Speak Out: Only in America!

Posted by Robert* on Sat, Oct 1, 2011, at 9:23 PM:

So you are not satisfied with the local school? And you are thinking about sending your child to another school which is close by but has a much better reputation? You better think twice; this is not tolerated by our government schools!

The Latest Crime Wave: Sending Your Child to a Better School

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576557610352019804.html?m...

Replies (32)

  • stnmsn8, I wonder how many of these schools offended have children of illegal immigrants in class.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 2, 2011, at 9:53 PM
  • It isn't so much the school as it is the populace of the area using up the resources. My sis in law quit because of the welfare mamma's constant threats and unruly children. She was a good teacher and loved those kids.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 5:55 AM
  • It's 'school choice', and the liberals have opposed it for years. In some municipalities, newspapers have been advised not to advertise the school district in which listed homes are located, because it is discriminatory...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 8:20 AM
  • Would creating a voucher system allow parents the choice of where their child goes to school while transferring the tax dollars with them solve the problem? Do not all children have a right to the same education?

    -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 8:28 AM
  • I thought the big bussing experiment in KC had it all worked out.

    Fund schools with a consumption tax and do away with property tax?

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 8:56 AM
  • stnmsn8 wrote:

    "Do not all children have a right to the same education?"

    They'll never get the 'same education' unless we can clone administrators and teachers. They all deserve the same educational opportunities, but that is not the same thing.

    Nor would I call it a 'right'. It is inconceivable to believe that a child in a rural Appalachian Mountain district will receive the same education as one in Beverly Hills, CA. The target for which we should be shooting is the best education available resources can provide, specifically with wise and honest use of the tax dollars spent thereupon.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 8:58 AM
  • What are the choices then if a family lives in a school district which has a record of doing a below average job of educating the children?

    -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 9:18 AM
  • Move, or approach and/or campaign for the school board to demand changes. The citizens own the school, and have a say in how it is run.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 9:57 AM
  • They can also home-school or, where available, choose a private school, if resources permit.

    I have no problem with vouchers, but parents using them retain the responsibility to transport their children to the distant school. transportation is provided within a school district to children thus served. If the children attend a district beyond their own, the school district does not owe them a ride there.

    Of course, the goal of No Child Left Behind was to fix these under-performing schools, since opposition to school choice has been so high. Although it looks as if that goal is now being undermined by the current administration.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 10:01 AM
  • @ Shapley Hunter

    The very premise of no child left behind was flawed. Though more accountability is a good thing, the measurement ruined it.

    There is a direct corrilation between underperforming schools and single parent households. Work on that issue, and schools improve.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 10:20 AM
  • lumbrgfktr wrote:

    "There is a direct corrilation between underperforming schools and single parent households. Work on that issue, and schools improve."

    I've long been an advocate of eliminating the giant 'warehouse schools' we see today in favour of re-establishing neighborhood schools. Our zeal for 'bigger, better schools', with most of the emphasis on 'bigger' is driven primarily, methinks, by sports interests and the financial interests of those who would be in charge (bigger schools equals bigger salaries & bigger payrolls), and has less to do with the goal of improving academics.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 10:47 AM
  • Shmapley,

    I am much in agreement with you concerning the large 'warehouse schools'. I and my children are the products of small community schools. My grandchildren are enrolled in large, centralized schools.

    It seems to me that as a general rule, parents run the small, community schools while administrators run the 'warehouse schools'. Like government, when citizens lose control education suffers.

    I totally agree concerning sports and the prestige and salary benefits gained by administrators in large schools.

    So often children/students get lost in the shuffle unless their parents are very involved and foreceful in regards to their children's interests.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 11:16 AM
  • There is a direct corrilation between underperforming schools and single parent households. Work on that issue, and schools improve.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 10:20 AM

    Like what? Force them to get married? Start another taxpayer funded government program to fix the single parent problem? Or fire all the teachers at the school of single parents?

    There is also a correlation between the sun rising and roosters crowing. But roosters don't make the sun rise.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 3:40 PM
  • Like what? Force them to get married? Start another taxpayer funded government program to fix the single parent problem? Or fire all the teachers at the school of single parents?

    There is also a correlation between the sun rising and roosters crowing. But roosters don't make the sun rise.

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 3:40 PM

    Wow. What a stupid statement. I wasn't suprised when I got to the bottom and saw it was from Dug.

    Actually, my point is the exact opposite. Recognize its a problem and make the community/parents take responsibility instead of blaming issues on schools/teachers and throwing money at the problem. How about making dead beat dads be responsible? But instead, nobody wants to point a finger there.

    Smaller community/rural/affluent schools are not better becasue of money, they are better because parents are more involved.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 4:07 PM
  • Single parents are often overwhelmed with the responsibility of work, everyday chores, and the task of raising children. They often do not get as involved with their children in school because of time constraints. It is not merely a moral issue; it is a matter of human limitations and priorities.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 4:41 PM
  • Actually, my point is the exact opposite. How about making dead beat dads be responsible?

    Really? So this just happens for free? Just telling deadbeat dads to get involved will work?

    Cite your references to this statement "There is a direct corrilation between underperforming schools and single parent households."

    I'm calling you out on this.

    How about a voucher program that worked tremendously in Washington DC for poor minority kids, many in single parent households. I heard the results were great and the parent(s)/children loved it.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 4:53 PM
  • Single parents are often overwhelmed with the responsibility of work, everyday chores, and the task of raising children. They often do not get as involved with their children in school because of time constraints. It is not merely a moral issue; it is a matter of human limitations and priorities.

    -- Posted by stnmsn8 on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 4:41 PM

    Adn that is the point I was making.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 4:58 PM
  • -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 5:17 PM
  • -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 5:17 PM

    Your wikipedia link says this: "research suggests that both in-school factors and home/community factors impact the academic achievement of students and contribute to the gap." and "Researchers have not reached consensus about the a priori causes of the academic achievement gap".

    NYTimes says "dead beat dads" are not a problem for girls - "Single mothers who work outside the home appear to provide greater incentive as role models for their daughters than for their sons, Andrea Beller said in a telephone interview Monday. The role-model influence in the case of girls appears to compensate for the loss of the mother's time at home, she said."

    onlinelibrary - refuted your "deadbeat dad" claim 100% - "The distal variables of maternal education, maternal religiosity, and adequacy of financial resources were linked with the proximal variables of "no nonsense" parenting, mother-child relationship quality, and maternal involvement in the child's school activities."

    The last link did provide some discussion about the lack of dads in a home and education. 3 of your 4 articles refute that as a cause. So based on your deep research you think that dead beat dads are the problem.

    How did the Washington, DC voucher program do so well with single parent families?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 5:43 PM
  • Start a campaign: "If you can't feed them then don't breed them"

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 6:20 PM
  • Maybe quit doing studies and start teaching children the basics might result in some improvement in the quality of education. Would make some more money available for education as well.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 7:00 PM
  • Dug,

    That school voucher program in Washington DC worked great and parents loved it.............until the Obama administration removed the funding for it!

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/11/nation/na-vouchers11

    -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, Oct 3, 2011, at 9:17 PM
  • stnmsn8 - thanks for posting the link. I knew that had happened, but if I criticize anything Obama then you-know-who will begin with the personal attacks.

    Not afraid of it, just don't have the time to chase the spin posts today.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 9:41 AM
  • Dug,

    I hated to post that link as I am generally opposed to federal funding of education. The Department of Education should be abolished; education is/should be the responsibility of state and local government.

    However, since the federal government has overstepped its bounds it should be pointed out when that same federal government screws up the system it created. In this case, President Obama did the parents and schoolchildren of Washington DC in order to repay one of his major political supporters......the teachers' unions.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 10:39 AM
  • Dug,

    I agree with you on the Department of Education, but Washington D.C. is and always has been the sole responsibility of the Federal Government, since it is not a part of any State.

    Congress has always had responsibility for it, and it serves as a good example of why you don't want them overly involved in the management of your own municipality.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 10:53 AM
  • Shapely - I think you meant you agree with stnmsn8 on the Department of Education? :-)

    I agree with you both on that!

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 11:03 AM
  • Agreed, Shapley;

    The federal government is responsible for Washington, DC. (although the community could still take responsibility for the system of education sans the state)

    I still think it is a good example of how politicians (in this case Obama) often put the welfare of their political supporters above the welfare of the citizens as a whole.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 11:15 AM
  • Dug,

    None of those articles refute what I said. Not sure why I am even discussing this with you. Research is something I see you are not used to.

    So, from the start:

    1)You need to understand the difference between causation and correlation. Also, you seem to be confused on the word 'refute'. Check that out as well.

    2)If there are other correlating influences does not 'refute' anything.

    3)From the wiki:

    "Studies show that when students have parental assistance with homework, they perform better in school. This is a problem for many minority students due to the large number of single-parent households (67% of African-American children are in a single-parent household) and the increase in non-English speaking parents. Students from single-parent homes often find it difficult to find time to receive help from their parent. Similarly, some Hispanic students have difficulty getting help with their homework because there is not an English speaker at home to offer assistance.

    4)NT times article: They used two long-term surveys to study two generations of mothers and their offspring, totaling 2,500 boys and girls. ''In general, the longer time spent in a single-parent family, the greater the reduction in educational attainment,'' they said.

    Just because single parent girls outperform single parent boys, doesn't mean they do better than other students from 2 parent homes. You limited experience in research really shows here or you would not make such a stupid and ignorant assumption.

    5)Online library: Again does not refute. In fact, it makes that assumption based on a literary review. This study is designed to identify the differences.

    Dug, I see what you are trying to do here and I am going to suggest you stop. You are actually making your self look petty and stupid.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 11:24 AM
  • -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 9:41 AM

    Dug, I also criticize obama.

    But go ahead and blaim it on me that you are able to put together a logical argument.

    Your whining is getting pretty pathetic.

    How about being honest:

    "I can't say anything stupid/incorrect about obama because lumbrg calls me out"

    Because that is what I actually do.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 11:27 AM
  • "You are actually making your self look petty and stupid."

    lumbrg - about the only research you have is your one-man surveys which don't command a lot of respect here. I quoted directly from your articles. Readers can decide and read for themselves. Pretty weak posting.

    Again with the personal attacks. It shows a lack of debate skills and command of the english language. But hey, I wouldn't expect any better from you.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 11:57 AM
  • -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 11:57 AM

    Why would I come here looking for respect?

    Seriously, I point out the innacuracies of people's post. If they consider that to be disrespectfull then so be it.

    I just always thought it better to be honest.

    Why would you say it was prety week posting. I pretty much destroyed your points. If a person was truly openminded, they would see it as such.

    And sorry if you consider it a personal attack, but having limited knowledge about research and commenting on with athority does make you sound stupid.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 1:56 PM
  • Your own links contradict you. Maybe they disrespect you?

    Honesty is another tool not in your box. Or to paste another lumbrg gem: "And character? Who cares about Character? "

    Clearly from your post "character" isn't in your toolbox either.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 4, 2011, at 2:52 PM

Respond to this thread