| Author | Message | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 377 Registered: 1-2003 |
Here, here!! And you are still paying your part because I am sure that if it is the same where you are as here in Texas, even though your kids do not attend public school, you are paying school taxes. We do not utilize the public school system, but we still help pay for the education of others through our tax dollars. Somehow it does seem fair but that is the way the law is for now so we do it. Like you, we would gladly pay what we are paying now and put our son back into public school if we were certain that he would not suffer because of it. Right now, that cannot be assured us. I hope something is done by the time he reaches high school as I would like to see him get to experience some of the things I did during that time. But, that was years ago and things are certainly different now. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 426 Registered: 11-2002 |
Sometimes I think maybe the best solution is to do away with public schools all together and privatize the whole thing. I'm really not sure what to do but I know the way it is now will not work. I know some will say that I am not helping matters by sending my kids to private school, that I should work to change things instead, but I have no choice as thier well being is far to important to risk. I do what I can by staying envolved in local politics and supporting those that really want to make a difference. If the system improves I will be the first to put my kids back in but for now private school is the only way I can insure they will get the best possible education they deserve. | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 374 Registered: 1-2003 |
Charles, Thanks. I will pass it along. The principal from our sons last public school was probably one of the best I have ever seen and she left because of all the bureacracy. The school control was being taken away from her and put in the hands of the overall administration and she was becoming just a pawn to their whims. She did not want to battle them and left after 23 years. This is happening more and more. In Dallas, the school district has had so much trouble it does not seem the problems will ever be worked out. There actually has to be police at the school board meetings because they are open to the public and several times there have been shoving matches during the meetings and much loud yelling and arguing from the audience. They actually brought in an outside service (Durham Services) to run several of the schools on an experimental basis. This makes the public schools, privately run. It is not working out either. Seems as though the district was paying for some services that they were not receiving. And all this on top of the fact that the last two heads of the Dallas Independent School District were found to have been, as we say, misappropriating school district funds. And on top of a $500K a year salary plus benefits. Give me a break. There are many resumes waiting in the wings for people who would love a shot at receiving what the head of the DISD gets.. You notice I did not say "waiting to come in and redirect the school district and put it back on a solid course." Money, money, money. And it will corrupt. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 424 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jere that is a great story! Sounds much like some of the stuff my friend Patty tells me about. It is exactly this sort of thing I was refering to when I said the real problem was lack of parental envolvement. When I was in school we could not get away with stuff like that. My Dad would have kicked my butt if the school called about me. Parents these days are too quick to blame everyone else for the little monsters they create. We have become a society that no longer wants to take personal responsibility for our actions or teach our children to do so. I think that is why kids have become so much more violent than they use to be. Tell your wife I said I am sorry to here she had to give up something she loved so much. I know it is not much consolation but tell her that people like my friend Patty are trying very hard to change the things you are talking about. That is why our community worked so hard to get her on the school board. Maybe you guys could do the same thing. | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 373 Registered: 1-2003 |
I have talked with a good number of public school teachers and they feel they have had their hands tied by all the federal regulations and also the fear of lawsuits by parents who do not believe their child can do any wrong. I know that in the last year my wife was teaching, an incident happened that helped make her decision to leave much easier. She loved teaching, especially if she had students who were eager to learn. She had a young man in an elementary classroom who was being disruptive and actually got up and turned around in his desk to face the student behind him during the time she was taking role. She asked him to turn back around twice. The third time she went to his desk and put her hand on his shoulder. He jerked away from her and one of her fingernails scratched his neck as he jerked away. He proceeded to profane her in front of the class. She asked him to accompany her to the principals office as he was not allowing the other students to receive the benefit of the educational process. On the way to the office he told her that if he saw her outside the school building, he would "cut her." He was a hispanic boy about 12 years old. When they arrived at the office she had to fill out a full report on the happenings. The parents were called in and when they arrived she had to leave her class again to meet with the principal and them. Of course, the boy said he had done none of the things she accused him of and that she had tried to choke him and scratched his neck when he was fighting to get away. He also said he did not use any profanity or threaten her in any way. And of course the parents believed him and threatened a lawsuit against the school if they did not do something about this "abusive school teacher." She was put on disciplinary probation and it was entered into her work history in a negative manner. This boy had already received detention several times for disruptive action in class and had been expelled once for bullying other students and starting fights. But, his parents said he would not do anything like she said and backed him fully, not making him take any responsibility for his actions. By doing this, they also did not have to take any responsibility for his actions or their own. This happens much too often in our "lawsuit threatening" society. She left the profession of education shortly thereafter and has not returned. She has spoken out many a time about too much administration in the school districts and too little support for the good teachers out there. She is a strong proponent for paying good teachers what they are really worth but taking the fluff out of the top administrators compensation packages. As you can see, this education thing is one of my pet peaves and I can really rant about it. If just more parents would become more involved in their childrens lives and education, I think we could see a great change. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 416 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jon I agree! | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 594 Registered: 8-2001 |
Read this post with great interest. Bit short on time so I can't comment on all the good points made by most of you but I am totally against the outcome that affirmitive action causes. I also think that public schools in the US are a joke. I went through the German school system (not military school on a US base but a real German school) until my parents moved to the US when I was nine. US students were so far behind on math and science by about two years minimum. Here in Virginia (can't comment on other states) I have been a proponent of a full voucher system allowing folks to take their kids to whatever school they want. Here in VA a school systems budget is determined by the number of students. More students, more money. Nothing in the equation about performance. If schools had to compete for your kids (like businesses compete for your dollar) then you would, as a parent, pick the best schools, who in turn would get the most money (which is their goal). Thus schools would be motivated to have the best teachers and highest standards to gain the most students, which in turn gives them a bigger budget (which is about all they really care about). The topic is a bit more complicated than I have outlined but I will be happy to debate the merits of this plan when time permits. Most of the voucher systems that have been used have come with huge strings attached by the idiots at the Department of Education who want it to fail badly. More money isn't the answer. We give 2 BILLION, that BILLION to the DOE and they don't spend one dime on making education better. All that money is spent to make sure that public schools and public school teachers are insulated from competition and from having to do their job properly. Regards, Jon | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1295 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: As I understand this, a great portion of the overhead for schools is imposed by the Feds. This is done by making the Federal grants conditional upon the schools meeting certain Federal standards in order to receive the funds. I don't have a school example, but I do know that the .08 DUI limit is an example of that. The feds wanted that limit and conditioned the federal highway funds upon the State enacting the new, lower standard. I think the schools requirements are similarly imposed, but I'm not sure of exactly the mode in which they do it. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1132 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, great idea in principle. However, as a Californian, you also know that many of those Propositions that have appeared on the ballot, and WON, have then been overturned by ONE LONE LIBERAL JUDGE whose personal politics do not agree with what the vast majority of that state's voters demand. This has happened quite a few times (not all the same judge, but you know what I am talking about), and I guarantee that the same situation would happen here. As you said so adroitly: too many people with a vested interest in the status quo, and their fingers in the publig $$$ trough. It's a joke: here in Austin, Texas, the school district is eliminating several hundred positions to cut costs. Most are teacher positions and clerical/support staff positions, and seem to exempt fata$$ do-nothing administrators with cars (of which there are plenty). But that's not the worst of it: all but 50 of these layoff will be given NEW JOBS in NEWLY CREATED positions in the district! So net-net? No freakin' money will be saved, but alot of musical chairs & feel-good liberal "we're doing something about it" crap will be barfed on the lowly taxpayers. That scam is going on all over this country, Art. And until that entitlement mentality changes, nothing else will. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 410 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art I think they call that a referendum and I think your idea is a good one! | ||
| Jaime T. Ferraris are sex on wheels (Chevarri)
Junior Member Username: Chevarri Post Number: 53 Registered: 1-2003 |
Randall, "I'd like to see it set up so that race and sex are not asked on any application sheets." Those questions are not required to be filled in by law, and are entirely optional. A public school teacher  told me that a few years ago, and I see no reason why it may have changed. When you fill it in(gender/race), it can allow you to qualify for certain, bonds, grants, and scholarships. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1291 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: It's never going to happen for the same reason we can't get rid of the embargo against Cuba: Politics. Too many people with vested interests who vote, or pay money to politicans. Better to use the universal vouchers, and if the public system is so bad, it will die from lack of use. I've got an idea about the politics: In California we have a system, whereby if you get enough signatures of voters, you can put legislation on the ballot. My initiative is quite simple: "It shall be a felony for an elected offical to take any act in their offical capacity which affects, directly or indirectly, any person, entity, or association which has, directly or indirectly contributed in excess of $1000.00 to that official, directly or indirectly. Said felony shall be punishable by 2000 hours of community service, to be done within the next 12 months after conviction for same." This, I believe would put a stop to this. Your thoughts? Art | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 408 Registered: 11-2002 |
Why not instead have everyone pay for thier own childrens education and if they can't afford it don't have any! My wife and I pay twice by sending our children to private school. Part of our tax dollars go to public schools and we pay out of pocket for private school. Basically Arthur what your saying is that I should be responsible for my kids and everyone elses too. If you really like the idea of vouchers why not take it one step further and suggest we do away with public schools altogether. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1129 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, I will bite on your idea, because you have a valid point. But, before you start spending more taxpayer money, some politician needs to have the ballz to take on the education union establishment & kick some azz in order to cut out the crap spending & waste! And no one has ever done that in any big city! First things first, my good man, before you try to reach further into taxpayers' already-empty wallets. OK? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1289 Registered: 6-2001 |
Tommy, Charles: As I told Dave earlier: I'm into efficiency in the schools. If someone can figure out how to get this done, in a more efficient manner, my hat's off to them. Having said that, you can't just walk away from the school system. It's educating the next generation of our citizens, and we owe them an effort. The issue of private schools being the solution beggs the issue, what do you do about those who can't afford them? The long term solution is to supply them with a proper education. I have a suggestion: Let's make the vouchers large enough so that EVERYONE can attend private schools, lets say the median cost of a private education in that particular county. I my humble opinion, this would raise the cost of the vouchers by about 2 to 1. If these are such a great idea, lets make them useable for everyone. Betcha no one takes me up on that solution. Art | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 406 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jere tell your wife I have the highest respect for her! I know it is extremely difficult to home school. Congradulations on a job well done. It sounds as though your son already has the tools he needs to succeed. We need a lot more parents like you guys that are willing to do what ever it takes to see to it that thier kids get the best possible upbringing they can get. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1126 Registered: 1-2002 |
Jere & Dr. Tom, you are both correct, IMO. The issue is not money. The issue is where is all the money these districts currently get going? Drop-kick all the 6-figure administrators, asst. superintendents, deputy asst. superintendents, etc etc etc, along with their taxpayer-paid cars & gasoline & cell phones (another part fo that infamous LA Times story--all these fata$$clown 6-figure do-nothings with paid-for cars ALSO had unlimited-use cellphones paid for by taxpayers!), and even 20% of the graft, fraud, waste, self-dealing, and fiscal abuse, and I'd bet you'd free up a huge chunk of $$$ to (a) pay teachers more, (b) shrink class size, and maybe even (c) cut taxes! Too bad the lefties who control the education unions will always oppose true reform. Tony Soprano has nothing on these dishonest union skanks.  | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 360 Registered: 1-2003 |
Charles, I agree with you on private schooling. My wife holds a teachers certificate but got out of the public school sytsem 13 years ago. She homeschools our 13 year old son. He went thru the 4th grade in public schools but we removed him because of the things we did not like about it. At 13, his equivalency tests put him in 9th grade work. At thirteen he is learning physics, geometry, calculus and is much further along with his science projects than I ever did in high school. In his early years in public school, he excelled enough that he was placed in the accelerated programs. In the 4th grade, the school system did away with the accelerated programs and placed all students together. His teacher actually started using him as a teacher aide to assist her with helping some of the kids in his class who were way behind. This was a great idea to help the slower kids but it essentially stopped his forward progress. He started to become bored because he was not being challenged and his grades began to drop significantly. My wife made the decision to take him out and for her to homeschool him. So far, it has turned out to be a very wise decision. We would like to get him back into public schools for his high school years but if the public education process continues to deteriorate, she may have a few more years of teaching ahead of her. Parental involvement and good teachers are the best combination. Not more bureacracy and administration. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 404 Registered: 11-2002 |
Thank you Dr Tom! Arthur's is a typical Democratic view of how to solve a problem, just throw more money at it! | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Intermediate Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 1087 Registered: 5-2001 |
I am with Charles here. Public schools are SUPPOSED to educate our kids. Just because the public schools exist does not mean the education is being provided. They are trying to place a tax on gas here in Jefferson Co Alabama to provide more money for the public school system which is in shambles. Why? Hardly a day goes by that I do not see an article in the paper about school funds being "misappropriated". These problems must be addressed, simply throwing more more money in the pot will not help anything. I was educated in public schools from 1-8 in the middle and late 70's. Things were fine. I could actually read and write a term paper before high school. The same school today is in sad, sad, shape. I wonder if anyone here on this chat line can figure out what has changed in the last 20 years there? | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 403 Registered: 11-2002 |
Jere I agree but I think we are doing just that by sending our kids to private school. By doing so we are saying that we are willing to pay more for quality teachers. Most people would complain if you suggested we raise taxes in order to pay teachers higher salaries. They like the idea of paying them what they are worth until it has to come out of thier pocket. The thing I really like about private school is the fact that we have control over what happens with our kids. If the school does not live up to our standard they will be fired! The only way for a parent to know that though is to get directly envolved with the school. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 402 Registered: 11-2002 |
Oh and I forgot, I don't agree that the difference between motivated students and unmotivated ones is the quality of instruction. I believe it is the parents. All one need do is give thier child a love of learning at an early age and they will do the rest. It is easy to blame the teachers for the problems the parents create. I am not actively teaching at this time but when I was I always did my best. That was not always enough with some of the younger students because they did not have a lot of the personal skills they needed to be succesfull. Lets face it, it is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. If the parents don't give them what they need early in life there isn't a whole lot teachers can do to turn them around. I would suggest that all the parents out there that are pointing a finger at the school should realize there is three pointing back at them! | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 401 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art I understand the need for public schools. I am not saying we don't need them, I am saying that money is not the problem. One of my very good friends is on the school board of my county and her and I have had this disscusion many times. We both agree that what has happend over the years is that teachers have become disillusioned by the lack of support from parents. It is some what understandable when most parents just want to dump thier kids on the schools, complain when they fail, and then insist they be pushed through to the next grade. It's the old "not my kid" attitude. I just happen to be one of the the so called white flight parents you mentioned. If you want to see a great model for schools try the Walker School in Atlanta. One of the schools reguirements to maintain enrollment is direct parental envolvement. Each parent is required to volunteer some time at the school in order for thier child to remain in the school. You would not believe the difference between Walker and public schools and it isn't because they have more money, it's because everyone there is committed to educating the kids. I will stand by what I said that public schools are just subsidized baby sitting. They are just a place for uncommitted, disconected parents to park thier kids while they persue thier selfish desires! | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 359 Registered: 1-2003 |
If I may interject something here. Art, you said that if our public schools are just baby sitters, maybe we should get better teachers. Therein, I believe, lies one of the problems. Have you looked at the payscale for public school teachers recently? For the level of education that an educator is expected to have, the pay is not close of being equal to what they can earn in the private sector. Masters degrees have come to be expected of our teachers and this is good. But, they need to be paid for the contribution they make. How many lives will one teacher affect in their career? Thousands. And I know this is out there, but how many teachers would it take adding all their salaries together for a year to equal what Michael Schumacher makes in a year? 1000 teachers making $50K a year to equal what one man makes racing a car in a year. And $50K a year would be for an experienced, tenured educator. I think our thinking is our of kilter here. I cannot blame the good educators for leaving the education field to enter the private sector to make much more money. Can you? I mean, you know what education it took for you to enter law but you are compensated quite adequately for it, I am sure. Now, if I told you that I would pay you $35K a year to start as a teacher and a Masters is required, would you even consider it? If we want good educators, we are going to need to pay them. And until we pay them what they are really worth for the influence they have on the lives of so many, we unfortunately will not get "the best". "The best" will go somewhere they can make a living. And that is no different that what you or I or anyone else on FC would do. I applaud those few individuals who see their act of educating our children as a service and it is something they will do despite the restrictions placed on them now and the lower than market payscale. I look up to them with admiration because they do it because they want to and love it. I cannot say as much for me. I would probably move on to a better paying position somewhere else. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1279 Registered: 6-2001 |
Charles: You are wrong. Public schools educate our kids, and we need the schools to ensure that our society continued to educate our citizens. Failure to do so will ensure that we end up a 3rd world country in due course. The more money you take from that system (assuming that the system becomes efficient, and doesn't waste dollars) the more you guarantee that we have an underclass, and civil strife. That's not a good solution to our society's ills, in my humble opinion. My opinion is that since Brown v. Board of Education, there has been a substantial white flight from the public schools, and a consequencial reduced favor for financing the public school. In fact, I think that what is funding this argument about vouchers is exactly that. You can't send your kid to a private school for the cost of a voucher (3000 to 5000 per year), so that they (the vouchers) will only be used by those with the ability to spend extra money. That will force the poorer people to utilize the then underfunded public schools, while the middle and upper class get public assistance to educate their kids. That in turn will cause a further degradation of the public school system. I went to public schools in the 50s, and 60s, and it sure didn't hurt me. I got as good an education as I was then capable of receiving, and I don't think that it was a waste, at all. I notice that you still have your instructor 's rating for flight instruction. If you are still actively teaching, you probably understand the difference between motivated kids and non-motived kids can be the quality of the instruction. If you think that these schools are just babysitting, maybe we ought to get better teachers, no? Art | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 398 Registered: 11-2002 |
Randall, for a change something we agree on. Art, public schools are just subsidized baby sitting in IMO. Spending more money on them will not solve the problem which IMO is the lack of parental involvement. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1094 Registered: 1-2002 |
All true, my good man, all true. I agree with you 100%. But cut out the taxpayer-paid cars, boondoggle trips, 3000 6-figure weasels, etc etc etc, and I'll bet more money would be freed up than is even needed. Perhaps--GASP!!--taxes could actually go down & yet classrooms would be better prepared!! But alas, the entrenched NEA 7 administrators' union bureaucracies--with major vested interests in the status quo--will never allow it. It's too bad we are squandering our childrens' futures because some union fat-a$$ a$$clowns want their 6 figure salaries & comped cars at the taxpayer trough... And I hope you agree with me on this! | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1272 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: No one is against being efficient. However, extra items in the class do make an improvement in the school: computers, new books, more teachers, etc. Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1092 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, good jab! And I agree--Mr. Bush definitely mangles his syntax, and sometimes worse, to often comic results!! I do have one comment about this statement: "If the cost of schooling keeps rising..." Art, time & again, it has been PROVEN that more spending per pupil does NOT equate to better schooled kids. Case in point: Washington, DC, spends nearly $11,000 per pupil per year--by far the highest in the US--yet has about the worst students & grades in the country. So the cost of schooling kids properly does NOT keep rising, but the cost of running the big-city top-heavy union-run education bureaucracy machine does. And that does not benefit the schools. I recall a major LA Times piece a few years ago, as the LA School District was about to go bankrupt. Seems they (the district, i.e. the taxpayers) were still paying for cars for hundreds & hundreds of district bureaucrats, were still paying 6 figure salaries to well over 3,000 (!!!!!) district bureaucrats & district "executives", and still spending hundreds of milions of $$$ on that moronic school that they ended up building right on top of the earthquake fault & underground toxic gas field (that building, I believe, still sits vacant), all the while decrying the need to lay off teachers, cut teachers salaries, cut classes, raise class size, and demand a tax increase. So don't tell me about "If the cost of schooling keeps rising..." because it is a total scam to keep these 6 figure scumbags comfortable with the status quo. And this is the exact same situation in every urban district in the country (I have seen it recently in Dallas, Austin, Philadelphia, SF, LA, Seattle, etc etc etc). End of rant. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1271 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: The highest rate is now about 9%, but I think its going up. The issue re: tax is how do we finance our schools, and keep the elderly in their residences. If the cost of schooling keeps rising, a lot of retired elderly are forced from their homes, because they can't pay the taxes. We had that in California in the 70s and our solution was to limit the property taxes to the assessed value as of 1976, with increased limited to 1.5% per year, and a maximum tax of 1.1% of the assessed value, plus any bonds, which require a 2/3rds vote. That has limited the property taxes, kept people in their homes, and generally been a good benefit to the state. The mention of the election was just a jab to see if you'd react. both of these guys had all the proper opportunities that anyone in this country could have. They both ended up about as good as they are able to be. I would comment that our current president does have a bit of difficulty with the language, but I don't know if that is a function of his intelligence, or what. I do know that it provides some humor in some circles. It certainly isn't what one would expect from a Harvard MBA, regardless of their politics. Regards, Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1090 Registered: 1-2002 |
Yes, he did...but much later than when his son was in school. My point is that old man Gore was in a position to exert MUCH more influence to give his son Al an easy ride in school than old man Bush was, so therefore all the left-wing bleating about GW having been "bought" his grades is unmitigated bullsheet. And Art, are you one of those unfortunate souls STILL contesting the 2000 election? 3 words of advice: GET OVER IT! But I do agree with one thing you posted: if the economy is still in the terlet in 2004, Bush will likely not win reelection, unless, of course, the Democratic field remains as it is is today--weak at best. One more thing about financing schools, Art: what, exactly, is your maximum state income tax rate? as I recall, when I lived there is was either 11% or 13%. Add that to your federal 40% rate, and I will take Texas--high property taxes but NO state income taxes--any day. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1270 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jere: In California, we dropped the property tax as a method of financing the schools, and left the financing to the State government. That solved the apparent problem that your state has. However, even with that change, there is substantial differences in the schools, teachers, etc. Dave: I'm not so sure that Bush is smarter than Gore. Doesn't make any difference. The proof of the pudding will be the economy when its time for the next election. If it's good, Bush probably gets re-elected (or elected for the first time). If its not good, then he will probably be voted out of office. Lastly, have you forgotten George Bush, his father ended up President? Regards, Art | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 338 Registered: 1-2003 |
Art, Here in Texas we have what is called the Robin Hood Act. In order to attempt to get more dollars to the poorer school districts within the state, money is taken from the more affluent school districts. It seemed like a good idea to begin with. I mean, the way it was supposed to work is that all school districts would be able to offer like pay scales to its teachers and good programs in all the schools. The problem that has now arisen is that the school taxes being charged in each school district are not equal. In order to give enough to the poorer districts, the residents in the more affluent districts are seeing their tax bill go way up. In the poorer districts, there is simply not enough income to even open a school, much less keep it operating. So, the answer has become to raise the school taxes in the more affluent districts to compensate for the others. This has resulted in some districts seeing their school taxes raised by as much as 3 times to help pay for the less fortunate districts. And the results are not changing. The poorer districts are still having trouble attracting guality teachers because of the lack of discipline and respect in the schools in that area. The parents are going to have to kick in and help out with the respect problem in the lower districts to ever hope that they will meet up with the upper districts. Hopefully in time, this will work out but right now there is an awful lot of grumbling in the upper districts.. I even saw that in Southlake, where Rob Lay lives, that the school district may have to drop some of the programs it currently has in place in order to meet their tax obligations to the lower districts. People in that area have seen their school tax bills triple and may still have to drop programs. Sort of a Catch-22 isn't it. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Intermediate Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 1086 Registered: 1-2002 |
Randall, we agree on this one. If color & gender should not & may not be used to discriminate AGAINST someone, it should also not be used to discriminate FOR someone. Plain & simple. Mr. Callahan: FYI, Mr. Bush's grades in high school & college were much better than Mr. Gore's. And before you launch your daggers, remember that Gore's father, at the time, was a US Senator, while Bush's was a mere ambassador. So STFU with the "Bush is dumb" crap---he is smarter than Gore. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1265 Registered: 6-2001 |
Whart got it right. We don't put the money into those things that would eliminate the need for affirmative action, even when its against the law (California for example, provides for equal state funding for our schools). Somehow we never seem to get a school in the low rent district that equals in teachers and facilities, those in the high rent district. In short affirmative action was the cheap alternative to living up to the promise. Its OK to get rid of affirmative action, if you do the right thing. We won't, because it costs money, and that's the entire issue. There are still folks alive that weren't able to attend school because of their color. Examples of this are rampant in the South: Mississippi didn�t have a medical school for Black students, if you wanted to be a doctor you had to go out of State. There are still people alive, who were kept from jobs, because of their color. They and their kids didn't get the promise we made them in our laws and constitution about things being equal, despite it being illegal to act in that manner. to a certain extent there is still residual discrimination in our society, it hasn't all gone away. I don't think anyone is upset with pure affirmative action, but no one wants quotas. By purer affirmative action, I mean seeking out people of color to interview for the job, school, etc., but selecting the best person for the position, or school. As to those Black Schools that don�t accept white kids: That�s illegal, and if it�s a problem, they can and should be sued to make them comply with the law. When I was a kid, there were quotas: They only let so many Jews into college, clubs, etc. That's how Brandies University got started: discrimination kept quite a few Jews out of Harvard and they needed an alternative. That discrimanatory form of affirmative action benefitted the kids of the rich gentile families, who weren't quite smart enough to get into those good schools, and opened a place for them. Again, I think that almost everyone would be glad to be color bind. We just have to be willing to do the right thing and eliminate the need for affirmative action. It just takes money. This has nothing to do with PC, it has to do with depriving people of opportunities, which by law they are entitled to. | ||
| chris cummings (Entelechy)
Junior Member Username: Entelechy Post Number: 197 Registered: 5-2001 |
WM, you're right, but it seems we're suffering from the death of common sense! Over-legistlating everything has had a massive counter-effect giving rise to the paradox of massive inequality in our efforts to create equality. Again, read Crier's book if you get a chance; it's well worth examining, as these issues will continue to effect us all and are getting worse. | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 901 Registered: 12-2001 |
If you think back not too many years, blacks weren't allowed into alot of colleges, rode in the back of the bus, etc. We've come quite along way, not far enough in the estimation of some, but much of what's needed comes from people's attitudes toward the "other" race (black and white). By the time you get to the job market, or even college entrances, its too late. The secondary schools in New York (i have visited some to talk about law as a career) are pretty scary: most of the time, the teachers are forced to focus on discipline and maintaining calm. The welfare social legislation model doesn't work too well, but without civil rights reform i'd hate to think where we'd be. | ||
| chris cummings (Entelechy)
Junior Member Username: Entelechy Post Number: 194 Registered: 5-2001 |
This is just the tip of the iceberg - pick up a copy of Catherine Crier's brilliant book "The Case Against Lawyers" and try not to boil-over with indignation! I wish that book were required reading for everyone in the country. | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 2810 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jere, i couldnt have said it better myself. There is definately a double standard based on race when it comes to most selection processes like jobs, college, etc. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2242 Registered: 2-2001 |
The US has gone over the top with PC crap. I'm going to move back to Buenos Aires after law school and hang out with my harem, you guys can come visit if you like | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 336 Registered: 1-2003 |
When I worked for an unnamed Supermarket chain, I was passed over for upper management a number of times because our "race codes" were unbalanced. I would end up training the person who would go in as my boss, last three months because they couldn't take the stress and then do it all over again. I was told that if I were a female or a "black" or even better a "black female" that I would have been selected. In todays world I believe I would have a very good case for reverse discrimination. One of my pet peaves is the TV ad for the "UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND". I am definitely not racist but I believe this ad is. I mean, there are black universities that will not admit whites. Where is that different from segregation of the sixties. What if I posted an ad for the "UNITED HONKIE HOMEBOY COLLEGE FUND"? How long would it be until I was slapped with all kinds of lawsuits? No, I do not like affirmative action the way it is administered today. I believe that every person should have the same opportunities. The best qualified should get the job and there should be no mention of sex, nationality, religious affiliation on any of the applications. I do not want any special considerations nor do I want them given to anyone else. We should earn what we receive and not be penalized for who we are. Any of us, black, white, hispanic, native American, Christian, Jew, Atheist, Muslim, male, female, it does not matter. And if I left anyone out, I am sorry. We should all be considered the same. If we are best qualified, we are the best qualified. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 709 Registered: 1-2002 |
Being white, lower middle class, and without substantial income affirmative action acted as nothing but a stopcock to my admission process into higher learning. It's an unjust and insulting paradigm that is distributed not on the merits of need, but political correctness and campaign brownie points. | ||
| Robert Callahan (Rcallahan)
Junior Member Username: Rcallahan Post Number: 164 Registered: 7-2002 |
But if we wipe out affirmative action, how are people like GW Bush going to get into ANY college? Bob | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1260 Registered: 6-2001 |
I'm against affirmative action, provided we make it universal. An example of that is the "ledgends" at school, i.e., their parents went there and they get a few extra points for admission, their parents give to the endowment fund, and they get a little extra to get in, or their an athlete, and they get a few extra points to get it. Let's make the entrance into college equal, i.e., everyone starts from the same place. At the same time, lets make sure that all of our schools are equal. Let's make the minimum school equal the best: provide equal equipment, teachers, etc. Once we do that there is absolutely no need for affirmative action. May cost us some money though. Who's willing to spend the extra money to make sure that we don't need affirmative action? Art | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 2803 Registered: 6-2001 |
I am opposed to affirmative action. In my opinion, it is a form of racism. Why should someone who is less qualified than me be chosen for something based soley on the color of their skin or their ethnicity. I agree with you randall when you say it shold not be on any application sheets. They may sayit does not matter, but then why do they ask if it does not matter?? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Member Username: Randall Post Number: 296 Registered: 1-2003 |
Since I've demonstrated so many anti-Bush views, I figured I'd chime in with something I agree with some. He doesn't seem very keen on affirmative action, and niether am I. I saw it brought up for the college entrance process, but I hope it goes beyond that. I'd like to see it set up so that race and sex are not asked on any application sheets. A question for those of you not in America, how are things set up where you are? Is there quotas or affirmative action? Do you get "points" for being a minority? |