most were against federal government dependency.

Yes, those were different times, but certainly if they wanted government dependents, they could have created similar programs to what we have today: Government log cabins instead of HUD. Cash for Carriages instead of Cash for Clunkers. Government farms instead of Food Stamps. A national tax to support lazy people instead of welfare. Government firewood instead of utility assistance.

The thing is our founders wrote (in the Constitution) what the federal government is to be responsible for. All other things outside of those obligations were left up to the states.

Would I like to have all my SS money so I could have invested it personally? You bet. And I'd be retiring earlier with more money than I'd ever get from SS. But what about the irresponsible? Well.......you leftists have been manufacturing irresponsible people for decades, now you're surprised??????

But don't worry about social programs. If we wanted to end them, we would have done so this past year, or even during the Bush years when WE HAD CONTROL over the entire federal government.

You see, social programs can be compared to what I call Ray from Cleveland's Raccoon Theory. You see a hungry raccoon digging through your garbage can. So you go inside the house and fetch him that half ham you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal eats in delight. Now give it about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (especially Democrats) are well aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give something to people, it's virtually impossible to take it back; at least not without getting your hand bitten off. So Democrats try to hand out more half-hams and Republicans are afraid to take them away even with full support of the voters.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Republicans are slowly chipping away.

Most Americans won’t save that money. That why I like it. Also because the people who die early make up for the people who live to 100.

Social security and Medicare played a huge part in creating a middle class the world has never seen before. That means life got better for the masses. Social security and Medicare are good programs.

The rich have convinced you these are bad programs.

I like your theory though

I didn't say they were bad programs, just badly run programs.

I spent ten years in the medical business where we dealt strictly with insurance companies and government entities. Trust me, government is all Fd up when it comes to handling those programs.

I agree "some" Americans will not save for the future, but that's because we have so many social programs and rescue operations that people don't care. I'll spend money now, and the government won't let me starve later; and we don't.

But it's not about that, it's about control and politics. Okay, so we can't trust everybody, then why not make it a law where the worker contributes to their own IRA instead of SS? It would be a law just like SS. But instead of the money going to the government, it goes into your private retirement account. It's deducted out of your check just like SS and you can't touch it until retirement.

It would be a better system, but the problem is Democrats could never use it against Republicans come election time. Every election, the Democrats tell the public what Republicans want to take away from you. They couldn't do that if we all put our money into a private IRA.

Bullshit! You know that many people with or without social security and medicare won't save enough. Hell, they won't save enough even with these things.

But I like that idea where they have to save x amount towards their own private fund. Not a bad idea.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Again, standardized testing is the only way to make sure people are being taught. I'm a big fan of it. The problem is whats in the test. It should be basic stuff, easy and then you can move on to more difficult things.We had a test in high school (my sr year we were doing the test but we didn't have to pass, but the classes afterward did) And man was it easy, I don't know how anyone could fail it......it was like a citizen ship test.......it's easy crap, how does anyone not know such basic things?

BALONEY!

The best way of making sure students are being taught is parental oversight and involvement.

Standardized tests are gamed; and all students end up being "taught" is how to pass a bogus test. That is not education.

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

The best judges of learning are the local people responsible for the kids. Curriculums were stronger and resulted in better educated students overall before the Feds ruined things.

Guess what? The federal government has not ever dictated curriculum. You don't understand the terms you are using.

So you think things are not better today than 40 years ago? When I attended school, we had no such thing as Advanced Placement classes, no dual enrollment programs with colleges, and we were lucky to have qualified teachers for the advanced math and science classes. The only computer was accessed via teletype in a one classroom.

I suggest a good dose of reality may soothe your cognitive dissonance.

Guess what - the Feds have overreached and interfered with education across the country via funding and then burdensome reporting and compliance.

Ever wonder why the growth of administrators has dwarfed that of in-classroom teachers?

Whoever said that states have to take federal funds? Don't like the rules? Don't take the money!

BTW, I never met an single administrator whose sole purpose was to meet federal requirements in 21 years as an educator.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Again, standardized testing is the only way to make sure people are being taught. I'm a big fan of it. The problem is whats in the test. It should be basic stuff, easy and then you can move on to more difficult things.We had a test in high school (my sr year we were doing the test but we didn't have to pass, but the classes afterward did) And man was it easy, I don't know how anyone could fail it......it was like a citizen ship test.......it's easy crap, how does anyone not know such basic things?

BALONEY!

The best way of making sure students are being taught is parental oversight and involvement.

Standardized tests are gamed; and all students end up being "taught" is how to pass a bogus test. That is not education.

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

...

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

 

[boedicca]

BALONEY!

The best way of making sure students are being taught is parental oversight and involvement.

Standardized tests are gamed; and all students end up being "taught" is how to pass a bogus test. That is not education.

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

...

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You mean if they vote Republican, they won't get SS and Medicare?

You know it's the GOP's dream to do away with these socialist programs. You know you believe they are unconstitutional. You guys deny your real motives while you slowly chip away at things like ss, medicare and roe v wade.

Admit you believe you'd do better if they did away with those programs and you invest that money yourself, which you wouldn't. You're already having a tough time making ends meet. You would just spend that money and we'd have to take care of you if you could no longer work.

SS is a great program. I may die at 66 and never take a penny out. But I may also live to be 100 and then I'll collect for the rest of my life. What a great program that you guys want to destroy.

And we are waiting for Republicans to make healthcare more affordable.

They polled 100 Republicans. They all like the Affordable Care Act but they hate Obamacare. Dumb fucks.

I don't know that social programs are unconstitutional, but without a doubt it was not what our founders intended, in fact most were against federal government dependency.

Yes, those were different times, but certainly if they wanted government dependents, they could have created similar programs to what we have today: Government log cabins instead of HUD. Cash for Carriages instead of Cash for Clunkers. Government farms instead of Food Stamps. A national tax to support lazy people instead of welfare. Government firewood instead of utility assistance.

The thing is our founders wrote (in the Constitution) what the federal government is to be responsible for. All other things outside of those obligations were left up to the states.

Would I like to have all my SS money so I could have invested it personally? You bet. And I'd be retiring earlier with more money than I'd ever get from SS. But what about the irresponsible? Well.......you leftists have been manufacturing irresponsible people for decades, now you're surprised??????

But don't worry about social programs. If we wanted to end them, we would have done so this past year, or even during the Bush years when WE HAD CONTROL over the entire federal government.

You see, social programs can be compared to what I call Ray from Cleveland's Raccoon Theory. You see a hungry raccoon digging through your garbage can. So you go inside the house and fetch him that half ham you were going to throw away at the end of the week. The animal eats in delight. Now give it about 20 seconds and try to take that ham back and see what happens.

Politicians (especially Democrats) are well aware of my raccoon theory. Once you give something to people, it's virtually impossible to take it back; at least not without getting your hand bitten off. So Democrats try to hand out more half-hams and Republicans are afraid to take them away even with full support of the voters.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Republicans are slowly chipping away.

Most Americans won’t save that money. That why I like it. Also because the people who die early make up for the people who live to 100.

Social security and Medicare played a huge part in creating a middle class the world has never seen before. That means life got better for the masses. Social security and Medicare are good programs.

The rich have convinced you these are bad programs.

I like your theory though

I didn't say they were bad programs, just badly run programs.

I spent ten years in the medical business where we dealt strictly with insurance companies and government entities. Trust me, government is all Fd up when it comes to handling those programs.

I agree "some" Americans will not save for the future, but that's because we have so many social programs and rescue operations that people don't care. I'll spend money now, and the government won't let me starve later; and we don't.

But it's not about that, it's about control and politics. Okay, so we can't trust everybody, then why not make it a law where the worker contributes to their own IRA instead of SS? It would be a law just like SS. But instead of the money going to the government, it goes into your private retirement account. It's deducted out of your check just like SS and you can't touch it until retirement.

It would be a better system, but the problem is Democrats could never use it against Republicans come election time. Every election, the Democrats tell the public what Republicans want to take away from you. They couldn't do that if we all put our money into a private IRA.

Bullshit! You know that many people with or without social security and medicare won't save enough. Hell, they won't save enough even with these things.

But I like that idea where they have to save x amount towards their own private fund. Not a bad idea.

Well I like the hybrid system for now, some private and some SS. But I think the thing is the private accounts will actually pay off more at retirement is the point. Sure the stock market goes up and down, but for the long haul you make money. I think people should still get the SS they were promised, but some people could opt out to do a private system.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

...

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

I agree with all of that, but how do you measure it? One reason I do like standardized tests, is you can tailor for you needs, so you can see the curriculum very clearly, and we can do without the social justice crap and stay with real academic subjects, like you outlined.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

...

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

I agree with all of that, but how do you measure it? One reason I do like standardized tests, is you can tailor for you needs, so you can see the curriculum very clearly, and we can do without the social justice crap and stay with real academic subjects, like you outlined.

You do realize that curriculum is how you teach, not what you teach. Right?

If you do, your post makes no sense.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You are wrong, but it’s not entirely your fault.

I am quite copacetic with the accuracy of my assessment. Standardized tests have not improved education. And the most certainly have not resulted in a more informed and knowledgeable population.

Have you noticed that many of the countries with whom American students are unfavorably compared rely on very high stakes standardized test in their educational systems? Have you noticed that?

They also actually teach REAL math, physics and other REAL science, reading and writing.

....

So, the tests aren’t hampering REAL education?

Yes, they are. When time is spent on memorizing rote tests instead of actual learning, that hampers real education.

In economics, this is what is known as an opportunity cost.

This is where we are having an issue. What does memorizing rote tests? The point is we would have those items on the tests, therefore they would learn the stuff they need, correct?

 

[buckeye45_73]

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

I agree with all of that, but how do you measure it? One reason I do like standardized tests, is you can tailor for you needs, so you can see the curriculum very clearly, and we can do without the social justice crap and stay with real academic subjects, like you outlined.

You do realize that curriculum is how you teach, not what you teach. Right?

If you do, your post makes no sense.

I've always been aware it was the subjects you teach

cur·ric·u·lum
kəˈrikyələm/
noun
noun: curriculum; plural noun: curricula; plural noun: curriculums

1. the subjects comprising a course of study in a school or college.
   synonyms: syllabus, course of study, program of study, subjects, modules
   "the curriculum choices for history students are extensive"

 

[boedicca]

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

...

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

I agree with all of that, but how do you measure it? One reason I do like standardized tests, is you can tailor for you needs, so you can see the curriculum very clearly, and we can do without the social justice crap and stay with real academic subjects, like you outlined.

It's not the Federal government's role to measure this. We are individuals, not programmed cogs.

IMO, the true test of how education is serving our country is if our Civil Society is properly functioning: i.e., the losers accept the results of an election and work as the loyal opposition. They'll have their turn next time around to convince the voters to support them.

Our current situation is the exact opposite. Ignorant and uniformed people are manipulated by their cynical elites - who are able to do it because these people understand neither our history nor our form of government. They are also functional illiterates regarding economics, which makes them completely clueless that Free Stuff For Everyone is a chain to enslave them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

I agree with all of that, but how do you measure it? One reason I do like standardized tests, is you can tailor for you needs, so you can see the curriculum very clearly, and we can do without the social justice crap and stay with real academic subjects, like you outlined.

You do realize that curriculum is how you teach, not what you teach. Right?

If you do, your post makes no sense.

I've always been aware it was the subjects you teach

cur·ric·u·lum
kəˈrikyələm/
noun
noun: curriculum; plural noun: curricula; plural noun: curriculums

1. the subjects comprising a course of study in a school or college.
   synonyms: syllabus, course of study, program of study, subjects, modules
   "the curriculum choices for history students are extensive"

Tests don't show curriculum, which is what you claimed could be seen.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Again, standardized testing is the only way to make sure people are being taught. I'm a big fan of it. The problem is whats in the test. It should be basic stuff, easy and then you can move on to more difficult things.We had a test in high school (my sr year we were doing the test but we didn't have to pass, but the classes afterward did) And man was it easy, I don't know how anyone could fail it......it was like a citizen ship test.......it's easy crap, how does anyone not know such basic things?

BALONEY!

The best way of making sure students are being taught is parental oversight and involvement.

Standardized tests are gamed; and all students end up being "taught" is how to pass a bogus test. That is not education.

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

The best judges of learning are the local people responsible for the kids. Curriculums were stronger and resulted in better educated students overall before the Feds ruined things.

Guess what? The federal government has not ever dictated curriculum. You don't understand the terms you are using.

So you think things are not better today than 40 years ago? When I attended school, we had no such thing as Advanced Placement classes, no dual enrollment programs with colleges, and we were lucky to have qualified teachers for the advanced math and science classes. The only computer was accessed via teletype in a one classroom.

I suggest a good dose of reality may soothe your cognitive dissonance.

Guess what - the Feds have overreached and interfered with education across the country via funding and then burdensome reporting and compliance.

Ever wonder why the growth of administrators has dwarfed that of in-classroom teachers?

Look, I get it, I'm all for abolishing the dept of education. Education is a state function, but we need a way to measure progress.......as I said before, states can design their own tests. NY can talk about gay rights all day and fascism....while the rest of the country learns important basic academics.

 

[buckeye45_73]

No, they’re not.

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

I agree with all of that, but how do you measure it? One reason I do like standardized tests, is you can tailor for you needs, so you can see the curriculum very clearly, and we can do without the social justice crap and stay with real academic subjects, like you outlined.

It's not the Federal government's role to measure this. We are individuals, not programmed cogs.

IMO, the true test of how education is serving our country is if our Civil Society is properly functioning: i.e., the losers accept the results of an election and work as the loyal opposition. They'll have their turn next time around to convince the voters to support them.

Our current situation is the exact opposite. Ignorant and uniformed people are manipulated by their cynical elites - who are able to do it because these people understand neither our history nor our form of government. They are also functional illiterates regarding economics, which makes them completely clueless that Free Stuff For Everyone is a chain to enslave them.

I never said it was, I do like standardized tests, because it's the only way to hold teachers and students accountable, again I didn't say it had to be designed or run by the feds.

 

[boedicca]

Think that if it gives you comfort. In RealityLand, more standardized tests = less real education.

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

I agree with all of that, but how do you measure it? One reason I do like standardized tests, is you can tailor for you needs, so you can see the curriculum very clearly, and we can do without the social justice crap and stay with real academic subjects, like you outlined.

It's not the Federal government's role to measure this. We are individuals, not programmed cogs.

IMO, the true test of how education is serving our country is if our Civil Society is properly functioning: i.e., the losers accept the results of an election and work as the loyal opposition. They'll have their turn next time around to convince the voters to support them.

Our current situation is the exact opposite. Ignorant and uniformed people are manipulated by their cynical elites - who are able to do it because these people understand neither our history nor our form of government. They are also functional illiterates regarding economics, which makes them completely clueless that Free Stuff For Everyone is a chain to enslave them.

I never said it was, I do like standardized tests, because it's the only way to hold teachers and students accountable, again I didn't say it had to be designed or run by the feds.

OK- understood. If local districts wish to engage in standardized tests, then that is up to them.

 

[BluesLegend]

BALONEY!

The best way of making sure students are being taught is parental oversight and involvement.

Standardized tests are gamed; and all students end up being "taught" is how to pass a bogus test. That is not education.

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

The best judges of learning are the local people responsible for the kids. Curriculums were stronger and resulted in better educated students overall before the Feds ruined things.

Guess what? The federal government has not ever dictated curriculum. You don't understand the terms you are using.

So you think things are not better today than 40 years ago? When I attended school, we had no such thing as Advanced Placement classes, no dual enrollment programs with colleges, and we were lucky to have qualified teachers for the advanced math and science classes. The only computer was accessed via teletype in a one classroom.

I suggest a good dose of reality may soothe your cognitive dissonance.

Guess what - the Feds have overreached and interfered with education across the country via funding and then burdensome reporting and compliance.

Ever wonder why the growth of administrators has dwarfed that of in-classroom teachers?

Whoever said that states have to take federal funds? Don't like the rules? Don't take the money!

BTW, I never met an single administrator whose sole purpose was to meet federal requirements in 21 years as an educator.

The Federal government seizes money from the local district, then offers to give it back with conditions. How about the Federal government just not take our money in the first place.

To your previous post, we should NOT broad brush all school districts. Some districts are corrupt as hell, with teachers who are blatantly hostile to the taxpayers who pay their salaries. Some, not all.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

I agree with all of that, but how do you measure it? One reason I do like standardized tests, is you can tailor for you needs, so you can see the curriculum very clearly, and we can do without the social justice crap and stay with real academic subjects, like you outlined.

You do realize that curriculum is how you teach, not what you teach. Right?

If you do, your post makes no sense.

I've always been aware it was the subjects you teach

cur·ric·u·lum
kəˈrikyələm/
noun
noun: curriculum; plural noun: curricula; plural noun: curriculums

1. the subjects comprising a course of study in a school or college.
   synonyms: syllabus, course of study, program of study, subjects, modules
   "the curriculum choices for history students are extensive"

Tests don't show curriculum, which is what you claimed could be seen.

Sure they do. If it's a test on history, you can see what is being taught and what they consider the right answer. On math do they accept any answer to 2+2 or just 4. It allows us to see what they are trying to do. It also prevents them for injecting their shit into the tests. That's why a lot of activists hate them. It restricts them to what they can do, which is the point of a curriculum. It's like the constitution, you can only do certain things within it's framework (unless you believe in the bullshit living constitution)

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'm not saying you have to have a ton, but you need some. What is "real" education?

Reasonable proficiency in reading and writing English, basic math literacy, an overview of the hard sciences, and a foundational understanding of history, including philosophy and the Englightenment Values which influenced the founding of the United States.

Our system of government is based on the Consent of the Governed, which requires an Informed Electorate. The Prog takeover of education has made many of the Electorate incredibly Uninformed.

I agree with all of that, but how do you measure it? One reason I do like standardized tests, is you can tailor for you needs, so you can see the curriculum very clearly, and we can do without the social justice crap and stay with real academic subjects, like you outlined.

It's not the Federal government's role to measure this. We are individuals, not programmed cogs.

IMO, the true test of how education is serving our country is if our Civil Society is properly functioning: i.e., the losers accept the results of an election and work as the loyal opposition. They'll have their turn next time around to convince the voters to support them.

Our current situation is the exact opposite. Ignorant and uniformed people are manipulated by their cynical elites - who are able to do it because these people understand neither our history nor our form of government. They are also functional illiterates regarding economics, which makes them completely clueless that Free Stuff For Everyone is a chain to enslave them.

I never said it was, I do like standardized tests, because it's the only way to hold teachers and students accountable, again I didn't say it had to be designed or run by the feds.

OK- understood. If local districts wish to engage in standardized tests, then that is up to them.

It could be done a few ways. One is by the states, or another is private companies come up with tests and then local districts adopt the tests they want.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I agree parent need to be involved, but how do you compare what people learn from city to city, state to state?
You need to have some kind of idea of where people are. Like I said, it should be very basic simple stuff. But we have to have a way to compare students and see who is doing well.

I don't care about comparing that. We have SATs etc for colleges; such tests are enough.

The best judges of learning are the local people responsible for the kids. Curriculums were stronger and resulted in better educated students overall before the Feds ruined things.

Guess what? The federal government has not ever dictated curriculum. You don't understand the terms you are using.

So you think things are not better today than 40 years ago? When I attended school, we had no such thing as Advanced Placement classes, no dual enrollment programs with colleges, and we were lucky to have qualified teachers for the advanced math and science classes. The only computer was accessed via teletype in a one classroom.

I suggest a good dose of reality may soothe your cognitive dissonance.

Guess what - the Feds have overreached and interfered with education across the country via funding and then burdensome reporting and compliance.

Ever wonder why the growth of administrators has dwarfed that of in-classroom teachers?

Whoever said that states have to take federal funds? Don't like the rules? Don't take the money!

BTW, I never met an single administrator whose sole purpose was to meet federal requirements in 21 years as an educator.

The Federal government seizes money from the local district, then offers to give it back with conditions. How about the Federal government just not take our money in the first place.

To your previous post, we should NOT broad brush all school districts. Some districts are corrupt as hell, with teachers who are blatantly hostile to the taxpayers who pay their salaries. Some, not all.

How does the federal government take money from your district? Specifics please!

Stop with the education bashing talking points and learn the truth. You are just throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks.