As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 22:31:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".


===

Yes, and if it even appears to be free, it cheapens the value.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 22:41:26 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/1/2014 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



I know very few who could send their kids to an Ivy League college just
by "forgo-ing a few luxuries"... but then again, most of the folks I
know are middle and upper middle class, no uber rich since I left Essex...

===

My wife and I lived no more than an upper middle class life style and
we sacrificed a lot to send our kids to top schools. I used to have
this battle with my younger son all the time when he was in high
school. We had high expectations for him and insisted that he apply
himself, study hard and do his best to get into a top school. I'd be
rewarded for that effort by him telling me that it would be a lot
cheaper for me if he did something less. I told him that he didn't
understand teamwork: His job was to get into the best school
possible and my job was to figure out how to pay for it. He's now
earning 3 or 4 times more than I ever did as a VP at a first rate
firm.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/14 12:13 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:45:56 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/1/14 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:58:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/1/2014 10:05 AM, KC wrote:


Can't be verified, it's not true. krause lied about Yale long before
Google ruined most of his reported history :)


In fairness I think he only said he took a course or two at Yale. I
don't think he ever claimed to have obtained a degree from Yale.

Hey I took "a course or two" at American University, U Md, Edison
State and FSU.
I didn't know that counted.



No wonder you like Sarah Palin. I spent some time at FSU in a worthy
pursuit...I sat on the steps of the library and watched all the gorgeous
gals walk by... :)

I am not sure about the Sarah Palin reference but I assume I can
answer it by saying these were not diploma courses. You take them and
you are done.

Most colleges have pretty girls but so do most places with girls that
age.



Sarah attended a significant number of colleges, too, although unlike
you, it is not apparent she learned anything.

My FSU reference was to a fun day I had waiting outside the library for
my wife, who was inside the library working on some arcane research
project. The library's front entrance steps presented a terrific vista
for girl watching, which was a four credit hour course, if memory
serves. :)

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/1/14 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



Where did I say or imply college should be free? I didn't. I simply
reported that in Germany, students don't have to burden themselves with
tuition fees. Obviously, the costs are spread out over society as a
whole, which benefits from having a highly educated citizenry. Society
also benefits from having a healthy citizenry. Interesting to me, at
least, how society is moving forward in some parts of the free world and
is moving backwards in our part of the free world.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...


I am a firm believer that you should acquire the level of education that
best utilizes the capabilities you were born with and then make the most
of it. The world is full of examples of successful, contributing
members of society who don't have degrees from prestigious schools. In
fact, the networking and peer connections that Wayne speaks of is
probably why we have so many incompetents in high places.

Networking and peer connections work well when working with good, honest
people. Nobody who is competent and honest recommends the opposite.
Of course "birds of a feather" works both ways.
It's always a judgment call.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/1/2014 10:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:13 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:45:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

People who struggled through
school attending community colleges and then continue on to a four year
degree are just as valuable (if not more) to most employers than the
graduate of a prestigious Ivy League University.

===

People who graduate from a first rate (prestigious) school gain access
to a vast network of peer acquaintances and referrals however. That
can be priceless.


It's called "pay to play".. it keeps the riff-raff on the outside. On
the whole it's great for those who can afford it, but probably not so
great for society in general as it keeps a lot of the creme from rising
to the top...


The vast majority of college grads did not attend Ivy League schools. If
you plan to be a lawyer, doctor or politician I guess it's important but
to the average work-a-bee the school you attended doesn't mean as much
as the fact that you have a relevant degree.

I was answering the post above me which was in reference to "first rate
(prestigious) school"... try to keep up, instead of just looking to
contradict me personally.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/1/2014 10:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:45:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

People who struggled through
school attending community colleges and then continue on to a four year
degree are just as valuable (if not more) to most employers than the
graduate of a prestigious Ivy League University.

===

People who graduate from a first rate (prestigious) school gain access
to a vast network of peer acquaintances and referrals however. That
can be priceless.



I understand but the average Joe in the workforce is not going to
benefit in that way. Most companies really don't care what school you
went to as long as your education meets the job requirements and you
have the knowledge and skill sets.

He wasn't talking about the average joe, and he wasn't talking about
"job requirements", he was talking about the "good old boys network" you
become a part of if your parents can afford to send you to one of the
more "prestigious schools"...

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/1/2014 11:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
In
fact, the networking and peer connections that Wayne speaks of is
probably why we have so many incompetents in high places.


Isn't that what I just said? Good for the rich kids, not so good for
society....??

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/1/2014 11:50 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 22:41:26 -0400, KC wrote:

On 10/1/2014 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



I know very few who could send their kids to an Ivy League college just
by "forgo-ing a few luxuries"... but then again, most of the folks I
know are middle and upper middle class, no uber rich since I left Essex...

===

My wife and I lived no more than an upper middle class life style and
we sacrificed a lot to send our kids to top schools. I used to have
this battle with my younger son all the time when he was in high
school. We had high expectations for him and insisted that he apply
himself, study hard and do his best to get into a top school. I'd be
rewarded for that effort by him telling me that it would be a lot
cheaper for me if he did something less. I told him that he didn't
understand teamwork: His job was to get into the best school
possible and my job was to figure out how to pay for it. He's now
earning 3 or 4 times more than I ever did as a VP at a first rate
firm.



So, you gave up more than a "few luxuries"... in fact by your own words
you "sacrificed a lot"... again, exactly what I said 5 posts ago but
some are just too eager to contradict me even when the eventually get to
agreeing with me after a few posts... lol. Again, the problem with "old
boys networks"... snerk

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/2014 8:12 AM, KC wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:13 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:45:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

People who struggled through
school attending community colleges and then continue on to a four
year
degree are just as valuable (if not more) to most employers than the
graduate of a prestigious Ivy League University.

===

People who graduate from a first rate (prestigious) school gain access
to a vast network of peer acquaintances and referrals however. That
can be priceless.


It's called "pay to play".. it keeps the riff-raff on the outside. On
the whole it's great for those who can afford it, but probably not so
great for society in general as it keeps a lot of the creme from rising
to the top...


The vast majority of college grads did not attend Ivy League schools. If
you plan to be a lawyer, doctor or politician I guess it's important but
to the average work-a-bee the school you attended doesn't mean as much
as the fact that you have a relevant degree.

I was answering the post above me which was in reference to "first rate
(prestigious) school"... try to keep up, instead of just looking to
contradict me personally.



Scott, my comment was a general one in response to the discussion of
schools and education. It was directed at no one. Your paranoia and
feelings of persecution are flaring up again.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/2014 8:17 AM, KC wrote:
On 10/1/2014 11:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
In
fact, the networking and peer connections that Wayne speaks of is
probably why we have so many incompetents in high places.


Isn't that what I just said? Good for the rich kids, not so good for
society....??




Relax Scott.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/2014 10:02 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2014 8:12 AM, KC wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:13 PM, KC wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:45:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

People who struggled through
school attending community colleges and then continue on to a four
year
degree are just as valuable (if not more) to most employers than the
graduate of a prestigious Ivy League University.

===

People who graduate from a first rate (prestigious) school gain access
to a vast network of peer acquaintances and referrals however. That
can be priceless.


It's called "pay to play".. it keeps the riff-raff on the outside. On
the whole it's great for those who can afford it, but probably not so
great for society in general as it keeps a lot of the creme from rising
to the top...


The vast majority of college grads did not attend Ivy League schools. If
you plan to be a lawyer, doctor or politician I guess it's important but
to the average work-a-bee the school you attended doesn't mean as much
as the fact that you have a relevant degree.

I was answering the post above me which was in reference to "first rate
(prestigious) school"... try to keep up, instead of just looking to
contradict me personally.



Scott, my comment was a general one in response to the discussion of
schools and education. It was directed at no one. Your paranoia and
feelings of persecution are flaring up again.

Paranoia? No, just trying to keep some continuity in the thread...

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/2014 10:04 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2014 8:17 AM, KC wrote:
On 10/1/2014 11:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
In
fact, the networking and peer connections that Wayne speaks of is
probably why we have so many incompetents in high places.


Isn't that what I just said? Good for the rich kids, not so good for
society....??




Relax Scott.


perfectly relaxed, just contributing to the conversation...

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/2014 10:49 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 07:41:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/1/14 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



Where did I say or imply college should be free? I didn't. I simply
reported that in Germany, students don't have to burden themselves with
tuition fees. Obviously, the costs are spread out over society as a
whole, which benefits from having a highly educated citizenry. Society
also benefits from having a healthy citizenry. Interesting to me, at
least, how society is moving forward in some parts of the free world and
is moving backwards in our part of the free world.

You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.



A system that would never work in the USA. A federally funded college
program would result in "approved" courses of study and standardization
of all syllabi. (had to look up the plural) :-)

May as well issue everyone size 10 and a half sized shoes and issue
federally funded cars. Need them to survive in the world too.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/2014 10:49 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 07:41:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/1/14 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



Where did I say or imply college should be free? I didn't. I simply
reported that in Germany, students don't have to burden themselves with
tuition fees. Obviously, the costs are spread out over society as a
whole, which benefits from having a highly educated citizenry. Society
also benefits from having a healthy citizenry. Interesting to me, at
least, how society is moving forward in some parts of the free world and
is moving backwards in our part of the free world.

You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.


Germany also has (or had anyway) a mandatory 2 year military service
requirement.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:49:42 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 07:41:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/1/14 10:31 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/1/2014 9:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 22:08:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Under the U.S. system, students incur tens of thousands of dollars in
debt.

===

Or their thrifty, hard working parents forgo a few luxuries for the
sake of their children.



Harry says it should be "free". Problem is nothing is "free".



Where did I say or imply college should be free? I didn't. I simply
reported that in Germany, students don't have to burden themselves with
tuition fees. Obviously, the costs are spread out over society as a
whole, which benefits from having a highly educated citizenry. Society
also benefits from having a healthy citizenry. Interesting to me, at
least, how society is moving forward in some parts of the free world and
is moving backwards in our part of the free world.

You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.

That's true in much of Europe, but here the liberals would be the
first to whine about the loss of civil rights if we made 'free'
college dependant upon achievement.

My Dutch friend's grandson finished his big tests last spring for the
university. He didn't do well enough. He gets one more chance, after a
lot of summer school, which is not free.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:19:19 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:49:42 -0400, wrote:


You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.

That's true in much of Europe, but here the liberals would be the
first to whine about the loss of civil rights if we made 'free'
college dependant upon achievement.

My Dutch friend's grandson finished his big tests last spring for the
university. He didn't do well enough. He gets one more chance, after a
lot of summer school, which is not free.


Oh no!
Not the "T" word.
The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Guess they don't trust you to measure performance. Hardly surprising.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/14 1:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:19:19 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:49:42 -0400, wrote:


You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.

That's true in much of Europe, but here the liberals would be the
first to whine about the loss of civil rights if we made 'free'
college dependant upon achievement.

My Dutch friend's grandson finished his big tests last spring for the
university. He didn't do well enough. He gets one more chance, after a
lot of summer school, which is not free.


Oh no!
Not the "T" word.
The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Guess they don't trust you to measure performance. Hardly surprising.



The problem with the "performance testing" is that too much of it is
dependent upon rote memory. It does not test whether the kids are
learning how to think. The other major problem, of course, is that it
penalizes teachers (scapegoats) for situations entirely beyond their
control, such as a bad home environment. Another problem: sometimes a
good teacher is replaced mid-semester by a retired racist old Army fart
who does his best to see that minority kids fail.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/14 2:49 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:03:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:19:19 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:49:42 -0400, wrote:


You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.

That's true in much of Europe, but here the liberals would be the
first to whine about the loss of civil rights if we made 'free'
college dependant upon achievement.

My Dutch friend's grandson finished his big tests last spring for the
university. He didn't do well enough. He gets one more chance, after a
lot of summer school, which is not free.


Oh no!
Not the "T" word.
The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Guess they don't trust you to measure performance. Hardly surprising.

Who said anything about ME measuring anything except the insanities
brought by the unions. We were talking about 3d party testing of the
students.


At least you are consistent in your obvious *and* subtle arguments to
turn workers into "at will" serfs, under the total domination of
"corporations uber alles," and by corporations I mean employers.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:38:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:19:19 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:49:42 -0400, wrote:


You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.

That's true in much of Europe, but here the liberals would be the
first to whine about the loss of civil rights if we made 'free'
college dependant upon achievement.

My Dutch friend's grandson finished his big tests last spring for the
university. He didn't do well enough. He gets one more chance, after a
lot of summer school, which is not free.


Oh no!
Not the "T" word.
The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Absolutely correct. Been there and seen that.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 12:03:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:19:19 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:49:42 -0400, wrote:


You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.

That's true in much of Europe, but here the liberals would be the
first to whine about the loss of civil rights if we made 'free'
college dependant upon achievement.

My Dutch friend's grandson finished his big tests last spring for the
university. He didn't do well enough. He gets one more chance, after a
lot of summer school, which is not free.


Oh no!
Not the "T" word.
The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Guess they don't trust you to measure performance. Hardly surprising.

Where did Greg say he would measure performance?

Your response made absolutely no sense. Hardly surprising.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/14 4:03 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:38:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 11:19:19 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 10:49:42 -0400, wrote:


You have to note that Germany also decides at a fairly early age who
is not going to college. They get sent off the trades schools or just
get taught how a mop works.
Someone who is a "late bloomer" is going to be putting wheels on
Volkswagens or sweeping up the shop.
That is one reason why K-12 students apply themselves more than they
do in the US.

That's true in much of Europe, but here the liberals would be the
first to whine about the loss of civil rights if we made 'free'
college dependant upon achievement.

My Dutch friend's grandson finished his big tests last spring for the
university. He didn't do well enough. He gets one more chance, after a
lot of summer school, which is not free.


Oh no!
Not the "T" word.
The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Absolutely correct. Been there and seen that.


Indeed, you were the racist substitute teacher many of your pupils will
never forget.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...

The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Guess they don't trust you to measure performance. Hardly surprising.

Who said anything about ME measuring anything except the insanities
brought by the unions. We were talking about 3d party testing of the
students.

What's your solution? I'm sure nearly everybody with any experience in
education will disagree with it.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/14 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:55:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 2:49 PM, wrote:

Who said anything about ME measuring anything except the insanities
brought by the unions. We were talking about 3d party testing of the
students.


At least you are consistent in your obvious *and* subtle arguments to
turn workers into "at will" serfs, under the total domination of
"corporations uber alles," and by corporations I mean employers.

Does that jerky knee bother you in the car? I bet you have dents in
the dash ;-)

What does any of this have to do with "corporations". These are
government schools.

If you actually looked at what I said in the parts you clipped I said
teachers should be paid for performance, not simply time in grade.
I understand that goes against the union mentality but we can see the
result.
It is not a measure of the average of the class. Performance should be
weighted by the improvement of each student.
I also think we should be throwing more money at the teachers who have
the toughest teachers as long as they are improving.

A big problem is the ignorant thugs. If we single them out for
additional discipline or even extra academic attention, you bump up
against the fact that they may screw up the "diversity" numbers.
Montgomery County had that problem


I defined corporations as employers. You don't think many large school
systems are operated just as ****-poorly as, say, Verizon or Comcast?
Corporate mindset.

How do you honestly pay teachers for "performance" when there are so
many outside factors and pressures that bear, and most of these are
beyond the control of the teachers. When we first moved here, I injured
my leg and while I was waiting for the doc in the ER, there was a guy
and his daughter in the next curtained booth. I don't know what the
reason for their visit was, but the nurse asked the dad what his
occupation was, and his response was, "Occupation, what does that mean?"
"What you do for a living," the nurse said.

Whoever taught that kid of his had to take into account the fact that
her dad was...uneducated and ignorant. How would you suggest that the
teacher deal with that student and overcome the home problems? And what
if the teacher has 15 of those kids in a class of 35?

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:16:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Guess they don't trust you to measure performance. Hardly surprising.

Who said anything about ME measuring anything except the insanities
brought by the unions. We were talking about 3d party testing of the
students.

What's your solution? I'm sure nearly everybody with any experience in
education will disagree with it.

Nearly everybody "with experience in education" will say there is no
problem with what we are doing. We spend more than just about every
other country in the world and rank somewhere around #26 in results.

It is clear we should all disagree with them.

Why? I've seen numbers that say as a pct of GDP we rank about 50th in
spending. And you can chalk those so-called "results" up to the
student's and their parents stupidity. This is America.
Teachers don't "teach," they can only guide the willing to learn.
So I don't agree with you, and you're not clear at all.
BTW, the "results" are just another ****ing test. You really like the
tests, don't you? But only tests you agree with.
Until you propose changes that show positive results, it's clear that
you're not an educator; you're just a nag.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/14 6:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:36:16 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:55:25 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/2/14 2:49 PM, wrote:

Who said anything about ME measuring anything except the insanities
brought by the unions. We were talking about 3d party testing of the
students.


At least you are consistent in your obvious *and* subtle arguments to
turn workers into "at will" serfs, under the total domination of
"corporations uber alles," and by corporations I mean employers.

Does that jerky knee bother you in the car? I bet you have dents in
the dash ;-)

What does any of this have to do with "corporations". These are
government schools.

If you actually looked at what I said in the parts you clipped I said
teachers should be paid for performance, not simply time in grade.
I understand that goes against the union mentality but we can see the
result.
It is not a measure of the average of the class. Performance should be
weighted by the improvement of each student.
I also think we should be throwing more money at the teachers who have
the toughest teachers as long as they are improving.

A big problem is the ignorant thugs. If we single them out for
additional discipline or even extra academic attention, you bump up
against the fact that they may screw up the "diversity" numbers.
Montgomery County had that problem


I defined corporations as employers. You don't think many large school
systems are operated just as ****-poorly as, say, Verizon or Comcast?
Corporate mindset.


The difference is, if I think Comcast is incompetent and I do, I
don't have to pay them. I have a satellite dish.
We pay for the public schools whether they perform or not so there is
far less incentive to improve. The teacher's union further impedes any
effort they attempt.
As I showed you before, our school board is 80% education community
apparachiks anyway so there is not much actual management vs labor
going on anyway.

How do you honestly pay teachers for "performance" when there are so
many outside factors and pressures that bear, and most of these are
beyond the control of the teachers. When we first moved here, I injured
my leg and while I was waiting for the doc in the ER, there was a guy
and his daughter in the next curtained booth. I don't know what the
reason for their visit was, but the nurse asked the dad what his
occupation was, and his response was, "Occupation, what does that mean?"
"What you do for a living," the nurse said.

Whoever taught that kid of his had to take into account the fact that
her dad was...uneducated and ignorant. How would you suggest that the
teacher deal with that student and overcome the home problems? And what
if the teacher has 15 of those kids in a class of 35?

It would certainly make sense if they were free to try different
things and reward the teachers who had success,

Right now they simply do the same thing over and over again expecting
a different result.



Classroom teachers, for the most part, are not "free" to try "different
things" that haven't been approved in advance by school administrators.
This doesn't mean they don't know how...it just means there is not much
variance allowed.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

KC wrote:
On 10/1/2014 10:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:45:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

People who struggled through
school attending community colleges and then continue on to a four year
degree are just as valuable (if not more) to most employers than the
graduate of a prestigious Ivy League University.

===

People who graduate from a first rate (prestigious) school gain access
to a vast network of peer acquaintances and referrals however. That
can be priceless.


It's called "pay to play".. it keeps the riff-raff on the outside. On the
whole it's great for those who can afford it, but probably not so great
for society in general as it keeps a lot of the creme from rising to the top...

I worked and went to college. If you have the grades out of HS and the
aptitude, go to Stanford. Family make less than $70k and you get full ride
subsidized.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:51:47 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Classroom teachers, for the most part, are not "free" to try "different
things" that haven't been approved in advance by school administrators.
This doesn't mean they don't know how...it just means there is not much
variance allowed.

===

What nonsense. Teachers have to teach the subject matter but their
style, effectiveness and commitment vary enormously.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...


Why? I've seen numbers that say as a pct of GDP we rank about 50th in
spending.

what the hell does GDP have to do with it?


Look it up. GDP pct is commonly used to measure relative public
spending. Including education.

And you can chalk those so-called "results" up to the
student's and their parents stupidity. This is America.
Teachers don't "teach," they can only guide the willing to learn.
So I don't agree with you, and you're not clear at all.
BTW, the "results" are just another ****ing test. You really like the
tests, don't you? But only tests you agree with.

How would you rank students? How well the teacher thinks (s)he is
doing with no testing?
The reality is, everything important in this country comes from the
result of a test.
Virtually all professions have a test and most trades do too.. You
need to do well on a test to get into a decent college, there are lots
of tests in the military and a lot of employers have tests.


Yabut...you haven't specified what tests would suit you.

Until you propose changes that show positive results, it's clear that
you're not an educator; you're just a nag.


There are plenty of people who agree with me.
The unions usually run them out of town, even when they have good
results. Ever hear of Michelle Rhee and her experiences in DC.

Blah, blah, blame the unions. Parents are blameless.
Easy as hell to do that. Squawk, rattle, squawk.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/2/14 8:38 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 17:21:35 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 15:16:54 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

The teachers union does not want us to actually test how well our
students are learning. They also do not want to be paid based on
performance, only time in grade and post graduate education (paid for
by the school system).

Guess they don't trust you to measure performance. Hardly surprising.

Who said anything about ME measuring anything except the insanities
brought by the unions. We were talking about 3d party testing of the
students.

What's your solution? I'm sure nearly everybody with any experience in
education will disagree with it.

Nearly everybody "with experience in education" will say there is no
problem with what we are doing. We spend more than just about every
other country in the world and rank somewhere around #26 in results.

It is clear we should all disagree with them.


Why? I've seen numbers that say as a pct of GDP we rank about 50th in
spending.

what the hell does GDP have to do with it?

And you can chalk those so-called "results" up to the
student's and their parents stupidity. This is America.
Teachers don't "teach," they can only guide the willing to learn.
So I don't agree with you, and you're not clear at all.
BTW, the "results" are just another ****ing test. You really like the
tests, don't you? But only tests you agree with.

How would you rank students? How well the teacher thinks (s)he is
doing with no testing?
The reality is, everything important in this country comes from the
result of a test.
Virtually all professions have a test and most trades do too.. You
need to do well on a test to get into a decent college, there are lots
of tests in the military and a lot of employers have tests.

Until you propose changes that show positive results, it's clear that
you're not an educator; you're just a nag.


There are plenty of people who agree with me.
The unions usually run them out of town, even when they have good
results. Ever hear of Michelle Rhee and her experiences in DC.



Ms. Rhee's results in DC were questionable.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...


Yabut...you haven't specified what tests would suit you.

I would be happy with a uniform achievement test,, necessary to pass
onto the next grade.
I understand you can take this testing thing too far but that does not
mean no tests.


What test? Common Core? Florida standards follow that.
Just about state does. What are you complaining about?
Dumb people and parents?

My granddaughters went to an advanced school (Mount Olive in Palm
Beach co) and they thought the FCAT was so trivial they gave them to
the students mid term and moved on from there. The pass rate in most
schools was pretty dismal.
Florida would not even put Mount Olive in the state stats because it
screwed up the curve.

Until you propose changes that show positive results, it's clear that
you're not an educator; you're just a nag.


There are plenty of people who agree with me.
The unions usually run them out of town, even when they have good
results. Ever hear of Michelle Rhee and her experiences in DC.

Blah, blah, blame the unions. Parents are blameless.
Easy as hell to do that. Squawk, rattle, squawk.

Now there is a bull**** response to a valid question. Do you know
about Dr Rhee?

Yeah I know about her. She quit in DC when she failed turn it into
charter schools. She fired some useless teachers. Good for her.
Her mistake was pushing charter schools - highly profitable use of
public money. She is what she is. A right-wing wannabe union buster.
No political skills at all.
The blip in improvement under her school leadership is currently being
investigated as test-cheating.
Is she a heroine of yours?

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 20:07:42 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 18:51:47 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Classroom teachers, for the most part, are not "free" to try "different
things" that haven't been approved in advance by school administrators.
This doesn't mean they don't know how...it just means there is not much
variance allowed.

===

What nonsense. Teachers have to teach the subject matter but their
style, effectiveness and commitment vary enormously.

The lack of knowledge about teaching displayed by Krause and his
buddy, BAO, is unreal.

You're correct, teachers are given the learning objectives for their
subject and grade. In Virginia, these objectives are listed in the
Standards of Learning. The manner in which the teacher enables the
students to accomplish the objectives is up to the teacher. A half
dozen teachers teaching the same subject will probably be using a half
dozen different techniques to do so.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 23:47:59 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 2 Oct 2014 20:34:45 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Why? I've seen numbers that say as a pct of GDP we rank about 50th in
spending.

what the hell does GDP have to do with it?


Look it up. GDP pct is commonly used to measure relative public
spending. Including education.

And you can chalk those so-called "results" up to the
student's and their parents stupidity. This is America.
Teachers don't "teach," they can only guide the willing to learn.
So I don't agree with you, and you're not clear at all.
BTW, the "results" are just another ****ing test. You really like the
tests, don't you? But only tests you agree with.

How would you rank students? How well the teacher thinks (s)he is
doing with no testing?
The reality is, everything important in this country comes from the
result of a test.
Virtually all professions have a test and most trades do too.. You
need to do well on a test to get into a decent college, there are lots
of tests in the military and a lot of employers have tests.


Yabut...you haven't specified what tests would suit you.

I would be happy with a uniform achievement test,, necessary to pass
onto the next grade.
I understand you can take this testing thing too far but that does not
mean no tests.

My granddaughters went to an advanced school (Mount Olive in Palm
Beach co) and they thought the FCAT was so trivial they gave them to
the students mid term and moved on from there. The pass rate in most
schools was pretty dismal.
Florida would not even put Mount Olive in the state stats because it
screwed up the curve.

Until you propose changes that show positive results, it's clear that
you're not an educator; you're just a nag.


There are plenty of people who agree with me.
The unions usually run them out of town, even when they have good
results. Ever hear of Michelle Rhee and her experiences in DC.

Blah, blah, blame the unions. Parents are blameless.
Easy as hell to do that. Squawk, rattle, squawk.

Now there is a bull**** response to a valid question. Do you know
about Dr Rhee?

He continues to display his lack of knowledge of education.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:52:37 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Yabut...you haven't specified what tests would suit you.

I would be happy with a uniform achievement test,, necessary to pass
onto the next grade.
I understand you can take this testing thing too far but that does not
mean no tests.


What test? Common Core? Florida standards follow that.
Just about state does. What are you complaining about?
Dumb people and parents?

The teachers union is all over complaining about Common Core and they
managed to kill the FCAT

So what? Everybody's complaining about it, including some teacher's
unions, PTA'a, etc, etc.
Goes with the territory. It's America.
There's states where the teachers unions are illegal.
http://www.businessinsider.com/state...rs-unions-are-
illegal-2011-2




Yeah I know about her. She quit in DC when she failed turn it into
charter schools. She fired some useless teachers. Good for her.
Her mistake was pushing charter schools - highly profitable use of
public money. She is what she is. A right-wing wannabe union buster.
No political skills at all.
The blip in improvement under her school leadership is currently being
investigated as test-cheating.
Is she a heroine of yours?


She did not quit, she was fired when they pushed Fenty (the mayor) out
over her fighting the teachers union. Even the leftist Washington Post
said he was doing a good job. There were about 1000 teachers manning
phone banks during his reelection campaign slamming him to anyone who
would answer the phone and there were some dirty tricks from Gray and
Brown.

Show me one other person who says she was fired, or retract that.
As to the rest, so what? Politicians are always getting burned, and
you'd better expect it when you enter that arena.
As I said before, teachers are just guides. It's up to kids and parents
to learn. That's how it is.
You think teachers are overpaid because they have unions.
Typical right-wing view. So bust the teachers unions.
Go right ahead.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 13:31:14 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:52:37 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Yabut...you haven't specified what tests would suit you.

I would be happy with a uniform achievement test,, necessary to pass
onto the next grade.
I understand you can take this testing thing too far but that does not
mean no tests.


What test? Common Core? Florida standards follow that.
Just about state does. What are you complaining about?
Dumb people and parents?

The teachers union is all over complaining about Common Core and they
managed to kill the FCAT

So what? Everybody's complaining about it, including some teacher's
unions, PTA'a, etc, etc.
Goes with the territory. It's America.
There's states where the teachers unions are illegal.
http://www.businessinsider.com/state...rs-unions-are-
illegal-2011-2




Yeah I know about her. She quit in DC when she failed turn it into
charter schools. She fired some useless teachers. Good for her.
Her mistake was pushing charter schools - highly profitable use of
public money. She is what she is. A right-wing wannabe union buster.
No political skills at all.
The blip in improvement under her school leadership is currently being
investigated as test-cheating.
Is she a heroine of yours?


She did not quit, she was fired when they pushed Fenty (the mayor) out
over her fighting the teachers union. Even the leftist Washington Post
said he was doing a good job. There were about 1000 teachers manning
phone banks during his reelection campaign slamming him to anyone who
would answer the phone and there were some dirty tricks from Gray and
Brown.

Show me one other person who says she was fired, or retract that.
As to the rest, so what? Politicians are always getting burned, and
you'd better expect it when you enter that arena.
As I said before, teachers are just guides. It's up to kids and parents
to learn. That's how it is.
You think teachers are overpaid because they have unions.
Typical right-wing view. So bust the teachers unions.
Go right ahead.

She was fired.

Where did he say teachers were overpaid? The problem with the unions
is not overpayment of teachers, it's payment of any kind to worthless
teachers. You need to learn something about unions and teachers.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...


Show me one other person who says she was fired, or retract that.

Does "forced out" suit your sensibilities.


No. Resigned does. Because she quit, pure and simple.
She's a quitter.

As to the rest, so what? Politicians are always getting burned, and
you'd better expect it when you enter that arena.
As I said before, teachers are just guides. It's up to kids and parents
to learn. That's how it is.
You think teachers are overpaid because they have unions.
Typical right-wing view. So bust the teachers unions.
Go right ahead.

I think the unions permit bad teachers to persist and they limit any
changes that might actually be better.
An example is a charter school that could tailor a program to a
special subset of kids with different needs.

Sounds like liberal bull**** to me. "Special subset."
You were crying about getting things standardized and now you want
"special subsets." They do plenty of that already.
More of it well just blow the expense to hell for touchy-feely.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 3 Oct 2014 15:34:32 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Show me one other person who says she was fired, or retract that.

Does "forced out" suit your sensibilities.


No. Resigned does. Because she quit, pure and simple.
She's a quitter.

Bull**** You are starting to sound like Harry now.


Waa, waa. I hurt your feelings. Ain't that too bad.

There was tremendous political pressure to force Rhee out, not the
least of which was coming from Fenty who was fighting for his life.
Maybe you are just not familiar with this.


So ****ing what? You said she was fired. You DON'T GET to define
words. That's Webster's deal.
She resigned, and that's that.
If you knew anything about this. you'd know Gray refused to fire her,
agreed with most of her goals, and appointed her deputy as chancellor
after Rhee RESIGNED. But she was a loose canon with no manners.
She's a quitter. And a sociopath, and a failure.
And you like her because she hates unions.
I get it. But you'll get nowhere with nothing.




As to the rest, so what? Politicians are always getting burned, and
you'd better expect it when you enter that arena.
As I said before, teachers are just guides. It's up to kids and parents
to learn. That's how it is.
You think teachers are overpaid because they have unions.
Typical right-wing view. So bust the teachers unions.
Go right ahead.

I think the unions permit bad teachers to persist and they limit any
changes that might actually be better.
An example is a charter school that could tailor a program to a
special subset of kids with different needs.

Sounds like liberal bull**** to me. "Special subset."
You were crying about getting things standardized and now you want
"special subsets." They do plenty of that already.
More of it well just blow the expense to hell for touchy-feely.

Are you really just acting dumb to make a point? I said we should have
common MINIMUM standards but that does not mean common methods.


Yeah, I'm dumb. But not dumb enough to not think you don't know what
you're talking about.

If you have a subset of kids who can't read or do math at grade level,
you do not want to drag down a whole class to their level to
accommodate them. You need a different program to get them up to
speed.
The whole idea of holding kids back seems to have gone by the wayside.


What the hell are you talking about? Failure rates and holdbacks
continue apace. Where do you get these ideas? Political blogs?

This was where some of Rhee's charter schools were doing well. They
put "at risk" kids in special programs in charter schools.
It may have been expensive but if it works, it is far cheaper than a
life in prison.

Her charter schools WEREN'T doing well. That's just more of your
bull****.
Some kids are dumb, some don't try because their parents don't care
enough to keep their noses to the wheel. It's always been that way.
That's life. Get used to it.
Better teachers and charter schools won't do squat to cure stupidity and
parents not giving a **** about their kids' education.
"School reform" is bull****. Schools were good 40 years ago, and
they're good now.
They've just become a political football. Hell, you used them to bash
unions with some fairy tale about a discredited school administrator.
If you want better performance from schools, you're going to have to
change society.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...


Yeah Nixon resigned too. so did Carley F and J Elders. Are you saying
any of them were not forced to resign?


Get your analogies straight. Rhee was a political appointee. Not a
damn CEO with a gold parachute. Elders was FIRED by bill Clinton.
Rhee RESIGNED. NOBODY asked her to resign, or told her to resign.
She resigned because she couldn't get along. Her call.


Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant

It's been fact-free on your end. Trying to paint Rhee as somebody to be
emulated. All because of your hatred of unions.
Jesus H. Christ.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 18:06:32 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Yeah Nixon resigned too. so did Carley F and J Elders. Are you saying
any of them were not forced to resign?


Get your analogies straight. Rhee was a political appointee. Not a
damn CEO with a gold parachute. Elders was FIRED by bill Clinton.
Elders resigned


She was FORCED to resign. She would have been bodily removed otherwise.
Big difference.
Rhee could have stayed. But it didn't fit in with her political ego.
NOBODY forced her to resign. She WANTED to resign.

Rhee RESIGNED. NOBODY asked her to resign, or told her to resign.
She resigned because she couldn't get along. Her call.
You know this how?
Did Rhee tell you?
Fenty?

You don't know **** about it

It's all over the internet, from reputable news sources. Show me where
she was fired. You can't. It's only in your twisted head.



Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant

It's been fact-free on your end. Trying to paint Rhee as somebody to be
emulated. All because of your hatred of unions.
Jesus H. Christ.

It is the teachers union that prevents bad teachers from being fired ,
makes sure there is no meaningful merit pay system and makes sure they
keep following the same failed programs.

What failed programs? Education of those who aren't prepared and not
willing? You're talking like a bleeding heart liberal.
Oh, the children!
It makes good political football, doesn't it? Rhee certainly knew that.

As the U.S. continues its slide into the abyss...
 

On 10/5/14 2:04 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014 22:20:56 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

It's all over the internet, from reputable news sources. Show me where
she was fired. You can't. It's only in your twisted head.

Nobody in that kind of position is ever fired. They are asked for
their resignation ... as was Dr Elders.
If it is really that important to you, I can probably find her
resignation letter. I bet it is in the federal register.


She should have been fired. She had a history of cooking the books in
regard to test score improvements, there were revelations about
"erasures" of test results after she quit her job in DC, she was
arbitrary and capricious in a city that was just feeling its way along
the path to citizen rule.


--
“My heart goes out to the people of Ebola.�
Sarah Palin