Get Schooled

By Jeff

January 8, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Bridget:

Glad to see SOMEONE at AJC is actually listening to Dr. Paul!

By V for Vendetta

January 8, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

Bridget, as long as schools are state-run institutions I think the answer will always be a resounding NO!

By HS Teacher Too

January 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Coming from someone who believes that special education is abused, mis-used, and the biggest money-sucking-entity out there, my answer is NO, the state is not spending money wisely. On the other hand, special education is a federal mandate, and so to not spend over-the-top money on it might be equally unwise. I am baised against the program in general, so I am not the best judge of this. I’d eliminate special ed for all but profound cases and overhaul the system, but no one asked me.

What I can’t stand is the constant new adoption of this, that, and the other bandwagon program to “improve” education in our state. If we’re stuck with NCLB and nonsense testing, why doesn’t the state ante up to spend the money to FIX the wretched tests we have currently and make the system at least somewhat less awful? That is what I would like to see. Our HSGT program is a known joke. Let’s fix it. Spend money on that instead of administering junk tests. Likewise, let’s make our EOCTs truly EOCTs. To the extent that these things won’t happen, they are all big wastes of money.

My two cents. Pun intended.

By mmm

January 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

The problem is the “strings” that every entity at every level attaches to the money. After a while everything is in such a tangle that there is no rhyme or reason—and then we are told that we need to spend MORE for this reason or that reason.

By V for Vendetta

January 8, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

I would love to know how many thousands are spent on certain technology items (like computers) that are outdated within the year and have to be replaced. Certain districts that have issued laptops have been met with myriad complaints regarding the computers — things like poor connections, lack of speed, frequent malfunctions, etc. Why do teachers need laptops anyway? They offer some measure of convenience, but desktops offer far better performance for the dollar.

Methinks the main reason is so certain districts can tout that they “give laptops to their teachers” which must prove said districts superiority. I say, it proves nothing more than politiking with taxpayer money. Pathetic.

By JustMe

January 8, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

IMHO, the State spending isn’t where we go horribly wrong…. The problem is the way school systems spend the money. There is NO accountability on how school systems spend their money. Some school systems spend way too much on consultants, on office personnel salaries, on office computer systems, and too little money that trickles into the actual classroom to benefit the students.

By Teacher, Too

January 8, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

HELP! This is off-topic, but I need some direction.

I want to teach an interdisciplinary unit on the art of the Italian Renaissance, and tie it in to language arts. I am having great difficulty finding resouces.

Any ideas? I have already contacted the High Museum, but other than that, I have not had any luck.

If you have any thoughts, please let me know!

Thank you.

By Jeff

January 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

T2:

I typed in ‘Italian Renaissance language arts lesssons’ and google hit nearly 200K pages.

Not sure if that’s any help, but hey, I haven’t been near a Language Arts classroom in quite a while!

By Jeff

January 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

T2:

Also, unsure about the period, but the only books by Italian authors of anywhere NEAR the appropriate vintage that I know of are:

The Prince by Machiavelli

The Decameronby Boccaccio

The Inferno by Dante

Of those, Decameron would probably be your best bet if it is indeed the appropriate period.

By jim d

January 8, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

Regarding ron Pauls comments last night.

It is not just the cost of war.

The Fed can’t fix it because it is inherent in a two party syatem that short-term political considerations eclipse long-term public interest considerations.

I suggest it is substantially beyond the ability of either political party in the present political climate to deal successfully with these issues.

By ironmaiden

January 8, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

My teacher colleagues used to laugh about the well-publized legal issues of their NW county. We had no supply money, but, hey, the attorney’s wives all had Boob Jobs!

Don’t just hand over your money to the feds! This is urgent! We need to get very serious about forcing the federal govt. to protect the interests of what’s left of the middle class, including public schools. Research and become a vocal advocate. The death knell is a-ringin’.

By JustMe

January 8, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this

jd -

I have often pondered that problem….

Having limits of short-term politicians will inevitably bring short-term policies without considerations of long-term ramifications.

However, long-term politicians may easily become tyrants and mimic the old (maybe new) Soviet system of czars in power too long.

How in the world could we find a middle-ground? I do not believe that the core problem is the “two party system” at all. In fact, this problem has nothing to do with any party system.

IMHO, our founding fathers really did want the most intelligent, the most wise, the most experienced, the most powerful, and the most wealthy to be in power. I believe it is because they felt that those individuals already had theirs and they were looking out more for the ‘people’ when making decisions for the Country - both long and short term. Of course, this was way before the ‘me’ generation came into play with selfishness and greed.

So then, how would you propose to fix this problem?

By Attn: Clayton Parents

January 8, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

Why do AJC education reporters continually refer to PAGE as a “teachers’ organization” when they emphatically are NOT? PAGE is an educators’ organization and there is a big difference as many former PAGE members learn when they count on PAGE for assistance in dealing with an abusive administrator.

It’s one thing for the editorial board to be biased, but it’s entirely unacceptable to allow that bias to lead to deceptive reporting.

Accurate reporting of PAGE as an educators’ organization would give readers better context in understanding stories such as the story of PAGE appealing to the governor over the Clayton County SACS controversy.

Instead of seeing it as concern for Clayton students they could see it for the political grandstanding that it really is. (It clearly is not out of any real concern, as PAGE didn’t seem to have any “concern” for Clayton students when board member Rod Johnson was KNOWINGLY facilitating the hiring of an accused, now indicted child molester.)

What this is is an attempt to make political hay against the Metro Association of Classroom Educators, the only organization that is really a teachers’ organization, because quite frankly, PAGE is tired of losing m-o-n-e-y to MACE when teachers realize that PAGE, because they admit both teachers and administration, can’t truly advocate for them. It’s like a hen trying to join the FWGH (Foxes Who Guard Henhouses) and asking for representation in a grievance against a fox. Not going to happen. And don’t readers need to know this when PAGE tries to pass itself off as a “teachers’ organization” (because they know that being known as an ADMINISTRATOR’S organization wouldn’t play as well with the public?)

I would hope even readers who have heard negative things about MACE, would still advocate that the AJC engage in OBJECTIVE reporting, and call an organization (PAGE) that allows teachers AND administrators to join, what they really are: not a “teachers’ organization” and *educators’ organization.

It’s not just “semantics” as many FORMER PAGE members painfully found out when they expected their “teachers’ organization” to provide representation that they fundementally could not.

Again, do AJC reporters not strive to be ACCURATE when they report, or are they required to put the spin on the story the editors ask them to?

Well?

By JustMe

January 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Link to this

Actually, PAGE is more of an education administrators organization. It was originally intended to be for education administrator support, but then eventually expanded to include teachers. However, even now, PAGE reguallary sides with administrators on any issues that are teachers vs. administrators.

I used to join MACE. However, MACE is too local and does nothing to influence the State - where the real change needs to start.

By Ernest

January 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this

Are state officials ‘spending’ money or simply ‘allocating’ it to local school districts for them to determine how to spend the money? What JustMe said at 2:48 has merit. We should have something to say about how the money is being allocated from the state.

To V’s question at 1:18, teachers are given laptops (just like many workers in private industry) to increase productivity. Think about the amount of work that is done ‘off hours’ since the laptop is portable and nearby. Factoring that in with the cost of the laptop makes it a better bargain than desktops.

By jim d

January 9, 2008 7:01 AM | Link to this

Ahh—JM,

A subject deaar to my heart. So please forgive the following rant.

Indeed party politics are involved and in my opinon a real issue.

The US House of Representatives is supposedly our democratic legislative body with elections every two years — originally intended to ensure that our 435 representatives would be responsive to the common interest of their constituents. Their public media-driven campaigns of self-promotion have become incredibly expensive and lengthy, if not continuous. Our dominant ideology — that society is best guided by the “invisible hand” while each individual seeks to maximize his self interest — in late capitalism becomes the standard for all professions, including our politicians. Because the primary factors involved in their decision-making are personal (obtaining and retaining their offices, which bring them power and wealth), the American people have discovered that they are in reality representing primarily the powerful private interests which fund them and that voting for major party candidates does not remedy the situation. In the last House elections, over 90 per cent of the seats were uncontested or not seriously contested and overall about 40 percent of those eligible voted, producing another landslide for incumbents. The major parties had in the state legislatures in previous years gerrymandered the US congressional districts to make most of the seats virtual lifetime appointments, thereby promoting responsiveness to private rather than public interests.

Our national representatives have become experts in retaining their seats by avoiding discussion of fundamental issues and votes on the few controversial issues which lobbyists and interest groups present. As a result the former never enter the public mind, which is informed by our mass media, and the latter never get finally decided and we don’t move on. What and when issues are brought up for decision, and how these are framed and debated, are matters determined by a very few powerful men called “party leaders,” who act as agents of the president if of the same party. This encourages executive interference in the legislative process, for example the recent illegal removal of the Cuba travel amendment from the transportation budget. We keep getting the same issues re-argued year after year on the margin with no final decision, like tax code change, campaign finance, abortion rights, gun control, social security, health coverage, to name a few. We often find that members have voted both ways on various aspects of these complex matters so that we can’t determine where they stand. On domestic issues our Congress has become essentially unresponsive and therefore dysfunctional, which happens to serve the needs of the interests which fund it.

As has been found on this blog many times. “Follow the money”

A true multiparty system might eliminate many of these issues.

By jim d

January 9, 2008 7:04 AM | Link to this

Bridget,

UPDATE

Wooten’s an idiot!

By JustMe

January 9, 2008 7:50 AM | Link to this

jd -

Your last post was a great summary and commentary of what currently happens. However, you offer no solutions?

By jim d

January 9, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

JM,

The solution was eluded to, my friend.

“multiparty”

Currently in our 2 party system politico’s fear making change that would benefit the “people” due to potential loss of support from special intrest groups that continue to support their re-elctions. A third party simply would be a catalyst for change in that it would bring issues to benefit the public to light. Forcing the entrenched politicans to either deal with them or go on record as refusing to. Which could have a profound effect on their re-electabillity, regardless of the bank roll supporting those efforts.

Politicans swithcing parties has become common place in our current system. The reason being that there truly is little difference in ideology. They are merely following the money of special intrest groups that will help them be elected. A strong third party would force other politicans to take a strong ideological stand and to then back it up with their actions, (votes and proposed legislation) making them more accountable to their constituency.

Does that sound reasonable?

By WFC

January 9, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

Money wasted:

By Jeff

January 9, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

jim:

I’ve about decided that if Dr. Paul isn’t the republican nominee, I’ll be voting ANYONE BUT THE GUY WITH A D OR AN R NEXT TO HIS NAME for quite a while.

I’m already thinking I’ll be writing in Dr. Paul’s name on every Presidential ballot until another rises just like him or he dies.

For even state-wide elections, I’ll start writing in the name of SOMEONE I personally know that I feel could handle the job.

By jim d

January 9, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

WFC,

Didn’t mean to sound like I didn’t think it was a waste. I will point out however, that it has been documented time and again that simply throwing “more money” at education doesn’t accomplish any lasting improvement.

By jim d

January 9, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

It is the (I) that I generally avoid. If an incumbent has already failed, why give them another opportunity to screw you?

By Larry

January 9, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

I just got the ITBS scores for my daughter, an eighth grade GCPS student.

She placed in the 99th percentile in both national curve equivalent and national percentile rank. The grade equivalent is listed as 13+ because higher numbers don’t exist.

Lest you think this kid is a bookworm, she is studying music, learning the viola and carries a 99 in her performing arts class.

My daughter attends the same public schools run under the same funding formula as every other kid in Georgia, yet she performs at the top in every measurable aspect of education when compared with her peers across the country.

Funding doesn’t seem to be the problem.

By jim d

January 9, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Yeah Larry,

But lets be honest here. She is a lot smarter than __. (go ahead and you fill in the blank) LOL

By Jeff

January 9, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

I think I’m going to stick to avoiding BOTH Ds and Rs.

IF (big IF) any Is show up that I would normally vote for following this practice, I’ll judge them on their own merits. (Though I do have a general principle of giving you no longer than a decade in office, even if I like you.)