|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 29, 2004 0:50:08 GMT -5
I prefer "molecularly dense". Ruffda, on the other hand, is just plain dense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 29, 2004 1:00:51 GMT -5
Good point, Gorf, about teacher's salaries. I completely disagree on your war/terrorism comment. But since this is a thread about the "ant and the grasshopper"  , I'll stay focused on the education topic. 1) Federal money is only a part of the funding for education and 2) Teachers are getting the short-end of the stick. They can thank the NAE for the mess they are in. While federal education spending has been increasing with no end in sight, teacher's salaries have been pretty much stagnant. Hmmm ... maybe the teachers should be asking if the Dept. of Education and the NAE are really looking out for the teachers' best interests? Some people are thinking the layers of governement agencies behind education is part of the problem ... that it would be more efficient to distribute federal money through a state and local structure. Then the NAE is a union that has lost its original purpose. My guess is that the NAE administrative staff has had, on average, higher cost-of-living increases in their salaries than the average teacher.  Having a difference of opinion on GWB and the war is part and parcel with discussions of a political nature these days. Not a huge deal overall that we differ, but the discussions seem to help pass the time until the volleyball season starts anew. You make good points, the only thing that I'd really change is that some of the teachers I know would likely also want to ask them if they really have the student's best interest in mind. I know several very good (former) teachers that have switch to the private sector as SME's (subject matter experts) and courseware developers for CBT (computer based training) companies and are earning at least twice as much as they were as teachers. That's a sad situation to me in terms of schools trying to retain their best / most effective teachers. |
|
chunkymonkey
Freshman
My wife thinks I should change my moniker.
Posts: 58
|
Post by chunkymonkey on Jul 29, 2004 1:30:00 GMT -5
Gorf, I'm 100% w/ you on those comments. So it seems the traditional Demo. solution is to throw more money at it. I think the MWF's point is that throwing more money isn't the solution. Bush and Kennedy working together on it as buddies wasn't the answer either. I have a brother-in-law who is a superindent in a major metro district. He's a Republican ... but hasn't gone along with the No Child Left Behind bangwagon. He says it is all smoke-and-mirrors and we are just a few years away from major public issues when it becomes know that this approach isn't working and failed test schools cuts off or back federal funding. Add one more problem and crisis to the list.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 29, 2004 1:36:21 GMT -5
My wife is a teacher, a Republican by nature (*sigh* - ), and she has precious little good to say about the No Child Left Behind Act. In part because of the lack of funding, however, there were other issues she's had with it as well. |
|
chunkymonkey
Freshman
My wife thinks I should change my moniker.
Posts: 58
|
Post by chunkymonkey on Aug 1, 2004 18:13:40 GMT -5
Wall Street Journal editors read our thread! The Friday, July 30, editoral in the WSJ was titled, "What Money Can't Buy." It is an editoral about money being thrown at education with no significant results.
Couple thoughts from the WSJ ...
>"states spend $370 billion each year on K-12." (Add that to the $108 federal dollars we discussed.)
>WSJ cross-referenced a new Nelson A. Rockerfeller Institute of Government study on state education spending with the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading scores. The result, WSJ says, "we found virtually no link between spending and performance."
>Last paragraph of editorial: "The real problem is that, notwithstanding the $370 billion the states spend each year on K-12 public education, it remains a rare American monopoly. This election year we are going to hear candidates calling for all mannor of new education spending. The question so few of them--Republicans included--are addressing is this: Is there any other part of American life that would receive tens of billions of more dollars if it kept showing no improvement in performance?"
>Kerry's promise to the NEA: "fully funding education, no questions asked."
Notice that we've been discussing this for most of the week. More evidence that Volley Talk is on the cutting-edge! ;D
|
|
, I'll stay focused on the education topic. 1) Federal money is only a part of the funding for education and 2) Teachers are getting the short-end of the stick. They can thank the NAE for the mess they are in. While federal education spending has been increasing with no end in sight, teacher's salaries have been pretty much stagnant. Hmmm ... maybe the teachers should be asking if the Dept. of Education and the NAE are really looking out for the teachers' best interests? Some people are thinking the layers of governement agencies behind education is part of the problem ... that it would be more efficient to distribute federal money through a state and local structure. Then the NAE is a union that has lost its original purpose. My guess is that the NAE administrative staff has had, on average, higher cost-of-living increases in their salaries than the average teacher. 
