Vaught Strikes Again

[ladiesbballcoach]

Does anyone need a better example of public waste? It might be nice for the well behaved students whose parents are footing the bills to get such special treatment. Are there any statistics as to the "return on investment" for this program? Do these "extreme behavior cases" become responsible citizens? I'll bet we already know the answer. More dollars rarely solve problems. Look at New Orleans and poor old Houston which inherited much of NO's problems- and its crime.

Let me make sure that your anger/disgust (and it may be well deserving) is rightfully placed.

 

The public schools HAVE TO EDUCATE these students. Either put them in a regular classroom with 25-30 other students and let them disrupt that learning environment or put them in specialized program with educators trained to deal with such problems.

 

The PUBLIC SCHOOLS does not have the choice to send these kids on their way and make the parents be responsible for their kids misbehaving. We have to do something with them. The Superintendents/Principals/Teachers do not have a say in this regard.

 

I can tell you from experience that there are successes. And there are failures. I usually have around 10 students and can give them the 1-on-1 attention they SEEK that I could not give them in the HS setting. I have had students that had NO HOPE of getting a diploma that in my program got to the end of their senior year with that chance.

[scooterbob]

Actually, the definition of "educate" is probably up for interpretation. While all students can be "educated", the level of this education varies greatly. Somehow, spending far more to "educate" trouble makers than we do to educate those able and willing to learn makes no sense. What is the answer? For the overall picture, I have no solution. However, for my personal situation, which I could control, I chose a private school for my child. the fact that the publics have a greated burden in regard to acceptance of "all who come" cannot be used as an excuse by the publics. It is nothing more that a fact. That is how it happens to be.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Actually, the definition of "educate" is probably up for interpretation. While all students can be "educated", the level of this education varies greatly. Somehow, spending far more to "educate" trouble makers than we do to educate those able and willing to learn makes no sense. What is the answer? For the overall picture, I have no solution. However, for my personal situation, which I could control, I chose a private school for my child. the fact that the publics have a greated burden in regard to acceptance of "all who come" cannot be used as an excuse by the publics. It is nothing more that a fact. That is how it happens to be.

Not in the eyes of Frankfort. ALL STUDENTS will be proficient and working on a standard level by 2011 (I believe that is the year now.)

 

Schools are equally responsible for the student we are discussing as well as the AP #1 kid in the class.

 

In fact, the school is responsible for teaching the AP #1 kid on their level too. That is why you are beginning to see more gifted and talented teachers/coordinators in public schools.

 

For information sake, when a public school teacher does a lesson, they cannot teach that lesson on the same level to every student in their class. They are supposed to be giving more challenging assignments to the G & T kids (not just smarts but artistic, leadership too) as well as modify the assignments for the resource students.

[Gunner11]

I would suggest that the taxpayers shouldn't be required to fund your golf team. I would find it hard to believe that those who play golf cannot afford their own shirts and golf balls. I have always believed that, if my child wishes to participate in a school activity, academic or otherwise, I should foot the bill for the extra cost. This is the duty of all parents. As for those who cannot aford to pay for these extras, then the families of the others who participate should pay for the less fortunate participants. Use fundraisers or wghatever means you prefer but don't expect the taxpayers to fund golf teams, cheerleaders, or academic teams.

 

A free public education should not always be taken literally.

 

Athletics IMO are a small but important part of some students overall "education". I have no problem having a portion of the budgets (which are largely composed of local property taxes)of public schools being spent on funding and supporting athletic teams. Some of the lessons learned on the athletic field are at least as important, if not more in some cases, than what is taught in the classroom. High school athletes usually have higher GPA's and test score averages than non-athletes. Therefore I think we should incent participation(not saying the entire tab should be picked up by the school/taxpayer, hence the need for activity fees, etc, but the additional costs should not be a so high that it deters interest) in athletics. I have even seen where portions of Title 1 money have been used toward athletics, based on some of these facts.

 

Knowing our conversations on similar type subjects in the past scooterbob, I would think you would agree with me on this and that athletics are a part of overall "education".

[scooterbob]

Not in the eyes of Frankfort. ALL STUDENTS will be proficient and working on a standard level by 2011 (I believe that is the year now.)

 

Schools are equally responsible for the student we are discussing as well as the AP #1 kid in the class.

 

In fact, the school is responsible for teaching the AP #1 kid on their level too. That is why you are beginning to see more gifted and talented teachers/coordinators in public schools.

 

For information sake, when a public school teacher does a lesson, they cannot teach that lesson on the same level to every student in their class. They are supposed to be giving more challenging assignments to the G & T kids (not just smarts but artistic, leadership too) as well as modify the assignments for the resource students.

 

Of course, no one ever accused the Kentucky Department of Education in Frankfort of being in the real world. Your post proves it. I can remember a local superintendent who once stated that, given enough time, all students can learn anything. It was a ridiculous statement at the time. It is ridiculous now.

 

My daughter is a law student. She tells me that there are a number of students in her class with learning disabilities. In law school, most classes operate in a manner in which your final examination grade is your entire grade for the semester in that particular class. Those "special students" are given extra time and extra resources in taking their final examinations.

 

This is wrong. In real life, these individuals will not be given extra time to perform in the workplace. In the legal profession, you live with deadlines and hard and fast rules. You cannot, for instance, initiate a system where deadlines are extended for the "special graduate".

 

It is also wrong because it is unfair to the, shall we say, "nonspecial student". Why? If you know how higher education has "progressed", you know that schools do all that is possible to keep their "diversity". Therefore, you can bet the "special law students" will be graded in such a manner so as to retain them while more able students will be dumped along the way since most law schools have, more or less, a quota to fail.

 

I realize that many will find the approach "touchy" and "feely". However, it is an example of how we are "dumbing down" education in this country and, therefore, "dumbing down" the workforce.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Of course, no one ever accused the Kentucky Department of Education in Frankfort of being in the real world. Your post proves it. I can remember a local superintendent who once stated that, given enough time, all students can learn anything. It was a ridiculous statement at the time. It is ridiculous now.

 

My daughter is a law student. She tells me that there are a number of students in her class with learning disabilities. In law school, most classes operate in a manner in which your final examination grade is your entire grade for the semester in that particular class. Those "special students" are given extra time and extra resources in taking their final examinations.

 

This is wrong. In real life, these individuals will not be given extra time to perform in the workplace. In the legal profession, you live with deadlines and hard and fast rules. You cannot, for instance, initiate a system where deadlines are extended for the "special graduate".

 

It is also wrong because it is unfair to the, shall we say, "nonspecial student". Why? If you know how higher education has "progressed", you know that schools do all that is possible to keep their "diversity". Therefore, you can bet the "special law students" will be graded in such a manner so as to retain them while more able students will be dumped along the way since most law schools have, more or less, a quota to fail.

 

I realize that many will find the approach "touchy" and "feely". However, it is an example of how we are "dumbing down" education in this country and, therefore, "dumbing down" the workforce.

I understand and agree with your post.

 

But it is not the fault of the public schools that legally we cannot operate in what you describe above. And so for the public school teacher/administrator what is relevant is the manner in which they HAVE to operate.

 

For the political spectrum, what you layout above would be wonderful to bring up.

 

I am not sure that we are dumbing down anything though. As I mentioned above, teachers are required to teach on the level of the student. So if a child is G & T, they are expected to be taught as such. So instead of 40 years ago, an advanced kid getting the same lesson as everyone else, now they get that lesson and more. And 40 years ago, that bottom level kid, just quit school and got NO education.

[Birdsfan]

It is also wrong because it is unfair to the, shall we say, "nonspecial student". Why? If you know how higher education has "progressed", you know that schools do all that is possible to keep their "diversity". Therefore, you can bet the "special law students" will be graded in such a manner so as to retain them while more able students will be dumped along the way since most law schools have, more or less, a quota to fail.

 

I realize that many will find the approach "touchy" and "feely". However, it is an example of how we are "dumbing down" education in this country and, therefore, "dumbing down" the workforce.

You should really do some basic research before you suggest that students with learning disabilities are "dumb." Learning disabilities come in a wide range of varieties. It's unfair to pigeon-hole every person with such disabilities as unintelligent. They most certainly are not. In fact, many are probably more intelligent than you and me.

 

Making special accommodations for these students does nothing to other students and is a civil right of the disabled students. To suggest that the "special students" (as you condescendingly refer to them) will be graded differently or will prohibit other students from graduating is simply bigoted and unfair.

 

These students could have dyslexia, or other such problems, which in no way detracts from their cognitive abilities. They can function in the real world and can perform well in sophisticated job settings -- such as the legal profession.

 

Yes, there are some types of learning disability that lower a person's intelligence level. But I dare say these are not the students you will find in any law school classroom.

[ladiesbballcoach]

You should really do some basic research before you suggest that students with learning disabilities are "dumb." Learning disabilities come in a wide range of varieties. It's unfair to pigeon-hole every person with such disabilites as unintelligent. They most certainly are not. In fact, many are probably more intelligent than you and me.

 

Making special accomodations for these students does nothing to other students and is a civil right of the disabled students. To suggest that the "special students" (as you codescendingly refer to them) will be graded differently or will prohibit other students from graduating is simply bigotted and unfair.

 

These students could have dyslexia, or other such problems, which in no way detracts from their cognitive abilities. They can function in the real world and can perform well in sophisticated job settings -- such as the legal profession.

 

Yes, there are some types of learning disability that lower a person's intelligence level. But I dare say these are not the students you will find in any law school classroom.

Your post is accurate and dead on and I apologize to all if in some way I offended in my part of the discussion.

 

My part was more aimed at those that chose not to behave rather than those who don't function because of some physical/mental issue. And let me add that a physical issue may not have anything to do with their abilities mentally.

[Birdsfan]

Your post is accurate and dead on and I apologize to all if in some way I offended in my part of the discussion.

 

My part was more aimed at those that chose not to behave rather than those who don't function because of some physical/mental issue. And let me add that a physical issue may not have anything to do with their abilities mentally.

No, I understood your part of the discussion and had no problem with it.

[scooterbob]

The reality is that we cannot add a fifth quarter to a game merely to allow catch up time. In the real world, that cannot be done. It may sound unkind but it is just truth.

 

By the way, I didn't call any one "dumb". I said that the education process has been "dumbed down". Possible I should have said it has been "watered down". Does that sound better? My choice of words should not be the central point. The practice is the central point and the result is a less able workforce.

[Trinity alum]

NO, the result is not a less able work force. It is a more able work force. Most of these kids are very capable, they just learn in a different way. By accomodating those learning differences we end up with productive and contributing members of society instead of societal burdens.

[scooterbob]

NO, the result is not a less able work force. It is a more able work force. Most of these kids are very capable, they just learn in a different way. By accomodating those learning differences we end up with productive and contributing members of society instead of societal burdens.

 

Are you sure? What facts back up your statements? Merely saying so doesn't make it true. Actually, I wish you were right. I just don't believe it.

[Birdsfan]

NO, the result is not a less able work force. It is a more able work force. Most of these kids are very capable, they just learn in a different way. By accomodating those learning differences we end up with productive and contributing members of society instead of societal burdens.

Excellent. Right on! :thumb:

[Birdsfan]

The reality is that we cannot add a fifth quarter to a game merely to allow catch up time. In the real world, that cannot be done. It may sound unkind but it is just truth.

 

By the way, I didn't call any one "dumb". I said that the education process has been "dumbed down". Possible I should have said it has been "watered down". Does that sound better? My choice of words should not be the central point. The practice is the central point and the result is a less able workforce.

As Trinity Alum explained, it makes for a MORE able workforce. It puts people who are motivated and statistically better than average workers into the economy. They're supporting themselves, building the economy, and staying off the public welfare rolls. What could possibly be found wrong with that? :eek:

[scooterbob]

Excellent. Right on! :thumb:

 

Fine but is it true? A few verifiable facts would be helpful but, alas, will not be forthcoming.