http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22search.html?_r=1&ref=us
This article was too long to post here, so theres the link
Tell me again why I send my children to public school? The strip search was bad enough, but to even suggest that school officals have the authority to strip search a student should be criminal. Schools officals do not have police powers or law enforcement expirence or the authority (yet) to do this. Why wasn't the childs parents contacted prior to doing this? I could be mistaken but that is a violation of law. That child had no representive to act on her behalf. All school officals involved in this should should be arrested for child abuse. and made to register as sex offenders. I think that if this happened to one of my kids, I would go to jail.
I must agree with you Billy, this was way out of line. :P
I too would say this was unnecessary and beyond appropriate. I don't, however, believe anyone should be charged as a "sex offender" as no sex offense was reportted to have taken place.
This is going to win the award for most agreed upon topic. The school was wrong, very wrong. The Supreme court is going to agree as well as most everyone else in America. To me this is an example where in the name of drugs, security, ... things are done that violate a much higher law, standard, moral...
David
and common sense. Amen.
Dnalexander, don't be so sure...
"My thought process," Justice Souter said, "is I would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search, if we can't find anything short of that, than to have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry."
We're talking about tyneol for petes sakes.
As for sex offense taking place, how about Indecent Libertites with a Minor Under the Age of 14. Remeber, these weren't law officers, but school officals.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on April 23, 2009, 08:33:38 PM
Dnalexander, don't be so sure...
"My thought process," Justice Souter said, "is I would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search, if we can't find anything short of that, than to have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry."
We're talking about tyneol for petes sakes.
As for sex offense taking place, how about Indecent Libertites with a Minor Under the Age of 14. Remeber, these weren't law officers, but school officals.
Billy you can call me David. I consider all of us to be forum family with a common link to Elk County. I am very aware of this case and Justice Souter's comment. If Justice Souter believes that I would be surprised, though I know that is a direct quote of what he has said. Often the Justices make a statement that requires the attorney to whom it is addressed to respond and argue the legal reasons why that is not a true statement. I don't know if that is his legal interpretation of the law or not. We shall see. No matter what happens the school was wrong, very wrong. I stick by my previous statements.
David
A minor can't be questioned by the police without a parent present; an adult can't be questioned without legal representation, how can a school presume to strip search a child on the basis of one other child's statement? As much as I hate to agree with certain other parties, I have to in this case.
8) ;D
I agree with ya too Billy!!! ;D (But MY agreeing with you isn't as shocking as Wilma doing it! THIS IS SO SCARY!) :P
So far every one seems to agree and this is a pretty diverse group. I just heard that hell froze over maybe that explains it.
Wilma, I know earlier today you said you had a headache and couldn't argue politics. Now you are agreeing with Billy. You should go to the Dr. I think you have a brain hemorrhage or something. (All in fun people, no hurt feelings). :laugh:
David
Agreed with Billy? Did I do that? Get me an appointment, something is wrong.
I know just how you feel Wilma! :D
Ahem....my turn! I'd like to have more details on how much school authority the parents have agreed to there, but it sure sounds like a major screw up by the school authorities.
Quote from: Wilma on April 24, 2009, 07:09:37 AM
Agreed with Billy? Did I do that? Get me an appointment, something is wrong.
OMG... does this mean the "Wilma and Billy Show" is on the rocks???
You'll have to ask him. I'm not telling.
Figures I'd have to be the one to say something...don't worry wilma, nothing is wrong...no one can resist me for too long...resistance is futile 8)
So you are a Borg , too.
oh no, this much cool can only be all natural.. 8)
There are lots of things that are natural but not always 'cool' or good! ;)
Peyote buttons are natural but that doesn't make them good. ;D
:o ::) :o I leave you all alone for a few days and just SEE the shape that you all get into! lol ;D ;D
Whatever, you guys are like so immature... ::)
This is off topic i suppose but I found this list of books that have been banned in some public schools, do any of you know if that is the case for Elk schools:
1) The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
2) Catcher in the Rye
3) To Kill a Mockingbird
4) Bridge to Terabithia
5) Lord of the Flies
6) Of Mice and Men
7) The Color Purple
8 ) The Harry Potter Series
9) Slaughterhouse five
10) The Bluest Eye
Immature? To whom are you speaking? >:(
To my knowledge, none of those books are banned at West Elk schools.
All of these books would be on my must read list as well as many others! ;)
I would agree, most of them should be required reading, a few were when I was in school. However, they are the top ten most banned books in american schools. Some because of sexual innuendo, violence, and racial slurs and use of the word nigger. Other because of the use of witchcraft, or the depiction of characters being disrespectful to adults.
When I was in school, "Peyton Place" was the hot book because it wasn't suitable for kids. So of course I wanted to read it to see why! ;D ;D ;D
You are wise to be scared.
Diane,
The book, Peyton Place, I thought, even then, was tame. Either that, or I am not remembering very good.
However, there was one passage I think of to this day when I see (on the screen), a man kissing the back of a ladies hand when they are introduced.
The movie Peyton Place seemed even duller.
I never watched the TV series but it actually ran two nights a week and even at one point went to three nights.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on April 23, 2009, 06:47:41 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22search.html?_r=1&ref=us
This article was too long to post here, so theres the link
Tell me again why I send my children to public school? The strip search was bad enough, but to even suggest that school officals have the authority to strip search a student should be criminal. Schools officals do not have police powers or law enforcement expirence or the authority (yet) to do this. Why wasn't the childs parents contacted prior to doing this? I could be mistaken but that is a violation of law. That child had no representive to act on her behalf. All school officals involved in this should should be arrested for child abuse. and made to register as sex offenders. I think that if this happened to one of my kids, I would go to jail.
Court says strip search of Ariz. teenager illegal
By JESSE J. HOLLAND – 9 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.
Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills — the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.
"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.
Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look," Thomas said.
Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."
The court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.
"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.
The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford United School District No. 1 could be held liable.
A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.
The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.
A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable.
"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.
The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.
Full Ruling at Supreme Court Website:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on April 26, 2009, 06:04:41 AM
Whatever, you guys are like so immature... ::)
This is off topic i suppose but I found this list of books that have been banned in some public schools, do any of you know if that is the case for Elk schools:
1) The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
2) Catcher in the Rye
3) To Kill a Mockingbird
4) Bridge to Terabithia
5) Lord of the Flies
6) Of Mice and Men
7) The Color Purple
8 ) The Harry Potter Series
9) Slaughterhouse five
10) The Bluest Eye
I read the first 7 of those books when i was a kid. 3 of them were required reading in elementary and middle school.
I have never heard of books being banned in Kansas public school libraries...Has anyone else? I have only heard of that type of lunacy going on elsewhere in the country.
Not a complete list but here is a link that lists some of the books that have been banned, not just in ks.
http://www.banned-books.com/bblista-i.html (http://www.banned-books.com/bblista-i.html)
I don't know about anyone else but after reading this list that Billy provided I want to track down 3 or 4 of these books and read them myself!!! Does that mean I'm bad? ;D
I just bought "As I Lay Dying" by William Faulkner off of eBay and can't wait to get it here!!
Wouldn't it be great if the general public went, en masse, to buy all the 'banned' books, in protest of those prudes who have imposed their belief system on others? A very civil revolt...What a classic idea! :laugh:
I'm thinking it would be best for the local public schools to retake their
schools from the state and Feds.
Not to take anything away from the banned books, but it's a small issue.
One of our assignments in English 101 was to write an argument or satirical essay. I wrote the following in May '05. I feel I must repeat....it is satire!
Literary Censorship: How to Deliver Us from Evil
In this age of moral ambiguity, we should be comforted to know our lawmakers have the best interests of children in mind. Protecting our young people is a noble and necessary cause, so we must do everything we can to ensure they receive a proper education and to limit their exposure to influences that could have a negative impact on their lives. Our government is working hard to achieve these goals; however, we should insist they do more to eliminate any possibility of our children being corrupted by those whose beliefs and behaviors deviate from our moral code.
A case in point is a bill presented April 27, 2005, before the Alabama legislature. If approved, this bill would have removed from public school libraries any book that was written by a homosexual or contains homosexual characters. The bill also would have prohibited a school's use of federal funds to purchase such books. The bill failed to pass, however, as an insufficient number of lawmakers attended that hearing (which, incidentally, happened to fall on the last day of the legislative session). Earlier this year, a similar bill made it successfully through the Arkansas statehouse but met its demise in a tie vote by the state's senate education commission. We can only hope the esteemed Alabama and Arkansas legislators were merely holding out for bills that would grant them a stronger moral authority, and that once those bills are presented they will be endorsed wholeheartedly.
Rep. Gerald Allen, who authored the failed bill in Alabama, told CBS News he believes gay people have a political agenda that must be stopped. Had his bill been successful, high schools would have been required to remove books by Truman Capote, Tennessee Williams, Gore Vidal, Oscar Wilde, James Baldwin, Evelyn Waugh, Carson McCullers, Alice Walker and others who promote homosexuality in any way. There is speculation that Walt Whitman, Herman Melville, A.E. Housman, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Lord Alfred Tennyson, Geoffrey Chaucer, and Marcel Proust may fall into this category as well, so it is likely their works would be banned.
"It's not healthy for America, it doesn't fit what we stand for ... I don't look at (the bill) as censorship," Mr. Allen said. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."
In this respect, Rep. Allen's bill fell far short of the necessary measures we should be taking. This should not be a difficult task, as we already have the standard by which to measure our success: the Bible. By using this single resource, we can determine what is appropriate for our children to learn. While it is true the Bible condemns homosexuality, the real issues facing our society are those found in The Ten Commandments. To truly protect the pure hearts and impressionable minds of our young people, as Mr. Allen wishes to do, we must encourage our lawmakers to eliminate all literature that contains any reference to idolatry, murder, parental disrespect, adultery, theft, lying, and covetous behavior.
Despite being regarded as classic literature, all works by William Shakespeare must be destroyed immediately. These stories are rife with characters who exhibit the most abhorrent of behaviors and violate every commandment: the murderous Hamlet and Macbeth, the conniving Iago, and the plotting daughters of King Lear (not to mention his own oedipal desires). Romeo and Juliet set a dreadful example for youthful readers by willfully disrespecting their parents' wishes and by relying on knives and poison to solve their problems.
Modern literature also has a plethora of killers, liars, adulterers, and thieves. Tom Joad, the protagonist in John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, is a murderer, and stealing is a common occurrence throughout the novel. Characters in A Tale of Two Cities, by Charles Dickens, and The Three Musketeers, by Alexander Dumas, resort to killing off other s who prevent them from achieving their goals. Consider the licentious nature of the characters in The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy, and Sophie's Choice, by William Styron, and we can agree these works must be incinerated. If we wish to discourage our children from stealing, Dickens' Oliver Twist must go. So must The Good Earth, by Pearl Buck, Death of a Salesman, by Arthur Miller, and Silas Marner, by George Eliot, as each has theft as part of its story line.
One might argue that young people should be allowed to read The Telltale Heart, by Edgar Allan Poe, and The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, since they describe the appropriate consequences of murder and adultery, respectively. On the other hand, children are clearly incapable of discerning right from wrong and may be tempted to imitate these vices. By removing these stories from school libraries, we will prevent any chance of that happening.
Not only should we destroy books with explicit reference to sinful behavior, we should also eliminate other books by the same authors. It is common practice that when one reads and enjoys one book, he or she is likely to seek out other titles by the same author. It is possible these books may contain inappropriate material; if they are no longer available, the danger of potential corruption is averted. We must not take any chances with our children's moral upbringing.
As long as we are banning books that conflict with our beliefs, we should remove those written by or about agnostics and atheists, as well as those written by people of different faiths. Obviously, none of these authors have any regard for Christian ideology, so unless we wish to expose our children to religious viewpoints that contradict our own, we must eliminate that opportunity. No longer would students be allowed to read material by Carl Sagan, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Auguste Comte, Thomas Paine, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzche, Sigmund Freud, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Kahlil Gibran, Hermann Hesse or Thomas Huxley. We probably should ban anything written by or about Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Clarence Darrow, and Stephen Hawking, just for good measure.
By now it should be obvious that the only book suitable for our children to read is the Bible. Its writings, penned by those inspired by God, contain the only truth they need to learn. Using scripture as the moral compass, we will guarantee the purity of education for generations to come. Never again would our youngsters be exposed to the evils that permeate our culture.
Of course, if we were to apply the same aforementioned guidelines of morality, we may wish to remove the parts describing Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the deceptive and incestuous practices of Lot's daughters. We also should give serious consideration to removing the story of the scheming, covetous and adulterous behavior of Batsheba and David, God's hand-picked king of Israel from whom Jesus was descended. As we know, David redeemed himself in the eyes of God; however, our young people may not be so fortunate, so why run the risk of them emulating his behavior? It seems even the Bible is not free of tempting influences, including those specifically cited as sins against God. Perhaps we need to ban it as well.
Once the library shelves are completely empty – and English teachers are out of work – we can rest easy knowing our children are shielded from the ills of society. Destroying books will guarantee they have no means with which to compare their beliefs with others, to discern the differences and similarities of their global family members, and to make decisions based on their own observations and experiences. We will have given them the ultimate gift: the freedom of not having to think for themselves. Then, and only then, will they be prepared to become leaders of the greatest nation on earth.
Oh. so they made standards and evaluations for students who
move to another school or is it really for another reason(s)?
The socialists have been working on standards at least since
the WBTS in the north and afterwards the northerners made
the Southerners do likewise.
The Soviets were not able to preserve their own "holy" socialist
system by & thru the schools.
No telling how much more money the "O" man pumped
into education with his stimulus package. More of the same
ole soup, just warmed over...
Whoa there...Wichita lost 27 million in funding...Mulvane RIF'd all of their non-tenured staff, from what I heard through the grapevine...There are districts going to impasse in their bargaining because the districts are needing/wanting to freeze teachers' salaries or reduce their salaries...What gratuitus stimulus monies is education receiving? The teachers would like to see it.
Catwoman, try this:
http://www.kansas.com/news/story/862684.html
Red, if you read your own post, then you have to be aware of the fact that those limited areas into which the stimulus monies are being directed don't do much of anything to make up for the shortfall in tax revenues, through which the rest of the educational areas are paid. There is an entire WORLD of issues surrounding the education of children, not just Title One and SPED. I would advise you to get with some of the administrators in your area to find out what is actually going on with funding your area's schools...I guarantee your eyes are going to get opened to a whole lot of issues that the newspapers aren't picking up on. I am beginning to think that maybe we need a separate thread for educators to begin posting what the actual truth is...There are so many people out there who are operating under incorrect presumptions. Diane, what do you think?
Diane-
Call me skeptical or whatever, but the Fed's should not be in
education. That includes their money or their power. Socialism
says we need to make education universal.
Where are your limits to the outreach of the Fed's? Apparently,
extending a lot further beyond than our ancestors.
Catwoman, it's not surprising what the public schools are doing
or what they are saddled with. It's no wonder that home-
schooling and private schools are becoming more numerous.
It should not be the responsibility of the Fed's to makeup shortfalls
of the state. By the way, it seems to me that in Kansas the state
never provided any funds to local schools until the early 1960's and
with that, here we are now and here we go again......
But, you seem to be a more conservative than most educators.
Right?
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 28, 2009, 11:45:18 AM
Diane-
Call me skeptical or whatever, but the Fed's should not be in
education. That includes their money or their power. Socialism
says we need to make education universal.
Where are your limits to the outreach of the Fed's? Apparently,
extending a lot further beyond than our ancestors.
So you advocate leaving entire swathes of the population uneducated? Typical.
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 28, 2009, 11:58:43 AM
Catwoman...You seem to be more conservative than most educators. Right?
I don't think so...It's just that most educators are not able to voice their opinions due to there being an administrator lurking about, waiting to hear or read something that will impact their opinion of the educator in question. I am able to be freer than most, simply because I don't teach in Elk County anymore. I am waiting for the day that I can run for a position on a school board...Probably when I retire in a few years...And then, I'll be able to be of more assistance than I am at the moment. Maybe I'll come back to Elk County at that point! lol
Jerry Wagner-
I am not advocating leaving entire swathes of the population uneducated.
I'm against the Fed's having any part of education. What's so hard to
understand about that?
Red, don't you think that tax dollars for education have ever been rationed out on favorite projects or populaces? That certain sectors of the population were favored over others? There are some folks that would spend an entire tax base on sports for goodness sake, forget about the three r's or anything else. I am from a generation when sports for girls was just going through the motions so to speak. If you really wanted to play competitively, there were no school leagues for anything in girls sports, you had to go to church leagues. Is that what you want? Until the Feds became involved the school systems aross the country were like that. I for one am glad that there is federal involvement in the educational process. Even Sarah Palin credits Title Nine with her success in highschool. How many other women have succeeded in the past 20 to 30 years due to fed involvement in education?
Ma'am-
The Fed's should not be the overseer in education even if
it's to secure or promote Sarah Palin's success in highschool
basketball.
Obviously, you lack trust in your local folks running the schools.
Red, you obviously don't deal wholesale with the general public...If you did, you would never advocate the general public being in control of anything, much less a child's education. Yes, you have some who are genuinely intelligent...Then, you have those that should be legally prohibited from being allowed to own anything more lethal than a toothbrush.
I am lost here. If our local school board is not running our school, then who is? Please explain and in detail. Give me some facts and figures.
Your locally elected school board is indeed completely in control of your school but is constrained by the guidelines/laws set by both the State and the Feds. It is the State and Feds that set the standards for both how the school board is allowed to proceed and how the schools (from the Sup't. on down to the paras) are supposed to handle the education of the students. Facts and figures are available online, both in terms of the published and republished versions of the school budget and also the State/Fed. disbursements to each school district. You can go to ksde.org to get some of those figures and also the West Elk website to see if the figures are there. The people who live in each district are responsible for electing the people who are best/highest qualified to sit on that school's board...You have to trust that the public will indeed elect those that are truly qualified...Otherwise, you just end up with those that qualify as "warm bodies" to fill that space until someone better qualified can be elected for the next term.
Then what is being said is that because of the guidelines set by the Fed and state governments, the local board cannot run the schools the way they would like. What would happen if they disregarded the guidelines?
In California, if a school board decides to not go by the federal or state mandate, they lose their state and/or federal funding.
I wonder how much money we would lose if we disregarded the federal guidelines. What would we have to give up if we lost federal money? What would you be willing to see your school give up if it lost federal funding? How much are you willing to pay in state or county taxes to keep our school at the level it is now? Would you be willing to personally pay to the district what it costs the district to teach your child?
Quote from: Wilma on June 29, 2009, 04:38:43 PM
I wonder how much money we would lose if we disregarded the federal guidelines. What would we have to give up if we lost federal money? What would you be willing to see your school give up if it lost federal funding? How much are you willing to pay in state or county taxes to keep our school at the level it is now? Would you be willing to personally pay to the district what it costs the district to teach your child?
You could cut out sports costs and fund the school. Theres a ton of money going to support football and such.
Sports scholarships are awarded by colleges often to young people who would not otherwise be able to go to college. The only way these young people are brought to the attention of the colleges is through their participation in high school sports. Cutting sports would cut these young people out of their chance to attend college.
Catwoman- Why would you need "truly qualified" people on the school board?
With all the Fed and state overseers, board members would not have to know much except
how to use a rubber stamp and sign their own name.
Quote from: Wilma on June 29, 2009, 07:00:13 PM
Sports scholarships are awarded by colleges often to young people who would not otherwise be able to go to college. The only way these young people are brought to the attention of the colleges is through their participation in high school sports. Cutting sports would cut these young people out of their chance to attend college.
If the only way a student can get into college is because they can throw a ball, then they have no business going to college. School should be about academics, not sports.
A sports scholarship is not awarded only on the ability to throw a ball. They also have to have a high grade average, which they have to maintain during the life of the scholarship. Failing grades, loss of scholarship. This is only one example of what our schools are doing for the students that would have to be curtailed without the help of federal funds.
When my oldest was a senior, there was no encouragement for her to try to go on to college, while here in Howard, there was a counselor to whom the kids could turn for information and advice. Out of her senior class only two went to regular college. Several attended at least one year of junior college, while several more went to trade schools. No one was expected to try to get a four year degree. While talking to one of her classmates, we figured out that the only ones who had attained a degree were the ones who had gone to the four year college and my daughter, who had a year of junior college, then 40 years of picking up a class here and there until she had earned enough for a Bachelor's. Now at her age, it isn't going to do her a lot of good. If she could have had help and encouragement 40 years ago, she could have done it soon enough to use it.
If you ever wonder why the young people go away to school and never come back, look at what the local school offers in the way of education. If their children are not going to have what they can get somewhere else, they are not going to stay in this area.
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 29, 2009, 07:01:53 PM
Catwoman- Why would you need "truly qualified" people on the school board?
With all the Fed and state overseers, board members would not have to know much except
how to use a rubber stamp and sign their own name.
You need people who are highly qualified just simply because they would know better how to work within the framework provided by the State/Feds. If all you have is a warm body who is using a rubber stamp and signing their name to whatever is placed before them because they're followers of the loudest/most insistant voices on the Board, your school system will stagnate within the same mediocraty that has hobbled it for years.
Quote from: Wilma on June 29, 2009, 07:00:13 PM
Sports scholarships are awarded by colleges often to young people who would not otherwise be able to go to college. The only way these young people are brought to the attention of the colleges is through their participation in high school sports. Cutting sports would cut these young people out of their chance to attend college.
What ever happened to hard work and good grades? Sorry but sports should be after school and supported by parents if they wish to do sports.
As for inability to go to college? Thats not true. I paid for my education by working 2 jobs.
In todays world there is no reason one can't get into a school. College or votech either or. Votech allows for degrees too and they get you there with hands on.
Wilma, what ever happened to the PARENTS encouraging their children to go to college? Blamining it on the school is just an excuse and cop out. By saying that your daughters education isn't doing her any good because of how old she is, isn't the fault of anyone but your daughter. My mother was close to fifty before she got her masters in nursing adminstration, now she is pulling in 6 figures a year.
Also, if a senior in high school is a star athlete and has a 3.8 gpa or better, then they should have be able to do a little research of their own and find scholarships that are availiable. Saying that they would otherwise be "curtailed" is another excuse.
Futhermore, I feel that we do need a set of Federally set guidelines for education. Those guidelines need to be applied equally, across the board, to every public school in the nation. They should pertain to the level and standard of education our children recieve, and they need to be a hell of alot higher than they are now. Also, there is no reason that said guidlines need to be so complicated that a person needs a Masters degree to understand them. The current system of Tenure needs to be abolished. If a teacher cannot do the job, they shouldn't be a teacher, regardless of how long they have been in education. Just because a person has done a job for twenty years, doesn't mean they are good at it.
I am talking about 1967 and a small high school. Only the children of college people were encouraged to go on to college. The rest of them were encouraged to go to trade school or get married. My 4 daughters among them, now have 3 Bachelor's and an LPN. One of them is also only a few hours short of a Master's. Needless to say, they worked to support themselves and pay for their school.
The reason the degree that took 40 years to get isn't doing the daughter any good now is that by the time she got it she was also so disabled she couldn't hold a regular job. She is now on SSD. I supported her the last semester of her studies so that she could finally finish. If she'd had the counseling as to available help and if we'd had someone to go to for information about help, maybe she could have done the 4-year thing. At the time, the only thing we qualified for was school loans.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on June 29, 2009, 07:58:11 PM
If the only way a student can get into college is because they can throw a ball, then they have no business going to college. School should be about academics, not sports.
I also disagree here. When I was in high school, our football coach did EXCELLENT things for kids who would not normally be able to afford to go to college. Many, many of his football players got scholarships to community colleges to play ball... and to get an education. Of those players, it was not a matter of not being smart enough to get into a school, but they (their parents) didn't have the means to pay for their education. Now, quite a few of these guys went into teaching and have gone back to my hometown, or other neighboring towns, to teach and coach. And these guys are also helping their students get sports scholarships so they can get an education.
I do agree that a lot of larger schools put too much weight on sports and winning records. But overall, I think that sports does help kids in smaller schools get scholarships so they can get a higher education. Also, not just sports, but all extracurricular activities really help kids in their leadership abilities, social behavior, etc. Yes, kids can succeed without being involved, but I really think that getting kids involved in "something" outside of school work really helps them develop skills that will put them above and beyond their compeition in the "real world".
Quote from: Wilma on June 30, 2009, 07:05:34 AM
I am talking about 1967 and a small high school. Only the children of college people were encouraged to go on to college. The rest of them were encouraged to go to trade school or get married. My 4 daughters among them, now have 3 Bachelor's and an LPN. One of them is also only a few hours short of a Master's. Needless to say, they worked to support themselves and pay for their school.
The reason the degree that took 40 years to get isn't doing the daughter any good now is that by the time she got it she was also so disabled she couldn't hold a regular job. She is now on SSD. I supported her the last semester of her studies so that she could finally finish. If she'd had the counseling as to available help and if we'd had someone to go to for information about help, maybe she could have done the 4-year thing. At the time, the only thing we qualified for was school loans.
Ok i understand that. But the problem is that since 1967, the dept of ed has swung so far from education that the only thing that can be done to fix the schools is scrap the dept of ed totally and return the school system to the local communities.
We should be able to as a community determine what our kids need in education. Education does not work on a macro level. Not all kids can learn the same way. Vocational colleges now are geared for kids who have difficulty in dealing with the college theory that is taught. Some kids are ok with that and all. But quite frankly college is a waste of time IMO with all the "prerequisites" in obtaining a degree.
Vocational training gets into the nitty gritty and trains while you learn and in doing that produces a qualified graduate for a job. The ones who graduate with ma or ba degrees are not even close to being qualified as they may not have actual experience in that field.
School system is a prime example of that. Some young graduate has this pipe dream of this that and the other and has this theory that if they do it the kids will do this. Practical application of that theory usually ends up in disaster.
For example today they are teaching this whole word thing which amounts to word memorization instead of phonics like most of us that are older were taught. The problem with whole word is that they cannot pronounce words they have never seen before. Where with phonics there is a basic set of sound rules that we can go by and pronounce these words.
Quote from: Tobina+1 on June 30, 2009, 10:18:33 AM
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on June 29, 2009, 07:58:11 PM
If the only way a student can get into college is because they can throw a ball, then they have no business going to college. School should be about academics, not sports.
I also disagree here. When I was in high school, our football coach did EXCELLENT things for kids who would not normally be able to afford to go to college. Many, many of his football players got scholarships to community colleges to play ball... and to get an education. Of those players, it was not a matter of not being smart enough to get into a school, but they (their parents) didn't have the means to pay for their education. Now, quite a few of these guys went into teaching and have gone back to my hometown, or other neighboring towns, to teach and coach. And these guys are also helping their students get sports scholarships so they can get an education.
I do agree that a lot of larger schools put too much weight on sports and winning records. But overall, I think that sports does help kids in smaller schools get scholarships so they can get a higher education. Also, not just sports, but all extracurricular activities really help kids in their leadership abilities, social behavior, etc. Yes, kids can succeed without being involved, but I really think that getting kids involved in "something" outside of school work really helps them develop skills that will put them above and beyond their compeition in the "real world".
Well i am so negative on sports for the simple reason that of the schools my kids went to sports was funded over acadamia. The high school my sons went to built a new school. total cost was 8 million on the building and facilities. 4 million was spent on bleachers, and football facilities, trianing room, weight room, uniforms, ect, then the other sports and band took up another million, and 3 million was used for the school itself. When it came time for students to learn in this facility, day one there were no textbooks. They had 2 textbooks for each class in each room. Their excuse was that they had no money. NO MONEY??? after spending 5 mil on sports and extracurricular activities!?
Then what really got me upset was when the football team had a winning streak and went to finals, they charter a big bus to carry the team to the games and when they won, they paid for steak and lobster for the team at ruth chris steakhouse. Sorry but priorities in the programs have gone out the window.
When i went to school we had a football team and they met after school and it was funded by parents contributions. The school did not budget millions for the program. any moneys taken from taxpayors to fund schools should be spent to teach kids, not fund play time.
Steve; that is a prime example of what I was talking about when I said that some larger schools really put too much emphasis on sports and winning records. The school I grew up in, the surrounding small schools, and I suspect that West Elk, too, tries to keep a good balance between sports, school, and other extracurricular activities. Anyone could probably give examples of "any" extracurricular activity having too much funding at any school around the nation.
My point was that without sports, and without a coach willing to work hard for his kids, a LOT of students wouldn't have been able to receive college education. Football was the means to an end. Honestly, a lot of the guys probably only played for 1-2 years in JuCo, and then went on to 4-year degree programs without playing football there. But the scholarships they got the first 1-2 years gave them a leg-up on their funding, and also gave them the structure they needed to continue to succeed in college.
I have nothing against technical schools or community colleges or any other post-secondary education; I think they're all important. I don't think one is better than another; they each have their own focus for the students that attend there. I've seen the smartest kid in the class go to a technical college; not because they weren't smart enough to go to a University, but because their interests were in the stuff they could learn at technical colleges. I've also seen the middle-of-the-road student go straight to a Unversity and also earn a degree and get a paying job.
I do think it is important, however, for students to be given the opportunity to attend college/technical school/etc. Not that I don't agree that they can learn a lot from good plain hard work, but it's that experience away from home and being responsible for themselves that really lends to their advancement as an adult.
Tobina, I love the way you talk.
Quote from: srkruzich on June 30, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
But quite frankly college is a waste of time IMO with all the "prerequisites" in obtaining a degree.
Vocational training gets into the nitty gritty and trains while you learn and in doing that produces a qualified graduate for a job. The ones who graduate with ma or ba degrees are not even close to being qualified as they may not have actual experience in that field.
Boy am i glad that the Engineers who designed all these bridges and buildings out here in California got a college education.
Quote from: Anmar on June 30, 2009, 04:13:52 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on June 30, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
But quite frankly college is a waste of time IMO with all the "prerequisites" in obtaining a degree.
Vocational training gets into the nitty gritty and trains while you learn and in doing that produces a qualified graduate for a job. The ones who graduate with ma or ba degrees are not even close to being qualified as they may not have actual experience in that field.
Boy am i glad that the Engineers who designed all these bridges and buildings out here in California got a college education.
Anmar, I'm with you...I would never turn any child over to nothing more than a vocationally-trained teacher...Yes, vocational training gives you nuts and bolts to work with...But there is so much more to teaching than just attaching A to B...You also have to have a working knowledge of all the other aspects that go into the shaping of each individual child...You're not going to get that in a two year vocational school. I also would never, ever allow myself to be operated on by a vocational school-trained surgeon. No way, no how.
Quote from: Catwoman on June 30, 2009, 04:46:08 PM
Quote from: Anmar on June 30, 2009, 04:13:52 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on June 30, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
But quite frankly college is a waste of time IMO with all the "prerequisites" in obtaining a degree.
Vocational training gets into the nitty gritty and trains while you learn and in doing that produces a qualified graduate for a job. The ones who graduate with ma or ba degrees are not even close to being qualified as they may not have actual experience in that field.
Boy am i glad that the Engineers who designed all these bridges and buildings out here in California got a college education.
Anmar, I'm with you...I would never turn any child over to nothing more than a vocationally-trained teacher...Yes, vocational training gives you nuts and bolts to work with...But there is so much more to teaching than just attaching A to B...You also have to have a working knowledge of all the other aspects that go into the shaping of each individual child...You're not going to get that in a two year vocational school. I also would never, ever allow myself to be operated on by a vocational school-trained surgeon. No way, no how.
You allow yourself to be operated on with equipment that is repaired and maintained by Vocationally trained students. All of the iv pumps, scanners, as well as the OR room equipment. Don't belittle vocationally trained people. I have two degrees from schools other than a "uni". AND all my credits are transferrable between unis and other schools.
As for a surgeon, your not getting much in surgeons from traditional colleges. The only ones that are any good are the ones who have years of exp and the ones who go get 1 month training courses in the newest techniques.
As for engineering, i have a 2 year deg in electronics engineering, and i am a Sr. Unix Engineer as well with no formal training.
Anyone whos built a 2 or 3 story house understands the stresspoints and load values on walls.
I most certainly was not belittling vocational education...You, in your line of work, serve a function, just as anyone else who holds a job...I just wouldn't want YOU to be my surgeon, if you don't mind! lol I can gut an animal just as quick as anyone else...Didn't have to go to school to learn to do it...But I would never consider myself to be qualified to operate on a human.
Quote from: Catwoman on June 30, 2009, 07:02:28 PM
I most certainly was not belittling vocational education...You, in your line of work, serve a function, just as anyone else who holds a job...I just wouldn't want YOU to be my surgeon, if you don't mind! lol I can gut an animal just as quick as anyone else...Didn't have to go to school to learn to do it...But I would never consider myself to be qualified to operate on a human.
LOL well i do handle my critters medical needs. :P No Vocational ed has gotten the rep over the years as the losers education. I couldn't deal with the BS in tradition colleges, wasting my time with core courses when what i wanted was the field courses. I am able to math, read and write, so why waste my money and time on english, and basic math, sociology and history. Been through it in highschool.
I did try to go to traditional college and failed miserably because of the method of teaching. Lectures are not teaching anything. I went to a electronics school for engineering deg, and got it and graduated with 4.0 in it. I have only about 1 semester to graduate Horticulture and my GPA was 3.8 in it. Yet if i went to UGA, i wouldn't have even passed. Unless education is reinforced with double the hands on approach, it doesn't work for me.
Funny thing is when other people are reading instructions on things, i am always into the project and fixing things without it.
I can rebuild engines, fix most anything without a book or instructions. Just have that ability which no educator can teach. A lot of folks just shake their head when i work on a motor, i just take all the bolts off and toss them into a bucket. LOL I know mechanics that line each bolt up in sequence so they can put the engine back together again.
You should go and investigate the different intelligences that are recognized as learning avenues...Last I knew, there were either seven or eight...I think you'd see yourself quite clearly as a tactile learner...i.e. You learn basically through using your hands. I think you'd find the study of these differing intelligences to be fascinating. I have always been interested in brain study...The brain is such a flexible tool.
There are 8. Any good teacher can soon recognize the learning direction a student naturally heads for and tries to adapt a program to meet those needs. There's nothing wrong with lecture, it just isn't a good fit for you. I suspect you wouldn't care for art history either because it's all visual. But you might be good at sculpture because it's tactile. However, some things are what they are and you just have to suck it up and get it done. You can only make basic math tactile to a point. Like it or not, some things are just boring memorization. Most boys want to drive, but don't want to learn the drivers manual because that part is ''boring." Too bad, do it anyway.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 01, 2009, 09:09:39 PM
There are 8. Any good teacher can soon recognize the learning direction a student naturally heads for and tries to adapt a program to meet those needs. There's nothing wrong with lecture, it just isn't a good fit for you. I suspect you wouldn't care for art history either because it's all visual. But you might be good at sculpture because it's tactile. However, some things are what they are and you just have to suck it up and get it done. You can only make basic math tactile to a point. Like it or not, some things are just boring memorization. Most boys want to drive, but don't want to learn the drivers manual because that part is ''boring." Too bad, do it anyway.
Well i never even looked at the drivers manual and haven't to this day. :P got my license. Art history doesn't interest me in the least, I don't need it. I am very artistic apparantly in building things. i can build a dulcimer, or a mountain dulcimer and anything else i desire in woodworking.
I've done pottery, painting, sketching, pen n ink, made jewelry not cheap stuff but real gold n gems, and quite a few other hobbies.
I am very visual as well as hands on. I can look at something and remake it.
But sitting down and opening a text book ain't going to happen. I use books as reference to look up specifications and such, not to memorize. I can't memorize squat. I barely know my name, social and phone number. :)
Quote from: Diane Amberg on July 01, 2009, 09:09:39 PM
You can only make basic math tactile to a point.
uhmm basic math was just a point. I can do calculus, trig, geometry i get into quantum physics, physics, chemistry, bio chem, and electronics. :)
So you are perfectly normal, for you. Most people are a combination of learning styles....you are heavy on the tactile side. I suspect you loved chem lab, but thought learning the valences were a pain, and learning the atomic chart was too. You never looked at the driver's manual? EEEK!
Back to my point, EXACTLY! That's why there are different types of post-secondary education institutions; to appeal to many different people's interests and learning types. Like I stated before; none are "better" than another... they all have their different focus and appeal to different people.
Again, the most important thing is that kids are given the opportunity to choose and attend whichever type of education they want. High school needs to teach kids the basics. Yes, some try to incorporate different types of learning styles into the classrooms, but certain subjects need to be taught no matter what. It's when kids get past high school that they (and the parents) need to identify how the kid learns and what interests that kid, too. Just because you got along fine at a University and earned a BS or MS or whatever, doesn't mean your child will succeed in that environment. Same goes for Tech schools or just "plain old hard work". Generally, I've noticed that people who are miserable in life and in work, didn't have the opportunity to succeed on their own... meaning they were either forced to stay home from school and work "because their parents did and got along just fine", or they were forced to go to a University and become an X and never have the chance to figure out that they really wanted to be a Y.
I can't remember the exact amount, but that's why I was so impressed this year during the West Elk scholarship night... I think somewhere around $50,000 was given out to students in scholarships! Everyone from ag students to nursing students to students attending tech schools had the opportunity to earn scholarships. Some are based on grades, some are based on what field they will be entering, and some are based on need. But as a community, we are helping to educate the future. Even those kids who choose not to go to school probably have the opportunity to find a job and work for someone in the county... which in my mind is STILL continuing education!