Conference back40::soapbox

    There's no such thing as an education crisis. Everything's hunky-dory.
    Just ask bill. (Well, they could triple the spending, but other than
    that everything's perfectly fine.)

>                <<< Note 850.1 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
>
>    There's no such thing as an education crisis. Everything's hunky-dory.
>    Just ask bill. (Well, they could triple the spending, but other than
>    that everything's perfectly fine.)

    I dont think anyone is saying everything is okay.

    The 'crisis in education' mirrors all of the other problems
    in society today, and they get dragged over the coals repeatedly
    in this conf.  Kids show up at schools VERY unprepared and require
    major services, both their parents (or their only parent) work and
    finding daycare is a major problem, the spread between the 'haves'
    and 'have nots' is broader than ever and widening, credit card
    companies are luring us all into spending money we dont have on stuff
    we're convinced we need by Madison Avenue, no one can afford their
    school taxes because they're spending so much on cable and video rentals,
    any kid can buy any drug with ease, medical miracles save kids that
    previously died in childbirth and those kids get special services
    when they enter school, kids are downloading bomb making instructions
    on the internet after seeing it all close up on TV and in the movies,
    the allure of sex pervades everything teenagers come across,
    etc. etc.

    Sure...the only thing wrong with society today is that teachers are	
    all lazy and school officials are skimming.
    bob

    Where my kids go to school (small town in central MA), 
    here are the problems:
    
    1. Too much emphasis on frill programs like DARE and (I forget
       the name) mandatory self-esteem building classes. Emphasis on
       social rather than academic achievement. 
    
    2. Homogeneous education; classes are then taught at the pace 
       of the slowest students in the class.
    
    3. (related to 2) Group punishments - a few kids act up, the
       whole class gets punished. The rationale? "You good kids 
       are supposed to be influencing the bad kids to change their
       behavior".
    
    4. No standard curriculum - teachers are free to teach whatever
       subject matter they feel like teaching, so some students get
       way more math/etc. than other students in a given grade.

but, Goals 2000 is a good thing, right?

    When I was a kid the schools were good, now they suck.              
    
    Students' scores are dropping dropping dropping.
    
    Today, a higher percentage of students can't read.
    A higher percentage of students can't write.
    A higher percentage of students can't do math.
    A higher percentage of students can't do science.
    
    Today's students aren't earning as many credits in english, math,
    science, social studies, and foreign languages as kids used to earn.
    
    
    The above "facts" brought to you by make-up-a-fact friday.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Several things are contributing to the education crisis.  Money is one
    of them.  I woked damned hard to finally get a bond issue past in
    Colorado Springs Dist 11 as the schools my kids were, are and will be
    in have suffered deferred maintenance that makes my money pit look
    structurally sound and modern, and that's just the physical plant.  
    
    This year Geography texts had to be shared between two classrooms,
    which means if you didn't have parents with some books at home and
    hadn't finished your assignment you were SOL.  (Of course "The People's
    History of the United State" perspective  probably makes for
    interesting conversations in the school.  Carrie's teacher made some
    mention about some of the ideas she has brought up in their
    Revelutionary War segment.  
    
    Now we live in an interesting neighborhood, not your typical suburban
    wasteland.  Most of the kids are on the hotlunch program and most get
    lunch for free, not at reduced prices.  Many families are either working
    their butts off to keep home and hearth together and don't have much
    time, or they don't appear to GAS, or maybe they don't know better or
    are functionally illiterate and can't help their kids out.  I don't
    know.  I do know that many of the kids I did GS with had no books on
    their bookshelves at home, only knick knacks and TV's.  these kids need
    extra help to get up to grade level, and they aren't going to get that
    at home.  I also know that a frustrated child is a disruptive child, be
    it from boredom and brightness or confusion.  
    
    Starting in the 80's VOC Ed courses in Colorado Springs were severely
    gutted.  Might be the same nationwide, I don't know.  All kids were
    expected to go on to college, and all were "encouraged" to take the
    SAT, or ACT tests.  Before this, only those going on to a college or
    University college needed to bother with those tests.  VOC ED students
    only needed the tests if they were continuing in some, but not all
    technical schools.  the schools quit meeting the needs of the less
    academically talented.  
    
    Now I could put the war on drugs in here somewhere too, but it seems
    that that only adds another rathole to the whole thing.  Valuable time
    and money have been spent pushing DARE and the DAREmobile which could
    have been used for more academic time for elementary and middle school
    kids.  The program has had millions wasted on it with little to show in
    the way of success.  Others don't agree with this.  
    
    soemtime also in the 80's abstinence based curriula began to be taught
    in the schools with no instructions on how to prevent babies except
    "just say no"  Not surprisingly to me, teen pregnancies soared to
    levels not seen since the 50's, until AIDS began causing kids to decide
    to use condoms.  So we had children who were ill-prepared for the world
    having children, having more children who were also ill-prepared, etc
    and the schools aren't picking up that bit of slack either.  
    
    Teachers stress reading to your kids.  If you can't read how do you
    fake it?  How do you do the flash cards, the spelling aids, the math
    reviews, etc that are necessary?  Chapter does pick up some of this
    slack but it cn't doit all either.
    
    Now compounding this seems to be a willingness of people to isolate
    themselves from others.  Charitable dollars have increased, but the
    volunteers to do the down and dirty work have all but vanished.  The
    tutors at Boys and Girls clubs have all but vanished, as well as a
    couple of other mentoring programs.  Big brothers and Sisters is always
    hard pressed for volunteers.  My co-leader and I burned out this year. 
    She had school pile up on her, and I have some serious family health
    issues, (including mine) that I have been dealing with this year.  No
    one volunteered to step into the breach, and two schools are scoutless
    this year.  (claire also had been doing cubs and weebalows (sp)  )
    
    so, we need,  More money for infrastructure, books and tutors.  More
    people willing to work with kids that might not be the cute ones
    everyone loves.  we need to rebuild living skills and vocational
    programs in the schools.  Then we may be able to start back up.
    
    meg
    
    
    

Anyone checked out http://www.dare.org?

    >The 'crisis in education' mirrors all of the other problems
    >in society today, and they get dragged over the coals repeatedly
    >in this conf.  
    
     please provide the antecedent for the word "they". "all the other
    problems in society today"?
    
    [litany of complaints about "society" deleted]
    
     Aside from "tight funding", what do you see as the issues facing
    public education? Do you feel that the public is getting adequate
    return on our investment in education? Do you feel that the education
    our children are getting in public school is adequate?
    
    
     Here's my perspective:
    
     On funding:
    
     We are spending a significant amount of money on education, and we are
    not getting results commensurate with the level of expenditures we are
    experiencing. We spend more per pupil than most industrialized
    nations�, yet our students do not compare favorably to others their own
    age in other countries. Somewhere along the line, the money is not
    being spent effectively.
    
    I believe this is a result of several factors. Special education
    initiatives are mandated by the federal government and are not funded
    by the federal government. It is inescapable that children who have
    special needs are going to require a disproportionate number of
    resources. However, the number of truly needy children is significantly
    less than the number of children who have been classified as special
    needs. This expanded class of special needs students causes inefficient
    use of resources by abusing a system (frivolous IEPs, suits to force
    the public system to pay for private educations, etc) that was set up
    to benefit those who are truly in need of special help.
    
     The heavily stratified administration systems which control education
    in various locales also contribute to inefficiency by providing
    excessive layers of "middle managers", similar to that of famous
    consistently ailing computer companies. The city of Lawrence has
    recently come under fire for misspending $200 million in state funds
    for such things as high end laptop computers for school board
    officials etc, while leaky roofs and inadequate ventilation systems
    made attending classes hazardous to health.
    
     Inefficient teaching methods contribute to funding inefficiency as
    well.
    
    On grouping:
    
     I believe that grouping students of like ability promotes better
    quality of education for all students. A student does not learn well
    when everything is over his head. A student does not learn well when
    she is so far ahead of the rest of the class that she is completely
    bored. Students learn best when they are grouped with students of like
    ability, IMO. Classes move quickly enough to retain the interest of the
    slightly more advanced students, and the slightly behind students have
    less catching up to do so there is less "extra attention" that needs
    to be provided.
    
     Grouping does have its drawbacks. Once categorized as being average or
    below average, a student may have difficulty moving to a more advanced
    class as his or her proficiency improves. Additionally, some students
    may be incorrectly assessed as being in the same level for all subjects
    when such is not the case. This can lead to floundering or languishing
    depending on whether the student is behind or ahead of the curve. But
    this can be readily handled by flexibility. If a student shows signs of
    being behind, [s]he can be dropped back into a less accelerated class.
    Or vice versa.
    
    on parent participation:
    
    This is a key indicator of student success. As such it is imperative
    that each parent accept the responsibility to be an active participant
    in his or her child's education. I don't know how we can encourage
    irresponsible parents to take an interest in their children's
    education, but anything we can do will be beneficial. My wife and I
    have been very involved in our children's education, because it is very
    important to us. We see a direct link between a solid education and
    future earning power. It just kills me what I see parents who
    discourage their kids from learning or who are apathetic. They don't
    know what a disservice they are doing to their kids.
    
    on discipline:
    
     Schools must have the authority to properly discipline children,
    particularly in removing problem children from the classroom. They
    must also be held accountable. Punishment should always be in
    proportion to the offense, it should also be consistently applied. If
    we remove the discipline problems from the classroom, we free the
    teachers to spend more time teaching than being disciplinarians.
    
     We as americans need to demand more from our schools. We have to be
    willing to give more, too. And I'm not talking about money,
    necessarily.
    
    
    � The Digest of Education Statistics 1996 / Table 406 
     

    I believe that schools today are trying to deal with the
    results of a great many problems in society today.  These
    problems get discussed repeatedly in this conference.
    they are the result of a great many cumulative ills in
    society today.  Schools are not adequately funded or staffed
    to deal with these issues.  Ask an older teacher what it is
    like teaching today versus 20 yrs ago.  the difference
    has nothing to do with education.
    bob

    Mark,
    
    I only have the rankings for Colorado Ed spending as posted by our
    Republican state Assembly.  We fell in less than 20 years from top 33%
    of states in spending/student to bottom 33%.  Not surprisingly test
    scores have also fallen 
    
    meg

================================================================================
Note 846.47            Special Ed: a system ripe for abuse              47 of 47
PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left"  14 lines   3-APR-1997 08:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    . . . .    
    I have *NO* *FACTS* to back up my case.
    . . . .

    EDP gets the uncharitable award!
    
    But Bill, how would you reconcile the fact that the US is now ranked
    13th amongst industrial nations for education in math and sciences?
    
    I say it's parents who don't care and too much coddling to
    bureaucrats, school administrators, unions, and social workers.  Most
    of them are scummy exploiters who add little value to the child's
    education.  
    
    -Jack

|   We are spending a significant amount of money on education
    
    Yes, we are.
    
|   and we are not getting results commensurate with the level of
|   expenditures we are experiencing.  We spend more per pupil than
|   most industrialized nations�, yet our students do not compare
|   favorably to others their own age in other countries.
    
    So do you conclude that we should spend *less* money?  The same amount
    of money?  Or money?
    
    
    Take a look at the TIMMS results.  (I pointed you to The Economist,
    but I suspect you won't bother to look for a few more days.  You'll
    find the TIMMS report on the US Department of Education web pages as
    well.)
    
    Switzerland, who spends more than we do per pupil, scored very well
    at Math (well above the US) but so-so at Science (well below the US).
    
    Germany, who spends the same as we do per pupil for secondary education,
    scored about the same as the US at Math and Science.
    
    Denmark, who spends the same as we do, scored about the same as the US
    at Math but well below at Science.
    
    Japan is the only G7 nation who significantly outperformed us at Science,
    and they spend significantly less than other G7 nations.
    
    
    It is incorrect to suggest that we are a basket case in Math and
    Science compared to other countries.  We are average at Math, and
    above average at Science.  We compare quite well to other G7 countries,
    but clearly we ought to do better.
    
    
    But then *YOU* conclude (based on your simple minded analysis) that
    since the US is average at Math but above average in spending, we
    aren't spending money effectively.  Your position isn't spend more
    money, it's take from Peter to pay Paul.)
    
    
    Could it be that the data doesn't support your assertion?  Nah.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   I believe this is a result of several factors. Special education
|   initiatives are mandated by the federal government and are not funded
|   by the federal government.
    
    Oddly enough, *OTHER* countries also spend money on special education.
    A good deal of money.  And like the US, they get good value for the
    money spent.
    
|   The heavily stratified administration systems which control education
|   in various locales also contribute to inefficiency by providing
|   excessive layers of "middle managers", similar to that of famous
|   consistently ailing computer companies.
    
    Oddly enough, you'll find that the percentage of employees in
    "administration" (everyone who isn't a teacher or teacher's aide)
    at public schools is very nearly the same as the percentage of
    employees in "adminstration" at private schools.
    
    But yeah, just saying it's so makes that so.
    
|   [annecdote deleted]
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    Mr. Bill:
    
    I'm going to take a look at my yearbook this weekend.  For every
    department in the high school they had a director.  I'm talking home
    economics, music, art, industrial arts, and other liberal arts
    concentrations.  The sad thing is these slobs were
    NEVER...there...never saw a one of them.  It's a laugh to look at the
    ole yearbook now.  Countless government hacks who added no value to the
    educational process.  
    
    -Jack
    
    P.S. The music director looked like a smaller version of George
    Keverian and reminded me of Uncle Ralph...the man on Saturday Night
    Live who babysat his nephew and niece...playing a game that involved
    putting underwear over one's head.  Except this guy wasn't an actor!

|    On grouping:
|    
|     I believe that grouping students of like ability promotes better
|    quality of education for all students. A student does not learn well
|    when everything is over his head. A student does not learn well when
|    she is so far ahead of the rest of the class that she is completely
|    bored.
    
    Oddly enough, Japan seems to directly contradict your prejudice.
    They teach math and science in *LARGE* classes.  They also make
    special effort to assure that students *DON'T* fall behind.
    Only in the arts do they move into small, segregated by ability
    groups.  (Which if I recall, is exactly the opposite of what you
    suggest.)
    
|   Students learn best when they are grouped with students of like
|   ability, IMO.
    
    Nothing but your opinion.
    
|   Grouping does have its drawbacks.
    
    Wow, imagine that?  Like, it's a bad way to teach perhaps?
    
|   Once categorized as being average or below average, a student may have
|   difficulty moving to a more advanced class as his or her proficiency
|   improves.
    
    Difficulty?  The experience in the real world is that *your* proposal
    leads to people moving in almost one direction only - to lower
    levels.
    
|   But this can be readily handled by flexibility. If a student shows
|   signs of being behind, [s]he can be dropped back into a less
|   accelerated class.
    
    And a less accelerated class.  And so on, and so on, and so on.
    
    Good work.
    
    								-mr. bill

|    on parent participation:
|
|   This is a key indicator of student success.
    
    It's also a key indicator of student failure.  (Oh, I forgot, when
    a kid does well, it's the parents, when a kid does poorly, it's
    the teachers.)
    
|   I don't know how we can encourage irresponsible parents to take an
|   interest in their children's education, but anything we can do will be
|   beneficial.
    
    To dream the impossible dream.  Someone who is irresponsible can't
    be "encouraged" to be responsible.
    
    There is also the *fact* that parents have different levels of
    achievement as well.  Oddly enough, in some countries, it makes
    little difference if dad is a rocket scientist or a brick layer,
    the children achieve.  In other countries, it makes a huge difference.
    
    Perhaps instead of fighting the impossible fight, we might want to
    learn how others succeed where we fail?  (Naaaaaaah.)
    
    								-mr. bill

|   on discipline:
|
|   Schools must have the authority to properly discipline children,
|   particularly in removing problem children from the classroom.
    
    Bahahah.  Don't you get it?  Schools must have the authority to
    discipline *OTHER* children.  (My child right or wrong, but my child is
    the most prevalent attitude expressed far too often.)
    
    								-mr. bill

|     We as americans need to demand more from our schools. We have to be
|    willing to give more, too. And I'm not talking about money,
|    necessarily.

    The only thing you've said in a long time that I agree with.
    
    								-mr. bill

    But what of Uncle Ralph?

    re .4
    
    Your point .2
    
    It's called 'inclusion', and it's a lousy policy.
    
    -john

Has anyone been to Lawrence MA lately?

    
    Lawrence was a lousy school system 20 years ago and it still
    is a lousy school system.
    
    Headlines from the Lawrence Eagle Tribune yesterday:
    
       School Spending Skyrockets
    
    It seems the spending has gone from $34 million in 1990-1991
    to 82 million in 1997-1998.
    
    And another titbit, the state and federal layers (That's us)
    are paying the entire school budget this year. Perhaps the 
    Lawrence tax rate will drop accordingly.
    
    Doug.
    

They also lost their accreditation a month ago.

    It sounds so simplistic, but it really starts at home with an attitude
    of what is important.
    
    If you look at many of the minority groups, particularly Asians and
    Indians, they consistently, as a group seem to excel in academics. 
    They attend the same schools, get the same exposures and yet do very
    well.  I believe this has to do with the home environment that stresses
    the importance of education and responsible behavior.
    
    No amount of spendign will deal withthis basic underlying fact.  You
    can spend all you want and kids coming from broken homes or homes that
    taker little interest in the educational process will never get a good
    education.  Add to this a school administration and union that is more
    interested in turf than teaching and you get a formula for disaster.
    

    Broken homes DO NOT equal homes where education is taken for granted. 
    Ask my oldest daughter.  Ask my two nephews, one of whom had his home
    shattered violently, and in fact lives with his aunt as neither parent
    is functional enough to care for a child, and one is in prison for
    sometime to come and has been since he was 6.  (Daniel is now 15)  
    
    Ask the many thousands, if not millions of children on honor roles in
    the country who also happen to have come from homes where divorce or
    death messed up the "ideal Family"  Or worse where mom or dad decided
    to try to or succeeded in killing their spouse and/or other children. 
    They do quite well if one person takes an interest in academics and the
    child.  
    
    If you believe an adult can make a difference, and are not already
    volunteering some time, try it.  Their are mentorship programs all over
    the country, and they are starving for volunteers.   
    
    meg

    >Take a look at the TIMMS results.
    
    Ok. Let's look at them.
    
    >Switzerland, who spends more than we do per pupil, scored very well
    >at Math (well above the US) but so-so at Science (well below the US).
    
    >Germany, who spends the same as we do per pupil for secondary education,
    >scored about the same as the US at Math and Science.
    
    >Denmark, who spends the same as we do, scored about the same as the US
    >at Math but well below at Science.
    
    >Japan is the only G7 nation who significantly outperformed us at Science,
    >and they spend significantly less than other G7 nations.
    
     All these facts have been carefully culled from the TIMMS results to
    point to a "don't worry, be happy" state of the educational union.
    Sadly, this is not an accurate assessment.
    
     Of the 41 countries taking part in the TIMMS study, the US ranked 28th
    in maths and 17th in science. "Don't worry, be happy."
    
    >But then *YOU* conclude (based on your simple minded analysis) that
    >since the US is average at Math but above average in spending, we
    >aren't spending money effectively.
    
    Singapore TROUNCED every other nation in the tests. The Czech republic,
    which spends a small fraction of what we do on education (about a
    third), was 6th in math and 2nd in science. Tell me again how
    effectively we're spending our money (I just adore fairy tales).
    Oh, and please call this analysis "simple minded". We're all just
    waiting to hear how much better it is that we spend three times the
    money and get less desirable results.
    
    >Could it be that the data doesn't support your assertion?  Nah.
     
     Try again. The data seems pretty clear. but let's take a few quotes
    from your own source:
    
    "Some former communist countries, notably the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
    Slovenia and Bulgaria, also did significantly better than their richer
    western neighbours, even though they spend much less on education."
    
    "It seems that how much a country can afford to spend has less than you
    might think to do with how well educated its children are. American
    children have three times as much money spent on their schooling as
    young South Koreans, who nevertheless beat them hands down in tests."
    
    "Next--and of particular interest to cash-strapped governments--there
    appears to be little evidence to support the argument, often heard from
    teachers' unions, that the main cause of educational under-achievement
    is under-funding. Low-spending countries such as South Korea and the
    Czech Republic are at the top of the TIMSS league table. High-spenders
    such as America and Denmark do much worse"
    
    "the success of the low-spending Czechs and Koreans does show that
    spending more on schools is not a prerequisite for improving
    standards."
    
    >Your position isn't spend more money, it's take from Peter to pay
    >Paul.)
    
     Your understanding of my position is consistent with your
    understanding of an awful lot of other things.

    >Oddly enough, you'll find that the percentage of employees in
    >"administration" (everyone who isn't a teacher or teacher's aide)
    >at public schools is very nearly the same as the percentage of
    >employees in "adminstration" at private schools.
    
     For extremely large values of "very nearly."
    
    >But yeah, just saying it's so makes that so.
    
    MUFFing it, a day early, I see.
    

  >   The only thing you've said in a long time that I agree with.
    
    Then perhaps I should reconsider.

|   >Japan is the only G7 nation who significantly outperformed us at Science,
|   >and they spend significantly less than other G7 nations.
|    
|    All these facts have been carefully culled from the TIMMS results to
|   point to a "don't worry, be happy" state of the educational union.
    
    Gosh, now the teacher's unions have power to exclude nations from
    the G7.  Amazing, huh?
    
|   Sadly, this is not an accurate assessment.
    
    It's a spot on assessment.
    
|   Singapore TROUNCED every other nation in the tests. The Czech republic,
|   which spends a small fraction of what we do on education (about a
|   third), was 6th in math and 2nd in science.
    
    Last time I checked, Sinagapore and Czech Republic were *NOT* members
    of the G7.  Your facts may vary.
    
|   Tell me again how effectively we're spending our money (I just adore
|   fairy tales).
    
    Software engineers in some other countries are far more productive than
    US engineers and cost significantly less money.  Tell me again how the
    problem at Digital is management and not wasteful software engineers?
    (I just adore fairy tales.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    Wow. Surprisingly limp. Must be monday-itis.

|    For extremely large values of "very nearly."

    Take a room full of 15 school employees.
    
    For a public school, 5 of them would be teachers or teacher's aides.
    For a private school, 6 of them would be teachers or teacher's aides.
    
    You think that's an "extremely large" difference?
    
    								-mr. bill

|   Wow. Surprisingly limp. Must be monday-itis.
    
    Gosh, could you be a bit more specific?
    
    I point out that the data does NOT support your assertion on
    spending.  "We are not getting results commensurate with the
    level of expenditures."
    
    
    You scream "YES IT DOES" and trot out the list of the only nations
    that outperformed the United States at both Math and Science
    (Singapore, Korea, Japan, Czech Republic and Hungary).  You note
    that this list also happens to spend far less money, and then shout
    that this "supports" your assertion that we waste money.
    
    
    You accuse *ME* of culling information from the report, yet you
    do not acknowledge a SINGLE nation that underperforms the US *AND*
    underspends the US.  Reading your notes, you'd suspect that there
    is no such nation.
    
    
    But there are several such nations.  Go ahead, plot dollars spent
    per student vrs. performance.  There are a few nations that spend
    little and do exceptionally well.  There are more nations that spend
    little and do exceedingly poorly.  There are nations that spend a lot
    and do very well.  There are nations that spend a lot and do average. 
    And there are nations that spend a lot and do poorly.
    
    
    The Economist is correct, the data does NOT support we spend too
    little.  But there is more to the story.  The data *ALSO* does *NOT*
    support that we spend too much.
    
    
    YOU CLAIM WE SPEND TOO MUCH.
    
    
    You have no facts to support such a claim.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Coming in late ...
    
    I believe that here in DC we spend more per pupil than all but two
    school disticts in the nation.
    
    'Nuff said?

    >You accuse *ME* of culling information from the report, 
    
     Deny it. I dare you.
    
    >yet you do not acknowledge a SINGLE nation that underperforms the US
    >*AND* underspends the US.  
    
     It is irrelevant.
    
    >There are a few nations that spend little and do exceptionally well. 
    
     Spending here is exceptionally efficient and the ROI is exceptionally
    high.
    
    >There are more nations that spend little and do exceedingly poorly. 
    
     This is inefficient spending, with a lousy ROI.
    
    >There are nations that spend a lot and do very well.  
    
     This is quite possibly inefficient spending with a low ROI, but there
    is less to complain about because at least the results are there.
    
    >There are nations that spend a lot and do average.  
    
     This is inefficient spending, with a modest ROI.
    
    >And there are nations that spend a lot and do poorly.
    
     This is wildly inefficient with a terrible ROI.
    
    >     YOU CLAIM WE SPEND TOO MUCH.
    
     FOR WHAT WE GET. (You like to ignore parts of what I write, especially
    when it's easier to attack half an argument.)
    
     Yes. I claim it is possible to see more efficient use of resources,
    and a better return on investment than we are currently seeing. Other
    countries are experiencing exactly what I claim we can experience. You
    claim it is not possible. You, sir, are WRONG (emphasis for the
    clueless one.)
    

    Bzzzzt.
    
    How do we, the US, improve our performance?
    
    	Spend more?
    	Spend the same?
    	Spend less?
    
    The data does not support an answer.
    
    								-mr. bill

  None of the above.

  We CHANGE.

  bb

|   >You accuse *ME* of culling information from the report, 
|    
|   Deny it. I dare you.
    
    I deny it.  Your position is so simple and so simple minded it's
    laughable.
    
    Does there exist someone with a better price/performance at this
    benchmark?  (Yes, I already answered, Japan.)
    
    QED you say.  The existence proof has been satisfied, it's
    clear we are *WASTING* money for what we get because we have
    lower price/performance at this benchmark!
    
    Does it add anything to show that Singapore also has a better
    price/performance?  No, it's not relevant, your existence "proof"
    has already been satisfied.  How about Hungary or the Czech Republic?
    No, doesn't add anything to your case.  Your existence "proof"
    has already been satisfied.  (Just as evidently it's not relevant
    to you to show that there are people who spend less *AND* get poor
    performance.)
    
    
    Well, I'd argue that the first question facing the US is how do we
    improve our PERFORMANCE, and even concede that we have to worry
    about our PRICE/PERFORMANCE.  But somehow I doubt that we'll ever
    achieve the PRICE/PERFORMANCE that Japan achieves in secondary
    school.  Why?  Because we the people won't *EVER* accept the choices
    they have made to get such a price/performance.
    
    
    (Oddly enough, when it comes to post-secondary school, the US and
    Japan spends about exactly the same amount of money per pupil, with
    nearly identical results.  Where'd your price/performance go after
    12th grade?)
    
    
    That still comes back to what should the US do:
    
    	Spend more money.
    	Spend the same money.
    	Spend less money.
    
    to match the price/performance of best in class.
    
    The data doesn't support any of the above.
    
    								-mr. bill

|                                   -< duh. >-
|
| None of the above.
|
| We CHANGE.
    
    If the CHANGE means we spend less money, fine.
    If the CHANGE means we spend more money, fine.
    If the CHANGE means we spend the same money, fine.
    
    
    But in the meantime, lets argue about how to choose history standards
    in Mass for the EIGHTH time.  I mean, the argument only started in
    1993, why hurry such "important" arguments when it's so damn important
    to argue over the smallest of nits?
    
    								-mr. bill

|   That still comes back to what should the US do:
|    
|    	Spend more money.
|    	Spend the same money.
|    	Spend less money.
|    
|   to match the price/performance of best in class.
|
|   The data doesn't support any of the above.
    
    I was wrong.  I am so sorry.
    
    The data does support a choice.
    
    
    The ONLY way to match their price/performance is to just about match
    their price while matching their performance.  If we significantly
    exceed their performance, we could spend a bit more and still have
    best in class price/performance.  (Not clear that it would be OK
    to be average performance so long as we had a really good price.
    Levesque, is price/performance the ONLY thing you care about?)
    
    
    But we clearly can't spend the same since it is simply not possible
    to the  triple the performance on this benchmark.  Spending more is
    right out of the question.
    
    
    So, there you have it.  We *MUST* cut our spending per student by about
    1/3.  While doing that, we *MUST* increase our performance.  (Though it
    is possible we could cut more than 1/3 and get below average
    performance - this might be the path to best in class price/performance.)
    
    
    Education reform ala Levesque.
    It's real simple, just improve significantly while slashing our spending.
    Easy as pie.
    
    
    How are we going to do that?
    More easier as pie.
    
    Something about special ed, fire lots of "middle managers," don't
    buy laptops, fix roofs and ventilation systems, more efficent teaching
    methods, group students together by ability, better parents, flexible
    but consistent punishment which only removes some disruptive students
    from the classroom, better Americans.
    
    
    Anyone think this would work?
    
    								-mr. bill

  I dunno.  Doesn't look like much of a correlation to me (between
 school performance and spending).  I think you're working on the
 wrong variable, myself.

  If you want to show causation, you'll have to do a better job.  On the
 basis of these numbers, I would expect little change in the performance
 (which isn't very good in the USA), whether you raised or lowered the
 spending.

  Nor is this unique to education.  You see variables that you'd think would
 correlate all the time, but they don't.  Like ad dollars to sales, for example.

  And if it takes 4 years to talk about history standards, without getting
 anywhere, doesn't that suggest anything to you, MB ?  This system has
 TERRIBLE inertia.  It DESPERATELY needs the pressure and incentives of
 competition.  People are tree-hugging, while other countries are bold.
 And neither adding nor subtracting money looks promising.  Think again.

  bb

|   I dunno.  Doesn't look like much of a correlation to me (between
|   school performance and spending).
    
    I agree.
    
|   I think you're working on the wrong variable, myself.
    
    I'm not working on this variable.  Levesque is the one who is all bent
    up about money.  He thinks we spend too much (for what we get, bahaha).
    
|   If you want to show causation, you'll have to do a better job.
    
    I'm not showing causation.
    
|   You see variables that you'd think would correlate all the time, but
|   they don't.
    
    Or hours spent studying a subject and test scores.  On the basis
    of TIMMS scores, you can make no conclusion about spending on
    US education.  There is no correlation between TIMMS scores and
    spending.  That's my point.  Nor is there any correlation between
    TIMMS scores and time in the classroom.  Yet, *SOMEBODY* here
    would claim that on the basis of TIMMS scores, it's clear that
    US children are spending too much time in the classroom.
    
|   And if it takes 4 years to talk about history standards, without getting
|   anywhere, doesn't that suggest anything to you, MB ?
    
    Oh yes.  It suggests that folks (LEFT AND RIGHT AND CENTER) have lost
    sight of the goal (improving school performance) and are focusing on
    the wrong thing.  (Teach this!  No teach that!  No teach this other
    thing!  Waaaaaaaaaaaa!  I didn't get my way!  I'm going to hold my
    breath!)
    
|   This system has TERRIBLE inertia.
    
    Right.  Oddly enough, the anchor this time through is a guy who has a
    reputation of speaking first, thinking later.  (On why teacher's
    salarys are high?  Because women no longer have to be prostitutes.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    >(Not clear that it would be OK to be average performance so long as we
    >had a really good price. Levesque, is price/performance the ONLY thing
    >you care about?)
    
    Further proof that reading comprehension isn't your strong point. If
    you had actually read what has been written without putting it through
    the idiot filter you'd find the question need not be asked. But you're
    so busy making sure that everybody knows how "simple minded" I am and
    how <r.o.> smart you think you are that you can't be bothered to read
    what's written. In your mind you're anticipating what I really mean
    anyway. My words are superfluous for the purposes of your argumentation
    because you aren't paying any attention to them. You're spending your
    time finding phrases you can take out of context and use to concoct
    arguments that I am not making for the purpose of theatrically
    thrashing them to the ground in a grand display of your throbbing
    masculinity.
    
     It's a gas watching you. Really.
    
     But when your argument would be best used in a garden, you've gotta
    thump your shoe on the table.
    
     You'd make a good politician. You've got the art of injecting non
    sequiturs and red herrings thoroughly mastered. You're an expert at
    taking things out of context and through the miracle of "logic"
    extension, creating entirely new and unusual arguments to make great
    show out of demolishing. It's the noter's equivalent of a photo op.
    All you need is to start titling your notes "Vote for ME! <emphasis for
    people who might otherwise vote for someone else>" and you'd be the
    complete package.

|   >(Not clear that it would be OK to be average performance so long as we
|   >had a really good price. Levesque, is price/performance the ONLY thing
|   >you care about?)
    
    [Mass quantities of hot air deleted]
    
    								-mr. bill

    >                        -< The answer is "no" >-
    
     No <r.o.>, Sherlock. 

    Levesque - Choose one:   
    
    I would be happy if the US improves its performance in TIMMS while:
    
    	a) Spending more.
    	b) Spending the same.
    	c) Spending less.
    	d) All of the above.
    	e) None of the above.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >If the US improves it's performance in TIMMS while:
    
    >	a) Spending more.
    >	b) Spending the same.
    >	c) Spending less.
    >	d) All of the above.
    >	e) None of the above.
    
     d is a stupid answer. You can't possibly spend more, spend less and
    spend the same simultaneously. Then again, _I'm_ simple minded. A
    properly worded d would be "any of the above."
    
     And I'd agree with _that_, except I'd be least happy by a and most
    happy by c. But I'd be happier than now under any of those scenarios.
    
    You don't give a thought to the cost, because to you it's a "good
    cause" and so therefore it doesn't matter how efficiently the resources
    are used (to you.) You would be perfectly satisfied to pay 10 times
    more than anyone else for education if we got an education on par with
    that of Singapore. To me it's not just absolute quality; it's also QPR.
    
     When I buy a bottle of wine, the price is always a consideration. Even
    when I buy something expensive, cost matters. I absolutely ADORE
    (eftfh) buying a bottle for $15 and getting better wine than is typical
    of $30 bottles. Guess why? With the $15 I didn't spend, I can get, you
    guessed it, more wine.
    
    The same thing is true of education. If we started getting better
    quality for less, we could afford MORE education for the SAME price. It
    sounds like this is a very foreign notion to you. To listen to your
    'learned' assessment of my position, one would think I expect the
    public school system to become the equivalent of boxed wine. I don't.
    But we're paying for Lafite, so there's no reason in the world to
    accept Franzia. Even in a nice box.

    
|   But I'd be happier than now under any of those scenarios.
    
    Would you be happier than now if we spent less and got the same
    results?
    
    								-mr. bill

    >Would you be happier than now if we spent less and got the same
    >results?
    
     Yes, but I'd be more happier if we got more. And most happiest if we
    spent less and got more. /hth

|   To listen to your 'learned' assessment of my position, one would think
|   I expect the public school system to become the equivalent of boxed
|   wine. I don't. But we're paying for Lafite, so there's no reason in the
|   world to accept Franzia. Even in a nice box.
    
    Here you go again.  Our education is an inferior boxed wine.
    No, it is not.
    
    It is average to above average.  We are in some *VERY good company here:
    
    	Math:
    		Thailand, Israel, Germany, New Zealand, England, Norway,
    		Denmark, Scotland, Latvia, Spain, Iceland, Greece, Romania.
    
    	Science:
    
    		England, Belgium-Flemish, Australia, Slovak Republic,
    		Russian Federation, Ireland, Sweden, Germany, Canada,
    		Norway, New Zealand, Thailand, Israel, Hong Kong,
    		Switzerland, Scotland.
    
    
    Some folks are paying $30.00 for a $30.00 bottle of wine.  Some folks
    have figured out how to pay $10.00 for a $35.00 bottle of wine.
    Remarkable.
    
    But a very good $30.00 bottle of wine is still not swill.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >But a very good $30.00 bottle of wine is still not swill.
    
     It's not so good after you've paid $60 for it, though.

  the wine's just as good, but maybe it wasn't a prudent investment.

|   >Would you be happier than now if we spent less and got the same   
|   >results?
|    
|   Yes....
    
    *NO*.  I would *NOT* be happy if we spent less money and did not
    improve our performance.
    
    That's where we differ.
    Performance matters.
    
    
    BTW, I don't get it.  You claim we are spending $60.00 for a bland
    boxed wine that you can buy for less than $10.00 a box.
    
    You really are telling me you'd be *happier* if we spent $50.00
    for a bland boxed wine that you can buy for less than $10.00 a box?
    
    
    Isn't the wine just as bad, and *still* not a prudent investment?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    wow. i never looked at education like a bottle of wine before. 

    >*NO*.  I would *NOT* be happy if we spent less money and did not
    >improve our performance.
    
     That wasn't what you asked. You didn't ask if I'd be happy. Therefore
    that wasn't the question I answered. Thus, yet again we see you jumping
    to false conclusions based on something I did not say.
    
     I said I'd be happier. Happier is not the same as happy. Less unhappy
    => happier. Happier tells you nothing about the absolute scale, but it
    does tell you something about the relative scale.
    
    >That's where we differ.
    >Performance matters.
    
     Alas, your feeble attempt to construct a false dichotomy fails. I
    never EVER said performance wasn't important. In fact, the careful
    reader will notice that performance is very, very important to me. Much
    more important to me than cost is for you, for example.
    
    >BTW, I don't get it.  
    
     That's it in a nutshell.
    
    >You really are telling me you'd be *happier* if we spent $50.00
    >for a bland boxed wine that you can buy for less than $10.00 a box?
    
     Of course. We'd still be overspending, but not by as much. But I'd
    still be unhappy. It's just that I'd be less unhappy. 
    
     When the murder rate goes down, are you happier? Are you happy? Are
    you able to discern a difference between the two?

|   wow. i never looked at education like a bottle of wine before. 
    
    Or a box of wine either.
    
    But I'm most surprised to learn that a wine you drink at home is very
    good, but the very same wine you drink in a resturaunt is not so good.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >But I'm most surprised to learn that a wine you drink at home is very
    >good, but the very same wine you drink in a resturaunt is not so good.
    
     YAMUA.

|    >*NO*.  I would *NOT* be happy if we spent less money and did not
|    >improve our performance.
    
    [nonsense deleted]
    
|   I said I'd be happier.
    
    unbelieveable.
    
    *NO*.  I would *NOT* be happier if we spent less money and did not
    improve our performance.  I would be MORE *UNHAPPY*!
    
    The only way I'D BE MORE UNHAPPIER IS IF OUR PERFORMANCE WENT DOWN.
    THEN I'D BE MOST UNHAPPIEST.
    
    								-mr. bill

Mr. Bill,

  While we make an individual choice to buy a particular bottle of
  wine, we are not forced to purchase.

  Education, on the other hand, is a requirement, and as such, often
  demands a premium for a lower teir product. Witness the Lawrence
  school system as an example.

  Much like auto insurance, you don't choose to spend twice as much for 
  the same policy coverage from two different sources.
 
  Mark is not taking the position that he would want the same 
  educational results for reduced cost, only that this is a prefereable
  choice if it is the only one available.

  Much as that is not the only choice, niether is throwing gobs of money
  at the system the only choice in improving the results.


  Doug.
  

  

  

 >   *NO*.  I would *NOT* be happier if we spent less money and did not
 >   improve our performance.  I would be MORE *UNHAPPY*!
 
 So, you would less unhappy if we spent more money and did not improve
 performance?

 Doug.

  this is starting to make Mark's vending machine escapades
  seem interesting.

    >*NO*.  I would *NOT* be happier if we spent less money and did not
    >improve our performance.  I would be MORE *UNHAPPY*!
    
     Therefore spending more and achieving the same is better than spending
    less and achieving the same. And you wonder why you're accused of being
    insensitive to cost. You're absolutely correct. You don't get it. It's
    your pride in not getting it that is most amazing.

    doug,
    
    Are you as a concerned citizen volunteering in the Lawrence school
    district?  
    
    

    >*NO*.  I would *NOT* be happier if we spent less money and did not
    >improve our performance.  I would be MORE *UNHAPPY*!
    
     I suppose the drop in the violent crime rate has made you similarly
    "MORE *UNHAPPY*!" since we still have far too much violent crime.

  Compare a system that, imho, basically works : US colleges/universities.

  Expensive, but nobody claims you can't get value.  "The high cost of
 a college education" is a serious matter.  But you hear much less whining
 about the quality.

  In primary/secondary, you can also hear complaints about price, although
 not from me.  But quality is suspect.

  I like the college/university funding model : partly taxes, partly tuition,
 partly charitable.  I wish our primary/secondary were more like it.  Parents
 and students doing the choosing and the paying, but subsidized by the rest.

  And I REALLY like the diversity of choices, absent mostly at lower levels.

  bb

    I don't think the comparison is apt because unlike college, attendance
    at primary and secondary schools is compulsory and the government has
    to pay for all of it (essentially).

 >   doug,
 >   
 >   Are you as a concerned citizen volunteering in the Lawrence school
 >   district?  
 
  Why no, I'm not. Does that invalidate my observations over the last 25
  years?

  Volunteers isn't what the Lawrence school district needs ....

  Doug.

    I don't know about wine, but I remember looking at alot of my education 
    thru a beer bottle...

    
    I think you missed this space:  
    
    hth.
    
    It's kind of hard to write a space.
    

    
    
    	^ ^
    

|   Therefore spending more and achieving the same is better than spending
|   less and achieving the same.
    
    No, neither are better.
    
    Achieving the same is not better.
    Achieving better is better.
    
    Only better makes me happy.
    
    Once I'm happy, *THEN* we'll talk money.
    
    
    Now, if you point to a school district that shows it can
    get the performance we demand for less money than another school
    district, you think I might be eager to learn how they did that?
    
    
    You betcha.  (Duh.)
    
    
    But I am completely uninterested in how school districts that are
    *NOT* achieving better results managed to screw up by spending
    more, spending less, or spending the same, other than learning
    what doesn't work so I don't repeat it.
    
    Got it yet?
    
    
    Maybe not.
    
    
    Here's one we all (in this industry I hope) can understand.
    
    We need a new computer system.  It *MUST* have twice the performance.
    It *MUST* ship within 18 months.  Period.
    
    Don't come back and tell me about the wonderful computer systems
    that you could deliver in 18 months but gosh they miss the
    performance goal by HUGE margins.  What part of *MUST* did
    you not understand?  Don't tell me about the system that meets
    the performance goal and could ship in 3 years, missing the
    delivery goal by a HUGE margin.  What part of *MUST* did you
    not understand?
    
    Now, if you show me a few different ways to deliver a system
    that meets the goals, but one costs significantly less to
    develop *AND* can be priced significantly less, but is otherwise
    identical to the other proposals, I'd say thank you very much,
    you not only understood *MUST* you also understand that cost matters.
    
    
    Got it yet?
    
    								-mr. bill

  .72  i get it.  what do i win?

    re: .65 (Levesque again)
    
|    I suppose the drop in the violent crime rate has made you similarly
|   "MORE *UNHAPPY*!" since we still have far too much violent crime.
    
    No, we met the goal of less violent crime.
    
    If there is a goal of less violent crime (I think there is) and
    you showed me a department who spent less money than the previous
    year, but violent crime stayed the same, then I'd be
    "MORE *UNHAPPY*!"
    
    
    Understand yet?
    
    								-mr. bill

    75 replies later I havn't got the answer I was looking for -
    
    Sounds like the education crisis is a crisis of complexity in society.  
    
    One example being the number of administrators.  But education is not
    the only place where this is happening - the British Navy has (I
    believe) more admirals than ships.  Digital has more VPs than...
    
    Maybe the crisis is that we are teaching the wrong things.  When
    communication is mostly pictorial why should kids read novels?  When
    they can find all the info they need about Guatemala from a CD, when
    they need it, why should they know where the place is on a map?  What's
    the point of being able to write essays when in real life written
    communications is '3 pages max, no more than 6 bullets per page'?
    
    Then there is the question of reward.  Why would kids sit through years
    of normal education when the rewards, as portrayed through all the
    media, go to people who are hip, flip, cool and all the other
    adjectives which are the exact opposite to scholastic?
    
    It just seems to me that we are discussing the wrong thing.  Spend more
    money or less?  Have more discipline?  Who knows?
    
    Reading can be taught with a book, writing with a pencil and some
    paper, same for mathematics.  A kid can have more fun with a stick and
    a pile of sand than a trunk full of plastic teaching aids.  So where
    does the 'love of learning' (trite phrase alert) come from?
    
    Still puzzled.

    >Achieving the same is not better.
    >Achieving better is better.
    
    >Only better makes me happy.
    
    >Once I'm happy, *THEN* we'll talk money.
    
     Which is one of the reasons that we are spending so much without
    seeing "better". As long as you refuse to address the ineffective and
    inefficient use of resources we currently experience, we will continue
    to spend more without getting more. And that, to you, is ok, as long as
    we're trying to get more, because money doesn't matter until it's
    better.
    
     "But the data doesn't support the contention that we are spending
    money inefficiently!" bleat bleat bleat. Put the TIMMS data to one side
    for a second, and look at the data we have in the US over the last 20
    years. Look at the cost of education over the last 20 years. It has
    A) stayed the same B) gone up C) gone down. The correct answer is B.
    Look at performance. It has A) stayed the same B) gone up C) gone down.
    The correct answer is not B. Now inflation accounts for some of the
    increase. Anything more than inflation is evidence that we are spending
    more than we need to for the current level of performance.
    
     Why is it so important (to me) to address the financial aspects? it's
    very, very simple (on account of my "simple" mind). Let's say a
    particular school district spends $100M per year to educate its
    students. Through various improvements in efficiency and elimination of
    wasteful spending, $20M is saved. This $20M can be used to provide a
    salary increase to the teachers and eliminate a potential strike,
    finance a program for gifted students, provide more equipment and
    supplies for all classrooms, hire several more special needs teachers,
    expanding the Head Start program, etc. ALL WITHOUT RAISING TAXES A
    DIME. <emphasis for the terminally dense>
    
    Bill would rather hit up the taxpayers every time someone comes up with
    a new (or not so new) idea about how to "improve" education. 

  Note to Meg 850.27, re defending "broken homes".  Now don't get me
 wrong here - I understand everybody has to play the hand they are dealt.
 I understand that in individual cases, adversity can be a spur to great
 achievement.  I understand that, just as a paraplegic in a wheelchair
 has a tendency to develop good upper body strength, so single or no-parent
 child-raisers can adjust, and that in individual cases can do just as
 good a job as "normal" two-parent families.  Also, I realize that some
 two-parent families are hell.

  But all that said, I recall the Globe publishing stats a while back on
 the statistical correlation of broken homes and various bad teenage
 school/behavior problems, and the picture was not pretty.  There was
 quite a lot of correlation with bad grades, bad test scores, crime, suicide,
 poor incomes in later life, and later having a broken home themselves.
 The dropout rate was also high.  I'm sure somebody can post the depressing
 numbers.

  It's funny, me making a statistical point, as I'm about as suspicious and
 skeptical of statistics as you can get.  I always suspect, as here, that
 the causative link is not what you think.  For example, it could be the
 other way around : it is having a problem teenager first, which caused
 the home to break, instead of the home breaking causing the teenager.  Or
 some third thing, such as government welfare policy, causing BOTH.

  Nevertheless, all that said, my understanding is the things go together,
 even beyond what you'd expect from the co-incidence of tails.  Thus, my
 guess is that all else being equal, it is very stressful to kids when
 the parental scene turns nasty.

  bb

|   Now inflation accounts for some of the increase. Anything more than
|   inflation is evidence that we are spending more than we need to for the
|   current level of performance.
    
    So if education costs increase faster than the price of iceberg lettuce,
    that's evidence that we are spending more than we need.
    
    I see.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .54
    
    
    I don't get your reasoning.
    
    
    (the numbers are only meant as examples, btw)
    
    
    Say we spend $5000 per student per year in America, and get average
    world-wide performance for our investment.
    
    We find a way to reduce spending to $2500 per student per year, and
    still get the same performance (that you have basically called "good").
    
    To me, this is a good scenario.  We've saved the taxpayers (us) 50%,
    and still get the same results.  
    
    Why would you not be happy with this? 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    And for the record, I don't think money is the main issue in regards to
    performance level. 

    
|   I don't get your reasoning.
    
    It seems that lots of folks who don't really care about performance
    don't get it.
    
    
    Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to double the
    performance of this brand new Alpha system while cutting its
    price/performance in half.  (That is, your mission is to replace
    an existing system with a new system that costs the same, but is
    twice as fast.)  You have 18 months.  Good luck.
    
    
    Now do you *REALLY* expect me to be happy if after 17 months of
    "hard work" you come back and say "What we decided to do instead is
    cut the price of the existing system in half."
    
    And do you *REALLY* expect me to be unhappy if after 17 months
    of hard work you come back and say "Well, I'm really sorry, but
    we managed to more than double the performance of the existing
    system, and we found some areas where we could save significant
    cost as well, so the new system will cost less than the system
    it replaces."
    
    								-mr. bill

    .80 (M_B)
    
>    It seems that lots of folks who don't really care about performance
>    don't get it.
    
    Assumes facts not in evidence.  From what I'm reading, NO ONE is happy
    with the performance, which would suggest that they do indeed care.     
    
    The comments I'm reading suggest that throwing more money at the
    problem has done little to help the current situation.  Due to this,
    they would like to see more efficient use of their tax $$, rather than
    having more tax $$ taken from them to toss at education.

|   From what I'm reading, NO ONE is happy with the performance, which 
|   would suggest that they do indeed care.
    
    No, they don't indeed care, not if delivering the same performance would
    make them happier.
    
|   The comments I'm reading suggest that throwing more money at the
|   problem has done little to help the current situation.
    
    You've read lots of opinions that we spend too much.
    
|   Due to this, they would like to see more efficient use of their tax $$,

    You've read lots of opinions that we spend money inefficiently.
    
|   rather than having more tax $$ taken from them to toss at education.
    
    Which is really the point.
    
    Start from the bottom line and work backwards.
    
    								-mr. bill

>  I don't think it's about money.  They do.

   It's about both.

  There are indeed people whose only goal in town issues is to save
 money on their property tax.  For some few people, this is a desperate
 concern.  Right now, the mortgage foreclosure rate is down from five
 years back, but nevertheless in my town, there were fourteen last year
 who lost their houses.  Typically, these are either old folks or single
 parents or layoffs or some other sad story.  It is never clear which
 dollar on the tax rate broke whose budget.

  Things vary from town to town.  In places like Boston or Lowell, school
 teachers are paid substantially more than typical household income of
 students.  In my town in the suburbs, teacher's salaries are slightly
 higher than average resident's.  Obviously, in Sudbury or Carlisle,
 it would be rare for a teacher to be able to live in the town, and would
 be teaching the progeny of high net worth individuals.

  We spend whatever the political process can squeeze from us, whatever
 a majority of us are grudgingly willing to give up out of other costs.
 There are no easy funding answers.  No money is free.

  bb

>  I don't think it's about money.  They do.
    
     You seem to have great difficulty accepting the possibility that
    education has any sort of financial component at all. Teachers who go
    on strike have no problem seeing the connection. Schoolchildren using
    books that are literally falling apart have no problem seeing the
    connection. Elders on fixed incomes who see increases in their property
    taxes to pay for increased school budgets have no problem seeing the
    connection. Voters seeing yet another property 2.5 override or bond
    issue to pay for new schools see the connection with great clarity.
    
    mr. bill proclaims they are all wrong.

    .82 (M_B)
    
>    No, they don't indeed care, not if delivering the same performance would
>    make them happier.
 
    Same performance for less $$, yes.  It isn't the performance part that
    makes them (or I) happier.  Equal peformance for less $$ suggests that
    at least a portion of the problem is being addressed.
       
>    Start from the bottom line and work backwards.
 
    At some point you have to look at the bottom line.  You can't just
    continually throw out more and more money at a given problem and expect
    it to fix things.  You can't keep throwing money out blindly and then
    HOPE that someone fixes the real problems down the road.  
       

|   You can't keep throwing money out blindly and then HOPE that someone
|   fixes the real problems down the road.  
    
    I don't propose throwing money at the problem.
    
    But *YOU* claim that you can blindly cut money and then HOPE that
    someone fixes the real problems down the road.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   Right now, the mortgage foreclosure rate is down from five years back,
|   but nevertheless in my town, there were fourteen last year who lost
|   their houses.
    
    It's been my experience that mortgage foreclosures take place when
    someone doesn't pay a mortgage.  That's why they are called mortgage
    foreclosures.
    
    Check out how many tax foreclosures there were in your community.
    (Hint, there was a car dealership in my town that finally went bankrupt.
    The only action the town ever took against him was to post the fact
    that the car dealership hadn't payed any property taxes in years.)
    
    
    Odd thing about houses though.  If education costs go up faster than
    the price of iceberg lettuce, that's bad bad bad, at least according
    to some homeowners.  But if housing prices go up faster than the price
    of iceberg lettuce that's good good good, at least according to those
    same homeowners.
    
    Go figure.
    
    								-mr. bill

   > But *YOU* claim that you can blindly cut money and then HOPE that
   > someone fixes the real problems down the road.
 
   What is this 'blindly' and 'HOPE' crap ...

    
    .88
    
    one is an investment, one is used in a salad.

    the foundation of his "argument." It's important to portray the side
    that doesn't think money is irrelevant as being as unreasonable as
    possible to maximize the effects of the FUD being thrown around.

    re: .89
    
|   What is this 'blindly' and 'HOPE' crap ...
    
    The same exact crap when *YOU* wrote 'blindly' and 'HOPE.'  HTH.
    
|   It's important to portray the side that doesn't think money is
|   irrelevant as being as unreasonable as possible to maximize the effects
|   of the FUD being thrown around.
    
    I see, when *YOU* all say "mindless" and "HOPE" it's somehow different?
    I got it.
    
    BTW, check the price of iceberg lettuce yet?  (And what does that have
    to do with the cost of an education anyway?)
    
    								-mr. bill

    has anyone identified the REAL problems?

|   has anyone identified the REAL problems?
    
    Levesque thinks he has.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .87
    
    Who said anything about blindly cutting money?  Not me.

|   .87
|    
|   Who said anything about blindly cutting money?  Not me.
    
    Who said anything about blindly throwing money?  Not me.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	Mr. Bill is right, yer all wrong. Just accept that and no one gets
    hurt...
    
    

    no, mr. bill seems to be asking people to drop
    their "blindly throwing money" mantra, that's all.

    
    
    	Mr. Bill's method of "asking" needs some work. :)
    
    

|    	Mr. Bill's method of "asking" needs some work. :)
    
    Yooooooooubetcha.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >no, mr. bill seems to be asking people to drop
    >their "blindly throwing money" mantra, that's all.
    
     bwahahahaha! Yeah, "that's all."
    
     mr. bill is demanding that we all stop questioning how much anything that
    has to do with education costs. He insists that cost is totally
    irrelevant, and that we have no right to consider the cost of
    education because the only thing that matters is "performance."
    Furthermore, he has proclaimed that anyone that pays even the slightest
    amount of attention to what things cost A) does not care at all about
    performance and B) only cares about cutting the costs of education,
    regardless of how the performance is affected.
    
     Mr. bill says it's worse to spend less money to get "good"
    performance than it is to spend more money. It makes him "MORE
    unhappy". Get it?
    
     mr. bill is the fountain of all knowledge about education. Just ask
    him.

mr bill- we, likea kannot unnerstand ewe.

ogre

  In keeping with my personal tradition of ratholing all topics, I'll
 digress into foreclosures.  Since foreclosures are almost always
 depressing to everybody involved, I turn to any article on them, once
 I'm done with the obits, the crime roundup, and the Celtics and Bruins...

  It is virtually unheard of in my town, or in Massachusetts, for the tax
 collector to issue what's called an "Instrument of Taking" for taxes on
 any property with a dwelling on it.  To my knowledge, this only happens
 to unbuildable vacant lot fragments, or in bizarre circumstances (outright
 owner with no mortgage is incarcerated on some other charge, etc.)

  For everybody else, it is the bank that pays the taxes.  The "owner"
 pays the bank PIT (principle, interest, taxes) plus often insurance,
 all to the bank monthly.  The tax part is held in escrow and paid to the
 town tax collector by the bank quarterly.  The interest on the escrow
 is paid to the homeowner, and he gets a 1099 and must report it as income.
 If the owner had no mortgage and can't pay the taxes, the bank would
 gladly give him a mortgage for the money with the property as surety, so
 no default for taxes would occur.

  If you don't pay your monthly PIT, mortgage contracts prescribe a fee
 for delinquency.  (In my case, this is $32 a month.  I know.)  An actual
 foreclosure doesn't occur for many months, or even years, by which time
 the owner has run up such a bill that the equity is exhausted.  The bank
 will make repeated attempts to contact the owner by phone, mail, and in
 person.  A common scenario is that the property is vacant six months or
 more, and nobody appears for the "owner" in court.

  It is useless to try to distinguish if the default is "for taxes", since
 it's all one bill.  In the event of a bankruptcy filing (common), it is
 very complicated and depends what chapter you filed.

  When tax rates go up, or when the economy goes down in the area, the
 foreclosure rate goes up.  And vice versa, although it is never zero.
 The reason for Proposition 2.5 in Massachusetts, and the California
 (13 ?) one, and their ilk, is a combination of groups.  Some people are
 just cheap.  Some aren't, but are broke.  Some object to the liberal bias
 of teachers, etc.

  It is useless in a democracy to expect property tax increases, or any
 tax increases, to be unopposed.  By and large, people will support tax
 increases if the benefit is demonstrable.  For example, in my town, a
 town sewerage override passed.  A library extension did not.  You have
 to convince voters they get something for their pain.  While for many,
 the incremental expense is a mere annoyance, for some it breaks the budget
 and you get a foreclosure.  If taxes went infinite, so would foreclosures.

  bb

    
    bb, you're right, it was a rathole. keep up the good work.

    The issue around education really doesn't involve the cost as much as
    people would like to claim.  funding is merely the lightening rod for
    the debate.  The issue I hear most often is that the basic level of
    knowledge students receive is unacceptable.
    
    Every year there are new studies and reports that identify that
    students at various grade levels are unable to read at the appropriate
    level, are unable to perform basic math skills, are unable to identify
    the United States on a world map, etc.  these are the things that the
    average person looks to in order to determine if the educational system
    is working.  In their opinion it is not.
    
    The teacher strikes and demands for ever increasing wages and
    decreasing class sizes only make the matter worse.
    
    Overriding the above is the attention that non-academic subjects
    receive such as the leimination of accelerated classes for more
    advanced students because it makes other students feel bad, the
    elimination of grades so that students don't feel a blow to their
    self-esteem, etc.  These are nonsense issues that tend to have a
    negative effect on the overall teaching environment and the
    expectations that students should have for their performance.
    
    MOney is just the most visible piece of the problem and gets the most
    atttention.  Address the other issues and the funding issue will take
    care of itself.
    

    
I thought Mr. Bill was clueless until I read this.    
    
  " Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to double the
    performance of this brand new Alpha system while cutting its
    price/performance in half.  (That is, your mission is to replace
    an existing system with a new system that costs the same, but is
    twice as fast.)  You have 18 months.  Good luck."
    
    Mr. Bill clearly states that doubling the price of the current system
    will not produce an increase in performance. What we need is a new
    system that costs the same and doubles performance. A NEW SYSTEM! The
    old one won't perform any better no matter how much you pay for it.
    
                             Steve J.
    

    Interesting to read what people expected people to know and do now, and
    how well many kids are managing.  For a historical perspective read any
    of the books around the settlement of the west and education.  
    
    Carrie is learning about compound/complex sentences in the 5th grade.
    This was taught at the jr/sr/ levels of highschool in the early 1900's. 
    
    
    MEG

    
    meg, the west was settled by guns and gunfighters. only the strong
    survived.

    .101
    
    /mr. bill is demanding that we all stop questioning how much
    /anything that has to do with education costs.
    
    what does money have to do with a person's inability to read
    and write upon graduating from high school?
    

    .107
    
    I went through elementary school in the 50s and, I believe, we were
    working with compound/complex sentences in the 6th grade.
    
    That may be much lower than the early 1900s, but not much different
    than today if your daughter is doing this work in the 5th grade.  In 40
    years we have introduced a concept one grade lower, not much of a
    quantum jump.
    

    Battis,
    
    The west was settled by farmers, ranchers and families, my great
    grandparents being a farm family in Burlington CO.  My grandmother (who
    would have been 103 recently) taught school from the age of 18 on in CO
    and in Iowa, she never got a college education, it wasn't considered
    necessary to do more than pass a certification test.  Now she did teach
    in both English and German, as there was a requirement for bilingual
    education in Iowa, even in the 1910's.
    
    meg

    >what does money have to do with a person's inability to read
    >and write upon graduating from high school?
    
     You don't mean to imply that a "good" education system turns out
    illiterate students, do you?

    
    reading about gunfighters and outlaws is more interesting than reading
    about farmers and ranchers. besides, they make westerns more fun to
    watch.

     /You don't mean to imply that a "good" education system turns out
     /illiterate students, do you?
    
    jeepers, mark, i don't think that _anyone_ in here is 
    saying there's no room for improvement in our education
    system, if that's what you're driving at.
    

    .105
    
    /The issue I hear most often is that the basic level of
    /knowledge students receive is unacceptable.
    
    receive?  or learn?

    
    oph is asking the tough questions today.

    >jeepers, mark, i don't think that _anyone_ in here is 
    >saying there's no room for improvement in our education
    >system, if that's what you're driving at.
    
     I'm implying that one person in particular is talking out of both sides
    of his mouth. Hint: he's the same guy that got on my case for being
    critical of the education system's quality (which he defended as being
    "good"), but he also claims I don't care about "performance," which he
    apparently considers to be his sole province.

    .115
    
    Actually it's both.  In many cases they aren't even receiving the
    information, much less learning it.  On the other hand the expectation
    of what is to be learned is not very high.
    

    .118
    
    /On the other hand the expectation of what is to be 
    /learned is not very high.
    
    and why is that?  i mean really, i'm serious.  is there
    an explanation other than PCness or "feel-goodness" ?
    

    Mr. Bill,
    
    >|   What is this 'blindly' and 'HOPE' crap ...
    >
    >    The same exact crap when *YOU* wrote 'blindly' and 'HOPE.'  HTH.
    
    No it isn't. Mr. Leech (*YOU*) never implied what your manipulation
    of his words implied. Apparently, the 'note for demonstration purposes'
    didn't serve it's purpose as you continue misrepresent other peoples
    positions.
    
    Makes it tough to have a constructive conversation, yes it does ...
    
    Doug.

    .110 

    FYI - 
       Run, spot, run.


        is not considered a compound/complex sentence.

hth,
kb

    .121
    
    Unfortunately that is about as compound/complex a sentence too many
    students can handle today.
    

  re, .122 - Can you repeat that ?  I'm not sure what word is missing,
 but I'll guess "as".

  bb

    
    	too=that
    

|   Hint: he's the same guy that got on my case for being critical of the
|   education system's quality (which he defended as being "good"),
    
    Alpha performance is going down down down.
    
    Gosh, now why would *ANYONE* object to such a statement?  (Could it
    be because it is a *false* statement?  Nah.)
    
|   but he also claims I don't care about "performance," which he
|   apparently considers to be his sole province.
    
    I don't want tomorrow's Alphas to be as fast as today's Alphas.  I
    want them to be *FASTER*.  I won't be happier than today unless
    tomorrow's Alphas are *FASTER*.  You see, I *know* that some
    competitor's system *WILL* be faster tomorrow.
    
    
    I can't see how anyone can say they'd be happier than today if tomorrow's
    Alphas just got cheaper but not faster.  And then loudly insist that
    they really do care about a great deal about performance.  Yeah, right.
    
    
    (And I know Alpha prices.  One individual system I am working with
    started at $23K and since then has dropped to $17K then to $13K.
    Some folks seem to think I should be happier.  Why?  It didn't have
    enough performance at $23K, and several months later, it still doesn't
    have enough performance at $13K.)
    
    								-mr. bill

  well, i dunno about workstations.  In servers, we have projects to
 make it faster, and we have projects that reduce costs.

  I agree that we have to go faster.  We need EV6 real bad now.  But
 meanwhile, we're mostly reducing costs on EV56 based systems, be it
 singles, duals, quads, or bigtime turbos.

  It remains to be seen if lower prices are gonna cut the mustard.  Lower
 cost alpha machines are a new strategy, and I wouldn't abandon ship yet.

  Mebbe we can pump the base with volume ?

  bb

    >              -< More performance is the goal.  PERIOD! >-
    
     It is not sufficient to have the most performance. If you have 1.5X
    the competition's performance at 100X the price, you will not sell any
    systems. Ask Cray how useful it is to push performance at any price.
    You can want more performance all you want, but if you can't provide it
    in a cost effective way, YOU LOSE <emphasis for he who just doesn't get
    it>.

    Partially a money thing - funding is important.   Although I believe
    the majority of the parents are not preparing the kids with the right
    environment at home.    I believe this is the main issue - parents are
    failing.    There are too many kids who are "underdriven" and never 
    engaged to care.   This carries over to the Educational system... 
    
    Too many single parent families and disfunctional families out there that
    don't take the time to care about the kids.    Too many parents have
    the misunderstanding that schools are there to teach everything - this
    is wrong - parents have to work harder to bring up better students too.  
    
    My sister is prime example - her kids were raised to be interested in books
    rather than nintendo or t.v.   to ask questions, to be interactive -
    this takes alot of time but is time well spent.   
    
    Too many parents by these trash video games that teach nothing more
    than eye hand coordination and make kids into mush...
    
    
    

    What amazes me is the parents that are driven to by an expensive pc for
    their kids when what they really should have done was simply buy them a
    nintendo. I know some families would use one effectively but most are
    simply used for play. An incredible waste of money. It's as if they
    think it will automatically make their kids smarter or something.

    
    well, Digital better figure out a way to sell *lots* of Alphas,
    price/performance included.

|   Ask Cray how useful it is to push performance at any price.
    
    Ask IBM how useful it is to cut cost damn the performance.
    
    The PowerPC might have taken off if they delivered the performance
    of the 620 when they said they would.  Instead, they've been cutting
    the price of the 604's and 603's and still have nothing in the
    PowerPC family with sufficient performance.  (It's 1997, and
    they have new Power2 systems to try to fill the performance need.)
    The PowerPC wasn't fast enough yesterday.  They still aren't fast
    enough today.  No matter the cost.
    
    
    Sun and HP and SGI were all in danger of taking a dive far more
    dramatic than Digital.  They could have cut the prices of their
    existing systems without increasing their performance and not have
    changed the dive into mediocrity.  Their customer's were quite
    patient (just as ours were a while back).  But a few more months
    and those customers would have lost patience with the "be happier,
    mr. customer, while we're not delivering the performance you've
    been asking for, asking for, asking for, we *ARE* delivering
    unacceptable performance cheaper, cheaper, CHEAPER!  Doesn't
    that make you happier happier HAPPIER?)
    
    Imagine 1997 without the UltraSPARC, the PA-8000 and the R10000.
    Those chips have delivered just enough PERFORMANCE for them to
    compete for a little while longer.
    
    What about AMD?
    
    AMD wasn't in danger of going nowhere, it *WAS* going nowhere.
    Didn't matter if they were a bit cheaper, they had a performance
    deficit. Now the K6 has a slight performance edge.  PERFORMANCE
    is what gives them the opportuntity.  But since the K6 is also
    cheaper it might give them a bit of larger opportunity than
    otherwise.  But the door was opened *ONLY* by that slight
    performance edge.  (If they deliver.)
    
    To put it a slightly different way:
    
    AMD potential without a performance edge?  None.
    AMD potential without a performance edge and price cuts?  None.
    AMD potential with a performance edge?  Maybe something.
    AMD potential with a performance edge and lower price?  Maybe something.
    
    ----
    
    Back to education.
    
    BB&N and Phillips Academy are two local private schools that
    both seem to be *VERY* successful at prices that you all balk at.
    My son's private pre-school has a kindergarten with a waiting list
    at prices that you would laugh at.  I'll leave it to you to come up
    with some successful local public schools, and you'll find their
    cost per student varies dramatically.
    
    
    But you've got the answer.  Public schools "waste" money.
    
    								-mr. bill

>    Ask IBM how useful it is to cut cost damn the performance.
    
    Nobody here has pushed that. You, on the other hand, have pushed
    performance regardless of cost. So how IS Cray doing these days,
    anyway? And how is IBM doing? Just wondering. :-)
    
    >BB&N and Phillips Academy are two local private schools that
    >both seem to be *VERY* successful at prices that you all balk at.
    
     NDA is a local private school that is extremely successful at prices
    significantly below that of competing public schools. It offers a superior
    education, PERIOD. It offers it at a price even I am willing to bite
    the bullet and pay (over and above the thousands I pay in property tax,
    the majority of which is ostensibly used to educate the children in my
    town.)
    
     Of course, I am only interested in saving money because performance
    doesn't matter to me because, well, because you said so.

>   Ask IBM how useful it is to cut cost damn the performance.
    
|   Nobody here has pushed that.
    
    They haven't?  You've said that we should demand public school
    performance go up, but are willing to see public school performance
    remain the same SO LONG as costs go down.  IBM wanted more
    performance, but they were willing to settle for the same SO LONG
    as costs went down.  How are you different than IBM?
    
|   And how is IBM doing? Just wondering. :-)
    
    Very badly at UNIX workstations.  Thanks for asking.
    
|   You, on the other hand, have pushed performance regardless of cost.
    
    No, I haven't.  I demand more performance.  I've not put constraints
    on how to achieve that.  You have.  I will not accept less than more
    performance.  You will.
    
    
    I'll give you a hint, again.  Since January 1996, a Unix Alpha
    workstation has gone up tremendously in performance.
    
    (From the AlphaStation 600 5/333 to the AlphaStation 500/500.)
    It was achieved in a far *CHEAPER* system.
    
    So tell me again I'm interested in performance regardless of cost.
    
    								-mr. bill

    > but are willing to see public school performance
    >    remain the same SO LONG as costs go down.
    
    No one in this discussion has taken this position.
    
    I suspect your universal translator is on the
    fritz.
    
    Doug.

    >No, I haven't.  I demand more performance.  I've not put constraints
    >on how to achieve that.  You have.  I will not accept less than more
    >performance.  You will.
    
    Bzzzzt! Wrong again.
    
    
    
    

>            <<< Note 850.129 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Dare to bare" >>>
>    simply used for play. An incredible waste of money. It's as if they
>    think it will automatically make their kids smarter or something.

Do you blame them? That's what most politicians seem to think, too. I suspect
that there's a whole lot of PCs out there that have been gathering dust for
years, or are $2000 nintendo substitutes, or glorified typewriters (like
ours most of the time).

    
    	A PC can be quite educational when used right, especially if you
    	happen to have things like on-line encyclopedias loaded.
    
    	But they can also be toys.
    

    Connecticut legislature approves state takeover of Hartford schools
    
    Associated Press, 04/17/97 01:07 
    
    HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Some lawmakers and union leaders are worried
    Hartford residents will be left with no say in their school system when
    the state takes over the city's troubled schools. 
    
    The General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to take over the
    city's schools June 1. The move will dissolve the elected school board
    and replace it for the next three years with a panel of seven appointed
    trustees. 
    
    ``They know better than the people of Hartford how to handle their own
    school system? I think not,'' said Sen. Anthony Guglielmo, R-Stafford
    Springs. 
    
    Many Republicans and Democrats who supported the legislation said they
    did so reluctantly, but felt they were out of options when it came to
    moving quickly to help students in the chronically embattled schools. 
    
    ``We must no longer defer the realization of their dreams.'' said
    Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin Sullivan, D-West Hartford. 
    
    The bill gives the panel of appointed trustees control over the
    district's finances and the ability to alter union contracts that have
    been blamed for impeding reform. 
    
    Republican Gov. John G. Rowland, who helped Democratic legislators
    craft the legislation, will sign the measure into law by the end of the
    week, his office said. 
    
    Hartford will become the first community in Connecticut forced to give
    up full control of its school system to the state. 
    
    The Senate approved the legislation early Wednesday afternoon by a vote
    of 27-9. Four hours later, the House approved it 135-7. 
    
    Under the law, a panel of seven trustees appointed by the governor and
    legislative leaders will oversee the city's 32 schools. The state will
    be able to extend its oversight until 2002. 
    
    The legislation was proposed in the wake of a landmark school
    desegregation case won last year by parents upset with the racial
    imbalance in the city school system, the state's largest. 
    
    The Connecticut Supreme Court found that the Hartford schools, where
    more than 95 percent of the 24,000 students are minorities, are
    unconstitutionally segregated. It ordered the state to come up with its
    own remedies. 
    
    The driving force behind the takeover, however, was the continued poor
    academic showing by Hartford's schools, which have been plagued by high
    dropout rates and the state's worst test scores. The schools spend more
    than $9,300 per child, the fifth highest in the state, with about 70
    percent of school funding coming from the state. 
    
    The final straw came last week when a New England board voted to revoke
    the accreditation of Hartford Public High School, citing problems with
    the curriculum, teacher training, discipline, crumbling buildings and a
    graduation rate of only 40 percent compared to the state average of 80
    percent. 
    
    A second high school is in danger of being put on probation by the
    accreditation board, the school superintendent revealed Wednesday. 
    
    The takeover legislation requires the new trustees of the Hartford
    schools to implement a set of 48 recommendations crafted by the state's
    education commissioner and already adopted by the school board. The
    recommendations include adding advanced placement courses, providing
    more college board preparation and adopting new financial practices. 
    
    ``Will it work? No one knows that, but those that say it won't will
    always be right if they never allow it to be tried,'' said Sen. Louis
    DeLuca, R-Woodbury. 
    
    The legislation also gives the trustees the power to go straight to
    school union members to approve or reject changes in their contracts. 
    
    If disputes go to arbitration, arbitrators would not be bound by past
    contracts, and would not have to settle for ``last best offers'' of
    either side, now a common practice. 
    
    The Hartford union contracts have been criticized as inflexible, making
    it difficult to make major changes to the system, including moving
    staff around. They also have driven up the cost of personnel, sending
    teachers to the top of the pay scale faster than in other systems.
    Their average salary is now close to $60,000. 
    
    George Springer, president of the Connecticut State Federation of
    Teachers, said some of the bill's contract provisions may land the
    state in court. Also, he said, the union doubts a takeover will help
    the school system. 
    
    ``There are lots of questions about replacing elected officials with an
    appointed board of trustees. There are questions about what the role of
    those trustees will be,'' Springer said. ``If anybody has problems with
    the board of trustees, what happens? Who are they accountable to?'' 
    
    The bill also makes Hartford Public High School eligible for $20.5
    million in state bond money for construction, House leaders said. 
    
    This is the second time drastic steps have been taken to try to turn
    around Hartford's schools. In 1994, the city hired for-profit Education
    Alternatives Inc. of Bloomington, Minn., to manage the school system.
    But the experiment in private management ended early in 1996 in a
    dispute over finances. 
    
    Six other states are in the midst of running school districts, not
    including the District of Columbia, which has been taken over by the
    federal government, according to the Education Commission of the ents
    to attend other districts' high schools failed in the Senate. 

|   > but are willing to see public school performance
|   >    remain the same SO LONG as costs go down.
|
|   No one in this discussion has taken this position.
    
    Is that a fact?  Tell me, how does *your* universal xlator work?
    (Other than not very well.)
    
|   >No, I haven't.  I demand more performance.  I've not put constraints
|   >on how to achieve that.  You have.  I will not accept less than more
|   >performance.  You will.
    
|   Bzzzzt! Wrong again.
    
    Is that a fact?
    I don't demand more performance?
    I put contraints on how to achieve more performance?
    I won't accept the same or less performance tomorrow?
    
    Who will be happier tommorrow if the performance is the same but it
    costs less?
    
    Who has put constraints on solving our problems by ruling out
    spending more money?
    
    								-mr. bill

    >Who has put constraints on solving our problems by ruling out
    >spending more money?
    
     Good question. I'd like to see the answer to this one.

>               <<< Note 850.140 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
    
>     Good question. I'd like to see the answer to this one.

	me too.  i haven't seen you call for any such constraints.
	

|   >Who has put constraints on solving our problems by ruling out
|   >spending more money?
|    
|   Good question. I'd like to see the answer to this one.
    
    You have to answer this one.  I'm not the one who has repeatedly
    objected to anyone who notes that increasing our performance might
    (*MIGHT*, not *MUST*, *MIGHT*) require more money.
    
    So answer it.
    
								-mr. bill

    >	me too.  i haven't seen you call for any such constraints.
    
     That's because you refuse to read between the lines and insist on
    reading what's actually written.

 >   Is that a fact?  Tell me, how does *your* universal xlator work?
 >   (Other than not very well.)
  
  Better than yours apparently ...

  >  I don't demand more performance?
    Yes you do.
  >  I put contraints on how to achieve more performance?
    No you don't.
  >  I won't accept the same or less performance tomorrow?
   No you won't.

   You seem to be under the impressions that others have taken opposite
   positions, and no one has.

   >Who will be happier tommorrow if the performance is the same but it
   >costs less?
  
   Lot's of people. That doesn't translate into not demanding better 
   performance and it doesn't translate into no being willing to spend
   more money if performance can be improved.

   What they have said is that they are unwilling to fund the ever increasing
   costs in education without scrutiny and justification. 

   > Who has put constraints on solving our problems by ruling out
   > spending more money?
 
   No one.

>  Better than yours apparently ...
    
    ["simplistic" analysis deleted]
    
    He's got you there, bill.

|   He's got you there, bill.
    
    You think?  (You *never* read between the lines, of course.)
    
    Read some of the lines you've written here:
    
There's no such thing as an education crisis. Everything's hunky-dory.

You don't give a thought to the cost, because to you it's a "good cause" and so
therefore it doesn't matter how efficiently the resources are used (to you.)

You would be perfectly satisfied to pay 10 times more than anyone else for
education if we got an education on par with that of Singapore. 

Therefore spending more and achieving the same is better than spending less and
achieving the same.

I suppose the drop in the violent crime rate has made you similarly "MORE
*UNHAPPY*!" since we still have far too much violent crime.

And that [ineffective and inefficient use of resources], to you, is ok, as
long as we're trying to get more, because money doesn't matter until it's
better.

Bill would rather hit up the taxpayers every time someone comes up with a new
(or not so new) idea about how to "improve" education.

mr. bill proclaims they [teahcers, schoolchildren, elders, voters]
are all wrong.

mr. bill is demanding that we all stop questioning how much anything that has
to do with education costs.

He insists that cost is totally irrelevant, and that we have no right to
consider the cost of education because the only thing that matters is
"performance."

Furthermore, he has proclaimed that anyone that pays even the slightest amount
of attention to what things cost A) does not care at all about performance and
B) only cares about cutting the costs of education, regardless of how the
performance is affected.

Mr. bill says it's worse to spend less money to get "good" performance than it
is to spend more money.

You, on the other hand, have pushed performance regardless of cost.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    <yawn>

|   He's got you there, bill.
    
    Actually, all you've done is just ducked answering the question again.

    You've got some very simple choices to make, here are some choices to
    make for some of the changes to your local schools.
    
    Proposal A - more performance, more money
    Proposal B - more performance, no effect on money
    Proposal C - more performance, less money
    Proposal D - no effect on performance, more money
    Proposal E - no effect on performance, no effect on money
    Proposal F - no effect on performance, less money
    Proposal G - less performance, more money
    Proposal H - less performance, no effect on money
    Proposal I - less performance, less money
    
    The proposals are not exclusive.  You can consider only one if you'd
    like, you can consider more than one if you'd like.
    
    Tell me which proposals you'd consider and why.  Tell me which proposals
    you'd not consider and why.
    
    (AFTER you do that, I'll answer the same question.)
    
    								-mr. bill

  .148  to me those choices don't sound simple - more like
	simple-minded.

    Were that the choices were so simple.

    
    Obviously, not simple enough to get an answer.
    
    								-mr. bill

  .151  Or possibly too simple to get an answer.

    As long as you can load the driver for it, there is no such case.

    >Obviously, not simple enough to get an answer.
    
     How about I make you pick from a set of false choices and bludgeon you
    about the head and neck when you answer? And when you balk, I'll strut
    around making derogatory comments about you.

    .153 eh?  

    Once again the same old argument gets trotted out claiming that our
    educational system is a mess and if we just spent a bit more money on
    it things would be better.  Of course, we have spent tons of money on
    this over the years and not one bit of improvement has been seen.  Now
    since my daughter is a teacher I would love to see her making $100K a
    year.  that would make me very happy.  Of course her students would get
    no better teaching from her than they do today.
    
    You maight claim that they could get PCs, etc, but many schools already
    have them and certainly the basics, but no improvement.
    
    The one thing that might make a difference, and cost nothing, school
    vouchers, makes those who claim they will try anything to get better
    performance, are many of the same screaming the loudest agianst it.
    
    If you really want to see improvement, then get real competition and
    choices available for people and you will see how quickly the system
    will improve, if just for self-preservation.
    

>                     <<< Note 850.156 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>

>    Once again the same old argument gets trotted out claiming that our
>    educational system is a mess and if we just spent a bit more money on
>    it things would be better.

	who said that?

        Does the education crisis not have something to do with the social
    stigma attached to school.

    I know most kids in the UK look at school as a joke, and if you can get
    expelled then great because you get to spend less time at school. If
    you get expelled from every school in town then you have to have a
    private tutor. Which means not going to school at all. When you are not
    going to school, you can boast to your mates, that schools sucks, and
    you don't have to go. Kids have a strange way of prioritising the
    wrong things.

    If you take a look at the school system in, say, Japan then you have a
    complete contrast. There is so much pressure to achieve, and a lot of
    value is put in education, that if you are not seen to perform or
    achieve then you become more or less an outcast.

    Society needs to place more value in education, and make it known that
    we won't tolerate adults who can't read or write. So as a child in
    school you had better pull your weight and get the work done, and
    achieve the required grades.
    
    Steven 

    .158
    
    You have managed to hit the major problem facing the US in many areas,
    not just education.  There are way too many people today who rail
    against any attempt to create acceptable behavior and support societal
    sanctions against those who see no value in abiding by the rules.
    
    Education is just one of them.  when students create an environment
    that is detrimental to academic achievement there is very little that
    can be doen.  If a student is expelled, the bleeding hearts start
    screaming about the poor lost soul and how society will pay for it in
    the end.  Seems like we pay for it over and over now and merely expose
    more kids to the rot in the system.
    
    there is a gang problem in many schools, but heaven forbit we support
    dress codes to eliminate gang influence.  It may do little to change
    things, but it would send a clear message that we will not tolerate
    such behavior and take the necessary steps to stop it.  Every effort
    may not be 100% successful, but 10% is a good start.
    

    Rocush,
    
    How many kids do you have in public schools?  
    
    I have one in, one who has finished and one who starts in 18 months.  I
    have found, that just like adults, you get what you expect from kids. 
    Expect them to be miserable hell raisers and that's what you get. 
    (the teachers in the school have also found this to be the case, too
    bad the school board doesn't believe them)
    
    meg

    .160
    
    Not exactly sure why you asked, but all three of my children went
    through the public school system.
    
    You have also identified that, again, a lot fo the problems with the
    educational system is the administration associated with the system.  I
    fault the teacher's union because they won't address the actual
    problems with education, just eacher salaries, etc.  But when it comes
    to proposing changes and improvements to make the system better, they
    are the first ones out there claiming to care about the kids.  Hogwash. 
    Again, this is the union leadership and not the teachers behind the
    desks, although a lot of them are guilty as well.
    
    The other issue is the administration that sucks up a high percentage
    of the money and provides little in return.  That has been what a lot
    of this is about.  A lot of change and improvement can be had with no
    increases in costs and possible reductions, but we must demand the
    changes not just talk about a desire for improvement.
    

    don't know what planet your teacher's union comes from.  CSTA has had
    some very valid ideas for the kids.  Just some people seem to think
    that requesting smaller classes and upgraded physical plants is selfish
    and for the teachers alone.  same thing with wanting enough books so
    each child has his or her own for the year.
    
    

    >Just some people seem to think
    >that requesting smaller classes and upgraded physical plants is selfish
    >and for the teachers alone.  same thing with wanting enough books so
    >each child has his or her own for the year.

    Unless of course the expense gets in the way of teachers wage increases ....
    Or requires them to contribute towards their health and retirement
    packages ...

    and certainly, the smaller the classroom size the more teachers you need
    and the less work per teacher ....

    The biggest issues in town involve the above. The message from the town
    is they WON'T pay for a new school until these other, ever increasing, 
    expenses are brought under control ....

    How do you suppose the union reacts to that?

    Doug.

    Imo, the problem is that education is a forced system. Many seem to
    assume that the government, school administrators and teachers know
    what they are doing. My experience is that some do and some don't, just
    like any profession. Our children are pressured to fit in and if they
    don't are considered failures. I have one son who was a successful
    student. When he got into the real world it looked for awhile like he
    wouldn't survive. He has come around. My second son is considered a
    failure in school. He dislikes most of what is there but is forced to
    participate anyway. Yet, it is clear that he is very successful in his
    non-academic life. I have no concern that he will be successful and
    happy in life. Outside of reading and writing, I'm not sure what
    benefit school was for either of my boys.
                                             

    
    One thing I don't understand is:
    
    My son in middle school don't have textbook for science.
    He hasn't have it this whole year.  He told me there are some
    in library or teacher for check out.  Everyone has to take
    note during the class.   But the teacher collect students' note
    to check out how they are doing.  So my son don't have even note
    to study for test/exam.  Something I should have talked to the
    principle.  But this term is ending soon.  I don't bother to do
    it.  I grew up in Taiwan.  We always had textbook from elementary
    to high school.  They were always new and free.  Note: I pay a lot
    of taxes every year.   Looks like my son get lost a whole year.
    
    Another thing is they always like to switch to new edition of 
    textbook.  Claiming that new text book is better.  Educated as
    scientist,  I know that basic science never changes.  Only those
    so called "educator" try to do something different in the name of
    "reform".   Why they want constantly switching the way of teaching
    science.  For example, they want to combine the physics, chemistry
    and biology together now.  Combine the three math together in
    to one.  I'll bet that five years from now they will switch it
    back.  I suspect that those book dealers want change so they
    can make more business.
    
    
    

    .162
    
    I assume that the union didn't request increased salaries, time off and
    lower benefit contirbutions as part of the rest of the issues.  In most
    private concerns decisions have to made about each of these.  When the
    unions demand increases with no regard to the rest of the productive
    resources, you generally see a deterioration in the plant, product, etc
    until a business goes under.  We are basically at the same point in
    education.  the difference being that the union can point to the poor,
    little children and hope to get a sympathy vote.
    
    I, for one, have had enough of the union using children as pawns and
    that is one of the main reasons I support vouchers and most any other
    program that iwll break the union's and administration death grip on
    the educational process.
    

    .165
    
    Oh yes, the book scam.  There's another issue...

who says dress codes will reduce [school] gang violence? you make a kid wear 
what you want them to and they will or will not be happy about it, but it will 
not make them stop fromm stealing the little guys lunch money, calling the fat
girl lulu, or stabbing the "rich" kid that accidentally bumped into them.

a white shirt, tie and dress slacks will not keep them from stealing the 
computer to sell for drugs or food for their sibs.

you said it better with: we, as a society, are not going to take that crap from
you little punks and then commense to open a can of whipass on them [not 
literal whipass, but a method such as that which is right and dictated by 
society].

ogre.

    I heard that schools that had implemented dress codes (uniforms) had seen 
    dramatic results in behaviour of the students.

 Ah, what do they know?

    
    	He didn't say that the behavior improved, Jim.
    

> who says dress codes will reduce [school] gang violence?

Well, for starters, no gang colors. Then there are the stolen sneakers and
jackets that should significantly reduce. Children ridiculing each other
over what they wear is reduced.

Seems to me that tension overall would drop if diversions like these were
reduced ...


Doug.

    <---- this is what schools that have gone to uniforms are reporting as
    positive results.

    
    	re .168
    
    	You never heard the expression, "Clothes make the man" ?
    
    
    
    

    
    Yea! Training them early on life to look uniform, act uniform, and be
    uniform. That way later in life they won't question authority. 
    They'll be good little sheep and do what there told!
    
    Dave

    Better that than someone growing up to stick you with a knife because
    you have the wrong colour jacket on.

    grammer school kids being sterilized from opinion formulation and
    comprehension due to clothing?
    
    a bit of a stretch in my book.

    Japan uses the uniform look for kids.  They also have an extremely
    harsh form of bullying that takes place, despite the uniforms and one
    of the highest teen suicide rates of any developed nation.  
    
    I personally find individual expression in clothing to be less
    disruptive than extorion and hive mentality.  
    
    

    Japan also has a very competitive education system where passing their
    boards for college entrance is just about everything to them.  Very
    very stressful from what I saw.  The price for a higher standard? 
    Maybe.  

    My children's lives are worth far more to me, than top college scores. 
    Guess that makes me a bad parent, huh?

you can have the best education system in the world and earn the best education 
but if you don't know how to apply what you've learned you SOOL.  no, i don't 
think a mandatory dress code would brainwash the masses to not question 
authority as they get older, just the regimentation (a word?) that goes along 
with the mandated clothing would.

people don't get that once you put a uniform on someone and everyone looks the 
same, well, now you've taken away the individuality of life and control seekers
will only "find" themselves more powerful by working with the vision [masses
parading together in uniform to their various tasks] instead of working with the
people.

let's see: a lot of us in here are old enough to look back a few decades and see
the changing trend in "gangs"; what once was fashionable for a gang is now 
acceptable by all, what once was a gang color is now worn by all, what is 
currently worn by gangs has been worn by "decent" folk for years, and the new 
trends that "gangs" are wearing will become affordable to the masses the work 
honestly within a few yrs.

Japan, sigh... uniforms, yes, but someone else beat me to it: their "gangs" 
still exist outside of school and even though the kids wear the same, in school 
they know the faces and fear them just the same.

What happens when kids start seeking out more and more body art to stand apart 
from the rest as becoming of age for a gang? pan tattoeing (sp) and piercing?

ogre.

    Er, no Meg, not necessarily.  Merely adding to the tidbit about Japanese
    students having a higher suicide rate.  Dying makes learning a pretty
    difficult proposition.  But speaking of parental responsibility, if I 
    were a parent I would feel that I had failed my children if I did not
    stress a high standard of academic performance.  
    
    Brian

    Brian,
    
    I do stress to my kids to do the best they can, and I study with Carrie
    on her math and such every evening.  However, I don't stress succesws
    at all costs.  There's time enough for her to learn of that illness
    when she hits adulthood.  That sort of take-no-prisoners approach is
    what is killing some kids in Japan.  
    
    Also uniforms didn't stop gang individuality in a few denver schools. 
    The subtleties of buttoning a shirt or how it is tucked in count in
    some of the uniformed schools.  It only too about a year for gangs to
    come up with their own uniformed insignias.
    
    meg

    >Yea! Training them early on life to look uniform, act uniform, and be
    >uniform. That way later in life they won't question authority. 
    >They'll be good little sheep and do what there told!
    
     Bwahahahaha! Yeah, right.

    .183
    
    So what if the gangs and wannabes find some way around the dress code
    and/or uniform?  It makes it more difficult and hopefully reduces some
    of the crime.  Also, the school can make adjustments in hte code as
    they find people who try to get around the rules and intent.
    
    The fact that it isn't 100% successful from day one does not mean that
    you don't try it.  If it really turns out to be useless you can always
    eliminate it, but to stop it before it is tried is really myopic.
    

    Meg, I don't doubt for a minute that you take your children's academics
    seriously.  I too believe that children should have balance in their
    lives.  Sort of like making sure they get something from all of 
    the experiential food groups each and every day. 

    Our gang used to wear our green and gold striped ties in the
    forbidden Windsor knot, just to show what hard bastards we were.

.185 they can make changes: 1st you tell the kids the have to wear this uniform,
then that's not good enough becasue the gang found a way to cut their hair; 2nd
you tell the kids that all hair shall be cut the same way, then that's not good 
enough cause the gang found a way to identify each other through facial hair; 
3rd  you tell the kids not facial hair, then that's noy good enough cause the 
gang uses makeup, etcetcetc where does it end?

can't we just blister the bottoms of the bad kids and penalize their parents 
with severe measures and if they don't clean up their act then we send them to 
that prison island idea i like only we make it juvenile hill or some such until 
they prove themselves worthy.

jeeesh! corporal punishment needs a revival!

ogre.

-1 convinces me that Ernie is the smaht one.

yeah Do(da), the comet's waiting for you, too! 

    clearly, uniforms will lead to a brain dead, clinically identical,
    unimaginative, lemming-like society. i've seen it a thousands times.
    
    NOT!
    
    it's not a uniforms only issue here. to make any sense (or defense) of
    any position you're going to have to factor in at least 200 more
    variables into the conversation. broad-brush uniform statements hold
    no water.

    Sometimes, in flagrant disregard of the rules, our gang would wear
    charcoal cavalry twill pants in place of the approved, but itchy, grey
    worsted flannel. We were way out of control.

    
    
    Laugh all you want!
    
    Remember history, the late 30's early 40's there was this country in 
    europe with all this children/youths running around in Brown shirts
    being good little children doing what they where told. Of course this
    can't happen here...
    
    I know it not the same thing yet, but it is a start. Just a little at a
    time....
    
    Not whats that line about history repeating its self if you don't
    remember it?
    
    Dave
    

    Scouts?

    
    .193
    
    I've told you to quit sniffing glue. it causes stupid statements.

Right. Tell you what. Get out of the burbs and go to Lawrence. 
Ask the parents, ask the teachers, ask the kids how they like the 
new uniforms. They all do you see. The parents like them 
because they don't have to spend outrageous money on the newest 
fad clothing. The teachers can actually concentrate on giving the 
kids an education instead of discipling and handling disruptions. 
The students are happy to be able to get an education without 
worrying about what they're wearing, who it'll offend, and when 
the next attack will come from for that _Bulls_ jersey they're 
wearing. The kids seem to also enjoy being considered "unique and 
creative" because of who they are, not what they're wearing.

We now return to you the currently scheduled blather about "brown 
shirts" already in progress.

    exactly. sums it up perfectly.

    Uniforms could cause big problems. The black kids wouldn't be able to
    recognize the white kids, the white kids wouldn't recognize the black
    kids. Neither the black or white kids would know which oriental kid
    they had been razzing and the entire school system would be taken over
    by the yellow kids who secretly followed the teachings of Pat
    Robertson. It would be out of control I tell ya, OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!

    First I don't live in the "burb", nor do I live any where near
    Lawrence. I live in the mountains....
    
    
    Second I don't care how much control over your kids you give to the
    government. I amazed at the amount of people in here who think the
    government is right in there actions and don't question their actions.
    From what I see/read here most people buy into anything the governemnt
    puts out and even parrotes their justifications.
    
    Why don't you get involved with fixing the problems instead of doing
    away with the symptons. If you think dressing them all alike and
    cutting their hair all alike is going to take the violence out of these
    kids your WRONG. The violence needs to be addressed to the individual
    not covered up by dress codes.
    
    Try thinking and not just being good little citizens that just rubber
    stamp what your told to do. 
    
    Glad I don't have to deal with having kids today.  
    
    Dave

The govt? Who exactly is this government Dave? The issue of 
uniforms was voted on by the parents of Lawrence. It passed. They 
all seem to be happy with it. Your problem is?

  he can't spell. ;>

    
    >Who exactly is this government Dave? Taxes are paid to support ed.
    The government funnels these dollars to the schools, if you don't
    belive some part of your governments not involved in your the school
    board your mistaken.
    
    >Your problem is? Ok! So you get the violence out of the schools you
    have only moved the problem to the streets. What are you doing to solve
    the problem?
    
    Dave

    
    re:201 So!

  .203   Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - speling duzent madder.  A lot of
	 people don't care if their writings make them sound like
	 high school dropouts - so what, right?  Right.

  

     > What are you doing to solve the problem?
    
    I promise it will be fixed before you're out of third grade.
    

     <<< Note 850.204 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "Are you married or happy?" >>>
                    -< speaking of the education crisis... >-
        
        > A lot of
	> people don't care if their writings make them sound like
	> high school dropouts - so what, right?  Right.

         Right. It's fine as long as you're still allowed to wear 
         the _Megadeath_ concert shirt.

 

  

>     <<< Note 850.206 by SALEM::DODA "Don't make me come down there..." >>>

	hee hee heeeee

    
    	Some of us have the ability to spell AND wear Megadeth concert
    	shirts ... simultaneously, even, under the right circumstances.
    

  .208  quite.

    >Remember history, the late 30's early 40's there was this country in 
    >europe with all this children/youths running around in Brown shirts
    >being good little children doing what they where told. 
    
     Today's evidence in support of the postulate that says that as any
    random internet "discussion" continues, the probability that
    Hitler/Nazis, etc will be brought into the conversation approaches 1.

and the parents voted in uniforms and what happened to the school population? 
how many dropped out/moved away [just curious]? the violence left the school 
because the kid(s) that dosen't(don't) want to go by the rules end up out of 
school out of an education.

uniforms aren't going to fix the problem.  btw: did the parents buy the uniforms
or did GOALS 2000 funding help those that are "needy"?

ogre.

 Well, sir, what *is* going to fix the problem, and where would *you* start?

Well count me as one who thinks that the little tike that's 
dropped out because he now has to wear a uniform probably wasn't 
there for an education to begin with.

I read of no govt. funding or assistance for uniforms. The 
parents interviewed said it was _less_ expensive than buying the 
latest styles at the mall.

    
    	RE: .213
    
    	Yes, and the NRA is only comprised of gun-toting liberals.
    

>     Today's evidence in support of the postulate that says that as any
>    random internet "discussion" continues, the probability that
>    Hitler/Nazis, etc will be brought into the conversation approaches 1.

...and the first side to bring them up loses the argument.  (known on Usenet
as Godwin's Law)

    
    re:204
    
     I would rather sound like a high school dropout than a know it all who 
    looks down their nose at others.
    
     The way you ask and answer questions makes me belive your talking to
    yourself!
    
    

    has Dave broken into OJMs account? with all these references to Nazis
    i have to wonder.
    
    i went to parochial school that required a uniform (a long time ago).
    it developed not one skinhead. the nuns were very sadisitc i must
    admit :-)
    
    hey, it had to be their uniforms!
                      ^^^^^

>         <<< Note 850.216 by BSS::DSMITH "I'LL GET UP AND FLY AWAY" >>>
    
>     I would rather sound like a high school dropout than a know it all who 
>    looks down their nose at others.

	aagagagag.  i figured that was coming.
	good for you, then!

    

where would i start? seeing as how i have kids of my own: firm discipline! 
dolts. mebbe cause i don't have a propensity for violence [ i ain't said nothing
'bout ignorance, etc] and neither does my spouse nor did anyone in my family nor
in my extended family and seeing as how we weren't zactly poor but we were by no
means wealthy either [ hand me downs, seconds, drops, etc] as well as the rest
of my families, we all turned out okay and my kids are, too. why? mebbe cause 
we know what discipline is and taking responsibility for our actions?

call me crazy, but we weren't/aren't lazy and don't desire to farm of the 
controlling duties to anyone other than us.  

you know where this discussion is heading, right? we can dress up all the little
twisted roots of a failed gov't tree we want, but it ain't gonna git fixt till
we clear cut to the ground.  those roots that survive will sprout anew and learn
to survive with little sustenance.

once the wealthier kids start wearing silk shirts and poorer kids start wearing
worn shirts, the gangs [that exists] will stand out cause they'll prolly have 
the pearl buttons.  just give it time, evil finds it way into every group.

ogre.

    I see the start of a powerful lobbying organization:
    
      +------------------------+
      |                        |
      |                        |
      |      Smith & Burt      |
      | Educational Cunsulting |
      |      and Stuff         |
      |                        |
      |                        |
      +------------------------+
    
    
                                                        

      +------------------------+
      |                        |
      |                        |
      |        Smith & Burt    |
      |    Educational Consult |
      |         and Stuff    i |
      |                       n|
      |                       g|
      +------------------------+
    
    

    
    Last 2 and .218....
    
     Just love it ! Can't discuss something so just ataack or try and
    belittle people.. 
    
     Talk about an education crisis!
    
     Good note ogre. But asking some of these people take responsibility
    for themselves or their children is a waste of time. If it don't come
    from big brother they don't know what to do...
    
    Dave who has no more time for anyone who rather attack someone for
    their beliefs than dicuss the issue.  

    
    outta.  NNTTM.

I missed the part where anyone said anything about the government 
taking parental responsibility for the kiddies.

    doesn't come.  hth

>    >Your problem is? Ok! So you get the violence out of the schools you
>    have only moved the problem to the streets. What are you doing to solve
>    the problem?
    
    Dave, do you see no benifit to moving the violence and distraction OUT of the
    school? Do you see any benifit from removing the apperance of the have
    and have nots in school? 
    
>    Second I don't care how much control over your kids you give to the
>    government. I amazed at the amount of people in here who think the
>    government is right in there actions and don't question their actions.
>    From what I see/read here most people buy into anything the governemnt
>    puts out and even parrotes their justifications.
 
    Dave, this is a decision made by the local voters, not the federal
    government.
       
>    Why don't you get involved with fixing the problems instead of doing
>    away with the symptons.
    
    The school district is addressing the problem as it affect the school
    district. Outside of that relm, they have no authority.
    
    >If you think dressing them all alike and
    >cutting their hair all alike is going to take the violence out of these
    >kids your WRONG. The violence needs to be addressed to the individual
    >not covered up by dress codes.
    
    If it reduces the exposure to violence in school, the social meca of
    childhood, would this not reduce the overall tendency to violence?
    
    >Try thinking and not just being good little citizens that just rubber
    >stamp what your told to do. 
    
    So being in opposition to your position makes folk unthinking rubber
    stamps? 
    
    Doug.

    
     >Dave, do you see no benifit to moving the violence and distraction
    OUT of the school.
    
     Very little! All your doing is moving the problem around! What is
    being done to bring an end to the violence. You have less violence in
    schools and more on the street. Do think making kids dress up and not
    wear certain item will take the violence out of them? I don't belive
    thats true myself what needs to be corrected is the what causes them to
    be violent to start with 
       
    >The school district is addressing the problem as it affect the school
      district. Outside of that relm, they have no authority.
    
     Like I asked before whats being done to correct the over all problem?
    Moving it around is NOT the answer!
    
    >If it reduces the exposure to violence in school, the social meca of
    childhood, would this not reduce the overall tendency to violence?
    
     I don't know! I don't belive it will. I guess your going to find out!
    
    >So being in opposition to your position makes folk unthinking rubber
        stamps?
    
      Nope! I just see so many people who belive anything said by a person
    in authority. Why is people fail to use the brain they were born with?
    
    Dave

    
    I don't belive that I have the brain I was born with.

   .228  abbie someone?

    
    Quick!  Give him the - 

    Apparently the government just released a report indicating that they
    provided over $500 million to Minneapolis over the last five years to
    specifically improve the performance of lower income children in the
    areas of math and science.  the results is that the targeted group of
    students, after spending $500 million of paxpayer earnings, scored
    worse than they did before the money was spent.
    
    The interesting thing is that no one can find the money.  It appears
    that the majority of the money went to the administration and teacher
    salaries.  Now that is a real good use of tax dollars.  You sure will
    get those scores up if you only pay the administration more and raise
    those teachers salaries, irrespective of the results they produce.
    
    Yeah, we really need to spend more on education, that will cure the
    problem.
    
    Gee, I wonder why I support vouchers and choice in the education of
    children.  It can't be that competition will improve the results and
    cut the strangle hold the administration and the unions have on the
    system.  Nah, can't be.  Force those kids to stay in a failed system,
    just pump more money into it.  Yeah, that's the ticket.
    

 "We're from the gummit..and we're here to help"..

    
    > Very little! All your doing is moving the problem around! What is
    >being done to bring an end to the violence. You have less violence in
    >schools
    
    I think we can agree this is a good thing.
    
    > and more on the street
    
    By what rationale?
    
    > Like I asked before whats being done to correct the over all problem?
    
    You yourself identified that the problem is discipline related and
    starts with the family. How can a school system possibly impact
    the failures of the family? 
    
    >Moving it around is NOT the answer!
    
    Again, by what rationale do you conclude that steps which result in
    reduced violence in school will result in more violence out of school?
    
    > I don't know! I don't belive it will. I guess your going to find out!
    
    Do you accept the reports of improved school environments from school
    districts which have implemented uniforms? Do you believe the children
    and parents believe it to be a good thing?
    
   >   Nope! I just see so many people who belive anything said by a person
   > in authority. Why is people fail to use the brain they were born with?
    
    OK. Do you see anyone in this discussion behaving in such a manner?
    
    Doug.
    

    Perhaps people in Minn. are really stupid though. I sawer Fargo, and
    the people in Minn. didn't seem much brighter than the ones on North
    Dakota.

It's the cold. It makes for stupid people and good cat hair 
storage. Trust me. i know this.

    so, why are Canadians so smart?
    
    ;)

     Prosecution rests your honor.

    I get whoosed a lot. I probably won't.

Only people with ponytails get whoosed.

The rest get whooshed.

        well, that's me. Just a dumb Canuck with a pony tail.

    Other countries making strides in educating work force
    
    Associated Press, 04/24/97 07:40 
    
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Education gains by other countries may be helping
    whittle the U.S. lead in worker productivity. 
    
    ``The education of the work force, according to at least some measures
    that contribute to economic success, is growing more rapidly in other
    countries than in the United States,'' the Education Department's
    National Center for Education Statistics said in a report today. 
    
    The report took care not to put too much stress on the role of
    education, saying that financial investment clearly has been behind
    gains by countries catching up most quickly with the United States.
    Other factors are technological innovation, foreign trade and
    government regulation. 
    
    Still, growth in education appears to have accounted for an estimated
    10 percent to 20 percent of U.S. productivity growth in the last few
    decades, the report said. 
    
    Rather than presenting new information, the report assembled previously
    gathered data from a number of sources. The report followed
    recommendations by a congressional panel for the department to look at
    a variety of statistics and provide analysis and commentary. 
    
    Productivity is the national value of goods and services divided by the
    number of workers or hours worked. As of 1990, the United States still
    led Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Britain. However, those
    other countries were making steady gains. 
    
    Among the educational trends cited: 
    
    -Young adults in Japan and Germany now are finishing high school at
    about the same rate as those in the United States. Young adults in
    Canada and Britain are catching up. 
    
    -The proportion of Americans getting a college education is still the
    highest, although the rate among young adults - those 25 to 34 - is
    comparable in Japan. 
    
    -Still, U.S. students trail students from many other countries in
    mathematics and science achievement. 

    .241
    
    But this can't be.   Central gumment controls the educational system in
    those furrin countries.  Heck, they even have teaching unions.  Ergo,
    they can't possibly improve over time.
    

    re: .241
    
|   Central gumment controls the educational system in those furrin
|   countries.
    
    Not completely accurate.  But it is clear the central government has a
    much larger role (for those who *INSIST* on reading between the lines
    - I'm not talking about money here) in K-12 education than in the US.
    
|   Heck, they even have teaching unions.
    
    They do indeed.  They've even have *gasp* increased teacher's pay.
    And you know what?  K-12 education spending in those countries is
    increasing faster than their CPIs.  Just like in the US.  Imagine that?
    
    (BTW, someone might want to look at how large a role school choice
    has in other nations.  Nah.  Why look at the real world, when it's
    so much more fun to speculate about pretend and make believe.)
    
    Also notice a couple of other points from .240:
    
|   -Young adults in Japan and Germany now are finishing high school at
|   about the same rate as those in the United States. Young adults in
|   Canada and Britain are catching up. 
    
    We graduate a higher percentage of students from high school than
    Japan, Germany, Canada and Britain.
    
|   -The proportion of Americans getting a college education is still the
|   highest
    
    A higher percentage of Americans get a college education in the US than
    in Japan, Germany, Canada and Britain.
    
    
    This can't be.  Their schools are succeeding, and ours are in a crisis.
    
    
    (Since I'll be accused of "selective" reporting here, we'll also       
    note that:
    
|   -Still, U.S. students trail students from many other countries in
|   mathematics and science achievement. 
    
    It trails Japan in both Math and Science achievement.  It trails
    Canada in Math achievement, but matches their Science achievement.
    It matches Math and Science achievement of England and Germany.
    Facts are stupid things.)
    
    Finally, Japan and England spend far less than the US per student
    in K-12.  Canada and Germany spend essentially the same per student
    for K-12 education.  But clearly the US spends too much, because
    that's what we "learned" from Minneapolis.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   -Young adults in Japan and Germany now are finishing high school at
|   about the same rate as those in the United States. Young adults in
|   Canada and Britain are catching up. 
    
>    We graduate a higher percentage of students from high school than
>    Japan, Germany, Canada and Britain.
    
     You are incorrectly interpeting the statement. Young adults, for the
    purposes of the study, are those between the ages of 25 and 34. It is
    impossible to make an ACCURATE assessment of who graduates more
    _students_ on the basis of the above quote. (Not that bill seems in the
    least deterred from SPECULATING. Well in this case, anyway.)
    
|   -The proportion of Americans getting a college education is still the
|   highest
    
>    A higher percentage of Americans get a college education in the US than
>    in Japan, Germany, Canada and Britain.
    
     This is an amusing conclusion. Where else would most americans get
    their college educations if not in the US? Oh, that's not what you
    meant to say. English is such a challenging language. And your
    contention, which I do not dispute, is not supported by the quote.
    Here's an example of a statement that is supported by the quote:
    
     A higher percentage of americans get college educations than germans,
    japanese, canadians and brits.

    .243
    
    What is a CPI?
    

    Consumer Price Index

    There's the nub of a philosophical difference for you.  We Europeans
    are simply unable to evaluate education in terms of economics.
                        

>    This can't be.  Their schools are succeeding, and ours are in a crisis.

   There educational performance may be improving. That is good for them.
   Is our educational performance improving, declining, or constant?

   I think most folks will agree that our educational system is in decline
   while most folks may have wildly differing opinions as to why.

   Our educational system should be improving at a rate consistent with
   other countries to maintain superiority, but it isn't, even after throwing
   piles of money at it and experimenting with teaching methods.

   We need a more pragmatic approach to educational improvements based on
   tested successfull methods. We have the tools in place to execute them.

   Doug

    their
    
    nnttm

one world, one people, equal in every way; there will be no superiors with the 
exception of those that control what we do and how we think.

ogre.

    .243
    
    Apparently you miss some finer points in determining the success or
    failure of a system.  As far as spending money is concerned, you have
    seen numerous people indicate that if money spent equated with
    improvement few would oppose spending.  Minneapolis proved that more
    money does not mean improved results.  What it means most often is the
    administration gets to expand and unsuccessful schools and teachers
    make more to be just as unsuccessful.
    
    Also many European countries require that you reach a specific level of
    performance i fyou want to go onto college.  this means that you either
    do well or find something else to do.  Also, a lot of the government
    involvement has to do with the culture and traditions of the countries. 
    what is expected and accepted in europe as far as societal norms would
    not be accepted here.
    

    .243
    
    Musta missed the fine print.
    
    The educational system in most European countries is designed to
    allow many opportunities all through lifetime with few  absolute
    restrictions on entry.    My father left school at 14 and got a
    College degree at age 40.  I didn't graduate high school but
    went to College and University later.   Retirees form a substantial
    part of the college intake in the UK, with no formal qualifications
    required.  Latecomers usually qualify via the Open University, a televised
    University that allows them to take preparatory courses or even a
    degree at any pace they like.   

    consumer Price Index.
    
    I do remember one of our former boxers saying that even in a uniformed
    school it was easy to tell wealthy from middle class from poor, just by
    the cut, age and quality of the plaid jumpers and sweaters.  This was
    many years back, so I don't remember who it was.  There is no
    difference today.
    
    And what Dave says here.  Form is NOT function.  Sure the little robots
    all look "the same" at first glance, and some feel it makes things
    better in the short run.  However experience in public schools in
    Denver has not continued to bear that out over a period of years. 
    So.... are you planning on changing the uniform every year, putting the
    same sorts of pressure on parenmtal clothing budgets that no uniforms
    do; Pretend not to notice the different tucks in pants or shirts which
    designates which associations the kid(s)have made in the local gang
    scene; make youself look like an idiot to the kids by demanding a
    certain tuck and fold in shirts and pants and buttons.........
    
    I do have kids in a public school.  I support real teaching, discipline
    and smaller neighborhood schools rather than megaschools where the kids
    are anonymous numbers.  I don't support the stupidity that says if the
    all look alike they will all behave alike.  It doesn't even work with
    Girl Scouts, don't expect it to work with a broader cross-section of
    kids.  Kids are not clones, peas in a pod, or machined screws.  They
    are unique individuals and within the bounds of decency should be
    encouraged to be unique.  It is part of what makes the US a place other
    individuals have wanted to come to.  
    
    meg 

The argument that dressing uniquely makes one unique is 
laughable.

amen.

             <<< Note 850.255 by HOTLNE::BURT "rude people rule" >>>

<amen.

for .253

  >  So.... are you planning on changing the uniform every year, putting the
  >  same sorts of pressure on parenmtal clothing budgets that no uniforms
  >  do; Pretend not to notice the different tucks in pants or shirts which
  >  designates which associations the kid(s)have made in the local gang
  >  scene; make youself look like an idiot to the kids by demanding a
  >  certain tuck and fold in shirts and pants and buttons.........
   
  What do uniforms do when implemented in an environment in which the kids
  are more interested in social position than education?

  It re-enforces the notion that they are in school, and they are there
  for and with a purpose. It removes unncessary social distractions and
  introduces a more balanced social relationship amoung the class.

  Obviously, uniforms aren't for every school system, as the social makeup
  of each system is different. But for some school districts, uniforms
  can be very helpful and constructive, particularly in areas of wide
  diversity of ethnic background and wealth.

  So stop making up all these non-issues as an argument for or against uniforms
  and start looking at the reasons why they have a positive affect in many 
  locations.

  Doug.
  

    .253
    
    I think you can look at many schools that have dress codes and uniforms
    and find that, on average, classroom and school behavior is better than
    those without such.  AS my daughter says, when the kids need to dress
    up on picture day ther change in behavior is incredible.
    
    That does not maen that a dress code or uniforms are a be-all and
    end-all to society's problems.  It does, however, establish a standard
    and let's kids know that we expect certain rules to be followed.  If
    nothing else, at least it would establish some rules.
    
    As far as your comment about supporting discipline in school, I am
    quite confused based on many of your previous comments.  Just what
    discipline would you support in school?  A time-out room for students
    that threaten and intimidate other students and teachers?  A loss of
    recess for the student that destroys property?
    
    there are a lot of small steps that can be taken to institute major
    changes.  Dress codes is just one of them.
    

and why can't the school administrator's sound off like they got a pair of tight
boots on and tell the little punks what they're in school for instead of letting
them run the limit?

ogre.

    Evyl conformists using uniforms to suppress creative urges.
    
    How droll.

    I support the full teacher/admin gamut of disciplinary actions, up to
    and including expulsion when warranted.  I do believe that teachers and
    administrators need to have flexibility and follow the spirit, rather
    than letter of the rules, so we don't have idjit things like a table
    knife being treated as a weapon, or a GI joe basooka beng treated like
    a real, loaded one, or a kiss on the cheek by a small child being
    considered harrassment.  
    
    I find calling attention to difference by trying to uniform kids who
    aren't clones to be counter to making a real difference.  To me it
    would be like selling an empty VAX.  Looks pretty, but doesn't do
    squat.  
    
    meg

    .261
    
    Telling kids that there are no rules regarding dress and appearance
    sends a very clear message.  All of the whining about individuality 
    and creativeness aside, setting standards and limits is a good thing.
    
    As far saying that uniforms stifle creativity and do not allow someone
    to excel, please tell that to the members of any football, baseball,
    soccer, etc team.  You can take it one step further.  How many kids are
    able to express their individuality when the band is performing?  Every
    school my kids went to had a dress code for performances, and
    surprisingly the kids never complained.  They knew the rules and it
    never stopped them from being the best they could.
    
    Complaining about a dress code is nothing but a smoke screen.
    

|                  -< reading and writing for comprehension >-
    
    You read an AP wire report.
    I read the study.
    
|   You are incorrectly interpeting the statement.
    
    You are incorrect.
    
|   (Not that bill seems in the least deterred from SPECULATING. Well in
|   this case, anyway.)
    
    Since I'm reading the report, rather than reading an AP newswire report
    of it, you can rest assure that the person SPECULATING about what it
    says is you.
    
    But if it makes you happy.  You are absolutely right.  I should
    not have excluded the *VAST* quantities of people who have never
    ever ever been a student who earned a high school diploma or GED.
    If you find anyone who meets that description, tell them I'm
    sorry for such a terrible blunder.
    
|>  A higher percentage of Americans get a college education in the US than
|>  in Japan, Germany, Canada and Britain.
|
|   This is an amusing conclusion.
    
    Oh you are quite correct here.  I botched it.  That's got to make
    you delighted.
    
    Your edited version of what I tried to write has it exactly right
    (except I'd probably have used uppercase correctly, and not used
    the generally to be avoided term "brits"):
    
|   A higher percentage of americans get college educations than germans,
|   japanese, canadians and brits.
    
    But this can't possibly be true, because our education system is in
    crisis.
    
    
    BTW, extrapolating from the data (a dangerous thing to do) Japan
    will achieve the same real GDP per worker as the US within 50 years.
    (In 1990, we were  at ~$37K GDP/worker and improving, they were
    at ~$23 GDP/worker and improving.)  But also extrapolating from the
    data (a dangerous thing to do) Japan will be spending the same per
    student for K-12 education as we will by then.
    
    								-mr. bill

|  I think most folks will agree that our educational system is in decline
    
    I'll agree many folks will agree that our educational system is in
    decline.  But many people are wrong.
    
|  while most folks may have wildly differing opinions as to why.
    
    Most folks have wildly differing opinions about *ANYTHING*.
    Fortunately, you often find that the more people know about a
    subject, the more likely you'll find that a concensus emerges.
    
|   We need a more pragmatic approach to educational improvements based on
|   tested successfull methods.
    
    I agree.  So why do so many people here suggest "solving" the "crisis"
    with untested methods?
    
    								-mr. bill

 >   I agree.  So why do so many people here suggest "solving" the "crisis"
 >   with untested methods?
  
  Are we confusing lack of support for the current system via monetary
  restrictions with this action being a proprosed solution?

 >   Fortunately, you often find that the more people know about a
 >   subject, the more likely you'll find that a concensus emerges.
 
  This is true for most subjects. What the concensus ends up being is
  still a mystery.

  Doug.

|   You are incorrectly interpeting the statement.
    
>    You are incorrect.
    
    Ok, let's look at what was said.
    
|   -Young adults in Japan and Germany now are finishing high school at
|   about the same rate as those in the United States. Young adults in
|   Canada and Britain are catching up. 
    
>    We graduate a higher percentage of students from high school than
>    Japan, Germany, Canada and Britain.
    
    On what basis do you make the claim that your conclusion is based
    entirely on what you quoted? 
    
    Let me acknowledge right now that I misinterpreted the quote, since it
    is poor written to retain accuracy out of context. I took it to mean
    that they were talking about "young adults graduating now." In full
    context, it is meant to be a historical measure of the rate of high
    school completion.
    
    Be that as it may, even considering full context your assertion is
    false. In point of fact, of the countries you named, the US graduates
    a higher percentage of students than only two of them. <eagerly
    anticipating tapDance++>
    
     So tell me, bill, if you are "reading the report", can you tell me
    which two countries are graduating more students than the US, based on
    the historical data represented by the completion rates of young
    adults? Furthermore, does this data support your contention, that we
    graduate "a higher percentage of students from high school than
    Japan, Germany, Canada and Britain"?

    >(In 1990, we were  at ~$37K GDP/worker and improving, they were
    >at ~$23 GDP/worker and improving.)  
    
     We're over 1600 times more productive than the japanese? IDNKT.

    >Oh you are quite correct here.  I botched it.  That's got to make
    >you delighted.
    
     Actually, I could pretty much care less, but as much of a yapping
    chihuahua as you've been chasing after me for having apparently
    infringed on some unseen territorial boundary, you deserve to have it
    shoved in your face. You an awful lot of energy to expend in carrying
    grudges, that's for sure. As much as some of those whom you decry for
    doing the same.

    FWIW: the URL for the executive summary of the report in question is
    
    http://www.ed.gov/NCES/pubs97/97939.html
    
    Findings from
    
    Education and the Economy: An Indicators Report

|   Let me acknowledge right now that I misinterpreted the quote
    
    Gosh, is that a surprise or what.
    
|   since it is poor written to retain accuracy out of context.
    
    Poorly written too.  But take some personal responsibility.  It
    wasn't poor writing that lead you to jump to the wrong conclusion.
    It was the bias *YOU* brought to reading the sentence.
    
|   In point of fact, of the countries you named, the US graduates a higher
|   percentage of students than only two of them. <eagerly anticipating
|   tapDance++>                                         
    
    Well gosh.  ALL OF THEM.  Only if you restrict the sample to
    the population of 25-34 year olds does Japan and Germany match
    our performance (their slight edge reported in the summary
    is statistically insigificant, and the fact that the samples
    come from different years further increases the uncertainty).
    
    Opening the sample to 25-64 year olds shows that the US does
    indeed have a higher precentage who completed secondary school.
    (I might have overstated it slightly since our edge over Germany
    is also statistically insignificant).
    
    But, you say, must be early post-war Japan where things were oh so
    different.
    
    Wrong.  You'd be amazed if you look at 35-44 cut as well.  
    
    
    So, what specific recent changes caused the dramatic increase
    in Japan's secondary completion rates?
    
    But that would be thinking about the data, rather than hurling it.
    They set an AGRESSIVE NATIONAL goal to increase completion rates.
    They tried different methods to achive that goal.  They measured
    the different methods.  Then they *implemented* the sucessful
    methods widely.  You think we could *learn* something here?
    
    
    The US, in contrast, has had a very high secondary completion rate
    for decades, and so hasn't focused on it.  (Except when people moan
    about the "crisis" in education.  And only then it seems most
    often trotted out by stone hurlers.)
    
    
    (Actually, if you look most closest, the US record in secondary
    completion is not at all what it should be.)
    
    								-mr. bill

Why did next unseen get me the screed in .270 twice?  So important it bore
repeating?

    
    Must be a crisis in education.
    
    								-mr. bill

.262

[not directed to me, but...]

who said anything about telling kids that it doesn't matter what they wear? i 
tell my kids no wholely clothes to school, no dirty stuff, clean underwear and 
socks, etc.  our kids like decent clothing and like to look neat, don't don;t 
follow fashion statements, but they do have their own signature clothing [like 
we all do]

the arguement about sport teams doesn't wash cause they each have a unique 
haircut, jewelry accesory, eyewear, etc and many on other teams that follow 
their fav players mimic them with identical hair cuts, etc thus creating sport 
"gangs".

maybe we should make all employees wear suits and ties cause it will make them 
more productive.

ogre.

    Anyone seen IBM's results this week?  <dons nekkid lady tie and zoot
    suit>.

    ??sports gangs??

    
    um, yes i did. $2.32 per share. anaylsts were expecting $2.25 per
    share. hth, kfc, ipa.

    See?  It's the suits.

    Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion regarding the
    educational system.  Following is a current and perfect example of
    what's wrong with "the system".
    
    Apparently this weekend Clinton et. al., will be sponsoring a
    "volunteerism summit" in Philadelphia to determine what's wrong with
    America interms of volunteering and how to get more people to
    volunteer.
    
    As part of this whole hoopla several people involved with this project
    have stated that they believe volunteerism should be mandatory for
    school children as part of their requirement for graduation.  I won't
    even go into the concept of "mandatory volunteerism" which is absurd on
    its surface and not worthy of further discussion.  What does strike me
    is the fact that our results are certainly not improving, and according
    to most reports educationa achievement is declining.  Now we are going
    to have students take time away from studying to perfrom "mandatory
    volunteerism".  It is liberal, PC, feelgoodism like this that has no
    place in the educational system.  Not only will this have no impact on
    improving students performance, but it will lead to additional costs. 
    Someone at each school is going to have to coordinate the
    "volunteerism" and make sure it is performed.  There will also be
    someone at the District that will need to oversee the schools and so on
    and so on.  It is this type of useless program that schools have that
    do not improve academics and add additional layers to costs and
    administration.
    
    As a side note, I found it interesting that Jesse Jackson Jr. was
    outraged when it was suggested that recipients of public housing
    perform 8 hours of community service per MONTH cleaning and maintaining
    their housing.  He stated that these people should not be treated like
    criminals because they are receiving public assistance.  why is he
    curiously quiet about forcing teenagers to perform "manadatory
    volunteerism" when he is so indignant about having the recipients of
    public funds do the same?
    

|   according to most reports educationa achievement is declining. 
    
    Name names.  Quote from the reports.  Oh, I forgot, it's friday, so
    just saying so makes it so.
    
    								-mr. bill

 thousand points of light: bad
 volunteerism:  good

    You must take his word for it Mr Bill.  Rocush is an expert on European
    education.   Except for getting the stuff about college admission 100% 
    wrong, of course.  
    
    Just got word from my buddy, a professor in Rome.  Seems Italy has
    no quals for college entry.  Anyone can just turn up on day one of
    the semester.

    .279
    
    Oh, I forgot.  There have been so many reports and studies identifying
    the oustanding performance of the educational system and US students'
    performance on standardized test that the one report indicating a
    problem has been missed.
    
    I tell you what, why don't you provide information that indicates
    everything is just fine and headed in the right direction.
    

you dropped this:

mandatory

> volunteerism:  good

    What I wrote in .279.
    
||   according to most reports educationa achievement is declining. 
|
|    Name names.  Quote from the reports.  Oh, I forgot, it's friday, so
|    just saying so makes it so.
    
    The number of reports named or quoted from by Rocush in .282:
    
    NIL.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .281
    
    I assume it would be too much trouble for you to identify where I
    indicated what the requirements were for college entry in europe.  I
    did reference the fact that elementary and high schools students need
    to achieve a particular level in order to be in the college prep
    classes.  I did not indicate whether or not those not in such a program
    are excluded from attending college.
    
    Sorry is I ruined your diatribe, but I do try to provide clarity.
    

    .284
    
    From this response I take it that your have not paid attention to the
    various notes entered here.  there have been many references already
    identified, some even by you.  Of course, you did try to discount the
    negative information in the reports even you submitted, but the
    information is there.
    
    I figured even you could remembe rthe information presented over the
    last couple of days.
    

    Bollocks.  No such universal standards exist and I gave you a specific
    example that was recently verified with an Italian college professor.
    To the best of my knowledge, Italy is in Europe.
    

    .287
    
    Apparently comparing apples with oranges really doesn't matter to you. 
    I said, and repeated, that I made no comment about admittance to
    college.  what I referenced was schooling prior to college.
    
    You can continue to point to your friend in Italy in terms of college
    admittance, to which I will have to continue to respond, so what?
    

|   there have been many references already identified, some even by you.
    
    Apparently none of them read by you.
    
    ....
    
|   I figured even you could remembe rthe information presented over the
|   last couple of days.
    
    Well yes I can remember.  Longer than a couple of days even.
    But see, *you* have a problem, because most of the reports do
    *NOT* show educational achievement declining.

    Now, what is it that you *just* said?  Do you remember?  I do:
    
    "according to most reports educationa achievement is declining."
    
    WRONG.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Further to .284
    
    You may be interested in looking up the recent National Assessment of
    Educational Progress.  this is a federal test of 17 year olds.  the
    test identifed that 62% could not place the Civil War in the right half
    of the 19th century, 33% did not know what Brown vs Board of Education
    changed and only 6% could compute what a borrower would owe if she paid
    12% simple interest for one year on a loan of $850 and 33% could not
    identify Abraham Lincoln.
    
    No, there is no problem with our educational system and perfromance is
    just fantastic.
    
    Dream on.
    

|   I said, and repeated, that I made no comment about admittance to
|   college.
    
    Yes you said, and repeated, that you made no such comment about
    admittance to collge.  It is Friday after all.
    
    Here's what you said not even two days ago.  In fact, it was yesterday.
    Having trouble remembering?
    
    	Also many European countries require that you reach
    	a specifi level of performance i fyou want to go onto
    	college.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    The Italian university system places NO educational requirements on 
    entrants for many courses.  It makes not difference who you are, or
    what your prior educational standards are.  They do not have any
    minimal schooling requirements.
    
    If you go to school, drop out at 15 without having graduated, you can
    still turn up on day one of the first semester next year and attend
    college.  It's simply up to you to keep up.
    
    Thus, your blanket statement about minimum requirements for college in
    Europe is incorrect.
    
    Even in the UK, it is possible to drop out of high school, as I did
    and go to college a few years later without the usual number of
    entrance examinations because no such absolute requirements for
    "educational standards", other than being able to read and write,
    exists.  If you can satisfy the interview board that you can keep up,
    and you have funding, you can get in.
    
    Got it now?
    
    
    

|   You may be interested in looking up the recent National Assessment of
|   Educational Progress. this is a federal test of 17 year olds.
    
    Actually, it's for ages 9, 13 and 17 and also grades 4,8, and 11.
    
|   the test identifed that 62% could not place the Civil War in the right
|   half of the 19th century, 33% did not know what Brown vs Board of
|   Education changed and only 6% could compute what a borrower would owe
|   if she paid 12% simple interest for one year on a loan of $850 and 33%
|   could not identify Abraham Lincoln.
    
    
    Wow!  Facts.  But facts are stupid things.  In order to show a
    *DECLINE* in achievement, you'd have to add some more facts.
    The missing element?  TIME!  (Not what percentage of students
    could manage dA/dt, but what *IS* dA/dt?)
    
    
    BTW, I've not said our record of achievement is just fantastic.
    
    But you've said it's declining.  You said more than that, you said
    *MOST* reports show our achievent declining.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .289
    
    There were several references indicated that showed declining
    performance, just one of which was the entire discussion around the
    re-scoring of the SAT tests.  You tried desparately to contort this to
    show that what was done had nothing to do with declining performance,
    but no one but you bought that.  there have also been other reports
    relelased over the past couple of years all pointing to the same
    results.  Our local schools, which are quite good, have had declining
    performance on the California Achievement Tests that had been the
    standard for rating performance until they started to trend down. 
    suddenly they started using a different test.
    
    If you wish to believe that everything is just fine, that is up to you. 
    If you think that all that is necessary is more money poured into the
    system, that's up to you as well.  there are very few that will join
    you in that opinion.
    
    If you want to support your position, or prove me wrong, then please
    ideintify those tests that show improved performance.
    
    OBTW, I did give you the information on Minneapolis and the failure of
    $500 million to improve performance.  After spending the money their
    own result showed decreased performance.  I know you dismissed the
    report, but then you have doen that consistently with any information
    that differed from your opinion.
    

    .291
    
    Sorry, I made an assumption based on the prior entries to my note.  I
    made the assumption that we were talking about elementary and secondary
    schools, not college.  My comment therefore, was related to performance
    in those educational entities and not college.
    
    Forgot that one can not assume that someone would make the connections
    to the current discussion and not a future discussion that hadn't taken
    place.
    

    .292
    
    "Thus, your blanket statement about minimum requirements for college in
    Europe is incorrect."
    
    I made no such blanket statement.  My statement was regarding schooling
    prior to college.
    
    Got it now, or would like it repeated.
    

    
    	Maybe if I'd been following this discussion, I wouldn't have such
    	a hard time deciphering .295.
    
    	But somehow I don't think it would really matter.
    

|   There were several references indicated that showed declining
|   performance, just one of which was the entire discussion around the
|   re-scoring of the SAT tests.
    
    Gosh, "several" huh.  Well, you finally actually *NAMED* one.
    (The only one, btw.)
    
|   You tried desparately to contort this to show that what was done had
|   nothing to do with declining performance, but no one but you bought
|   that. 
    
    See 30.2785 by BULEAN::BANKS, who says:
    
    	I think .2781 has an excellent point.  Yes, the SAT
    	is a poor measure.
    
    I'm not sure what to conclude.  That your memory is so very bad,
    or if you think somebody is a nobody.
    
|   there have also been other reports relelased over the past couple of
|   years all pointing to the same results.
    
    NAME THEM!  NAME THEM!  NAME THEM!
    
|   standard for rating performance until they started to trend down. 
|   suddenly they started using a different test.
    
    Well, you always have had a soft spot in your heart for conspiracy
    theories.
    
|   If you wish to believe that everything is just fine, that is up to you. 
    
    I don't believe that, never said it, but you obviously feel free to
    continue to make things up.  Friday you know.
    
|   If you think that all that is necessary is more money poured into the
|   system, that's up to you as well.
    
    I don't believe that, never said it, but you obviously feel free to
    continue to make things up.  Friday you know.
    
|   there are very few that will join you in that opinion.
    
    I don't join me in that opinion, but you obviously feel free to
    continue to make things up.  Friday you know.
    
    
|   If you want to support your position, or prove me wrong, then please
|   ideintify those tests that show improved performance.
    
    Well, gosh.  You had a factlet from NAEP.  Did you look at the trends?
    (Hint.  You can not look at the trends reported in the NAEP and support
    your claim that education is declining.)
    
|   OBTW, I did give you the information on Minneapolis and the failure of
|   $500 million to improve performance.
    
    Yes you did.
    
|   After spending the money their own result showed decreased performance.
    
    Yes it did.
    
|   I know you dismissed the report,
    
    No I didn't.
    
|   but then you have doen that consistently with any information that
|   differed from your opinion.
    
    Bahahah.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    .298
    
    Since this has gotten into a circular argument let me pose these
    questions:
    
    Do you believe the education system is doing a good job?
    
    Do you believe that the money that is spent on the eductional system is
    providing the best value possible for the money spent?
    
    If you think the system is not as good as it could be, what would you
    do differently?
    

    I';; answer:
    
    I think the education system is doing a pretty fair job, given the raw
    material they have to deal with.
    
    There is always room for improvement on how money is spent.
    
    There is always room for improvement in test score, etc.  Why do you
    think they call this stuff "goals?"
    
    Trying to make things look uniform without addressing the real issues,
    is like trying to make a zen garden in a litter box.  No matter how you
    pretty it up it still reeks.  
    
    Mandatory Volunteerism is one of those appearance things, like
    uniforms, D.A.R.E, teaching the tests (they do do that in  some places)
    inflexible discipline rules.......  They are doing nothing about what
    needs to be addresses, while trying to hide the underlying problems.
    
    meg

    
    	If there's ALWAYS room for improvement in regards to test scores,
    	it could be argued that the goals are unrealistic.
    

|   Do you believe the education system is doing a good job?           
    
    Yes.  You see, oddly enough, I think it did a pretty good job by me.
    (Private K-5, public 5-12, private university, and everything since.)
    
    And even stranger, I know it's doing a *better* job today.
    
    But I also believe the education system should be doing a MUCH
    BETTER job.
    
    (Just as the bar for acceptable computer performance rises very
    quickly over time, the bar for acceptable school performance rises
    over time.)
    
|   Do you believe that the money that is spent on the eductional system is
|   providing the best value possible for the money spent?
    
    Best value possible is an undesireable non-goal.  (It's achieved
    by spending no money at all.  Sure we'll have very low performance,
    but the price/performance just can't be beat.)
    
    We need higher performance, and I am absolutely open to any means
    of achieving higher performance.  I will not accept the same or
    lower performance, no matter how good a "value" it might be.
    That's penny wise and pound foolish.
    
    (And to the first person who says "you just want to throw money at the
    problem" - pthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhpt!)
    
|   If you think the system is not as good as it could be, what would you
|   do differently?
    
    Bring back uniforms.  We have demonstrated clearly that this results in
    stellar increases in science achievement.
    
    School choice everywhere.  This has been shown to dramatically
    increase reading achievement.
    
    Stop this stupid practice of giving academic credits for volunteer work.
    We have studies that prove that such practices have dramatically
    harmed math achievement.
    
    No change should cost more money, since we can show that more money
    directly reduces writing achievement.
    
    Finally, do not study what other countries have *actually*
    done with education, because we learn much more by *guessing* how
    they educate students.  This is the single most significant change
    we can make to our system, since it alone will yield by far the
    largest increase in performance of math, science, reading
    *AND* writing!
    
    
    NOT!
    
    								-mr. bill

    .302
    
    Well we can pretty well disregard most of your points since you base
    your position on your personal experience.  In addition, over half of
    your educational experience was in private institutions and not the
    public institutions that are really being discussed.  Private
    institutions can do whatever they like, they are private.
    
    As far as your contention that you "know" they are doing a "*better*"
    job today goes, on what do you base this?  My personal experience is
    that the average student is more lacking in basic history and geography
    at the conclusion of high school than I was at the conclusion of
    grammar school.  Based on my personal experience, public schools are
    doing worse.
    
    The last part of your note is duly dismissed as amusing but
    uninformative.
    

    Some people would like to see all children make a perfect score on the
    SATS, believing anything less is a failure.  This isn't going to
    happen, as kids are not clones of each other, with the same drive, life
    experience, parenting techniques, brainpower, whatever.
    
    Currently there are kids making that perfect score, as well as kids who
    needed help filling out the application and probably shouldn't have
    bothered to take the test.  They aren't and will never be college
    material  Both extremes exist within the same public schools, as well
    as private ones.
    
    Quick question, and this has been bothering me.  Currently public
    school remedial teachers are working in trailers outside of parochial
    schools in New York.  Now my question is, if these schools are so much
    better than the public schools, why do they contract public school
    teachers to provide this service.  (I would have loved to see OJM's
    response to this one.)
    
    meg

    
    Rocush, no matter how funny I am, you'll always be funnier.
    
     

    .305
    
    thank you, I try.  I will also generally be right more often also, but
    you knew that already.
    

    I can't see how you could possibly be more right.

    
    	8^)
    

    .304
    
    there will always be kids who are college material and those who are
    not.  there will be those interested incollege and those who want to be
    auto mechanics.  this has nothing to do with the fact that a high
    school graduate is unable to read at a third grade level.  this is
    unacceptable and any system that allows this to happen is a crime.
    
    Since I am unfamilair with the New York situation, I really can't
    comment.  If I had more information, it might make sense or ther may be
    some cogent factors that would make sense.  One thought that comes to
    mind is the that the parochial school may feel that a student needs
    remedial help when they may be performing at a level that would excel
    in the public sector.  May just be a question of standards, but I
    really don't know.
    

    
    On the Academic Performance of New Jersey's Public School Children: 
                   Fourth and Eighth Grade Mathematics in 1992
    
                                  Howard Wainer
                             Educational Testing Service 
    
                                  [email protected]
    
    Abstract: Data from the 1992 National Assessment of Educational
    Progress are used to compare the performance of New Jersey public
    school children with those from other participating states. The
    comparisons are made with the raw means scores and after standardizing
    all state scores to a common (National U.S.) demographic mixture. It is
    argued that for most plausible questions about the performance of
    public schools the standardized scores are more useful. Also, it is
    shown that if New Jersey is viewed as an independent nation, its
    students finished sixth among all the nations participating in the 1991
    International Mathematics Assessment. 
    
    
    

    Student achievement is teachers' top concern
    
    But they don't consider the SAT a sole measure of success
    
    (Published in the Mobile Register, March 26, 1996) 
    
    By MARTHA SIMMONS
    Staff Reporter
    
    Teachers are a diverse lot, but in some areas they are surprisingly
    like-minded. 
    
    A February survey conducted by the Public Agenda Foundation and
    interviews with the presidents of Mobile and Baldwin chapters of the
    Alabama Education Association show that teachers everywhere share
    common concerns.
    
    For the past six years, Public Agenda a nonprofit, nonpartisan
    organization based in New York City, has looked closely at education
    issues. In a recent report, ``Given the Circumstances,'' Public Agenda
    sought to spell out what's on teachers' minds and contrast those
    attitudes with the public's thinking. 
    
    Chief among teacher concerns these days are achievement, discipline and
    education reform. 
    
    ``The top issue on every teacher's mind in Mobile is student
    achievement,'' said Carol Freudenberg, president of Mobile County
    Education Association. Although she boasts the formidable title of
    ``executive to the superintendent,'' Ms. Freudenberg spends most of her
    days at B.C. Rain High School, counseling students and assisting with
    administration. 
    
    With the annual Stanford Achievement Test only weeks away, Mobile
    County teachers are particularly focused on achievement, Ms.
    Freudenberg said. 
    
    Alabama lawmakers last year chose the Stanford as the only measurement
    to determine whether education efforts at a particular school are
    passing or failing. The Stanford compares an individual student's
    performance on core subjects -- reading, language, mathematics, science
    and social studies -- with that of a national sample of students in the
    same grade. 
    
    Last April, Mobile County's school system, like almost half of those
    elswhere in the state, turned in student test scores that were well
    below national averages. Schools or school systems that score on the
    bottom rungs of this year's Stanford will be placed on academic alert
    status and could be taken over by the state if they don't improve
    significantly in subsequent years. 
    
    In a systemwide effort to try to avoid that fate, Mobile County schools
    are draped with banners and posted with colorful posters, bulletin
    boards and other attention-getters that exhort students to do their
    best on the upcoming tests. Many schools are sponsoring competitions
    and offering after-school tutoring in preparation. And teachers are
    attending workshops to learn how to improve students' test-taking
    skills and phrase practice test questions in a Stanford-type format. 
    
    Public Agenda polls show that teachers across the nation broadly
    support enforcing higher academic standards for instance, no social
    promotions to higher grades and no diplomas for those who haven't
    mastered the core subjects. But few teachers endorse measuring success
    by a single instrument such as the Stanford. 
    
    ``Teachers believe in accountability, but we recognize that ... student
    test scores are just one piece of a whole pie,'' Ms. Freudenberg said.
    The Stanford is more appropriately used as a diagnostic tool than as a
    linchpin for education reform, she said. 
    
    Baldwin County Education Association president Betty Gay who works with
    hearing-impaired students in a number of county schools worries that
    many schools will perform worse on the 1996 version of the Stanford
    than they did on the old. 
    
    ``The first time you take any new test, scores tend to drop,'' she
    said, adding that the test places more emphasis on thinking skills than
    on accumulation of knowledge, and thus requires a different long-term
    teaching approach than is common in either Mobile or Baldwin. 
    
    In any event, teachers are skeptical of such ``high-stakes testing,''
    Ms. Freudenberg said. Pinning education reform and a school's future on
    one measurement or publishing the scores in the newspaper amounts to
    ``playing a dangerous game of pitting one school against another or one
    district against another or one state against another.'' 
    
    Focusing on test scores also tends to divert attention from other
    things that influence academic achievement, such as parental and
    community involvement, Ms. Freudenberg said. 
    
    ``I think we're in the first stages of reaching out to the community.
    We can build safety nets for children, but it's going to take all of
    us.'' 
    
    Teachers surveyed by Public Agenda cited lack of order in schools as
    another top problem. 
    
    Ms. Freudenberg thinks teachers are expected to handle problems that
    used to be parents' exclusive domain. Increasingly, she said, the trend
    is toward ``drive-by parents'' and ``drive-through students,'' who
    expect education to just happen with little involvement on their part. 
    
    ``There are lots of good parents out there, but we have so many
    single-parent households [and parents who are] holding down two jobs,''
    Ms. Freudenberg said. 
    
    Teachers, she said, ``are compensating for parts of society that are
    deteriorating.'' 
    
    A teacher across the continent quoted in the Public Agenda report
    agrees wholeheartedly. 
    
    ``The school system isn't broken,'' said a Seattle teacher. ``Society
    is broken.'' 
    
    Whether from Alabama or Alaska, New Mexico or New Hampshire, teachers
    express a common gripe: They're tired of being blamed for things they
    cannot control. 
    
    ``Society has problems and kids bring those problems to school with
    them,'' Ms. Gay said.
    
    ``Many kids have no interest in learning. They sleep in class or create
    disturbances. They are extremely disrespectful. Parents would be
    shocked if they had any idea what their kids were doing at school.'' 
    
    But being shocked would require that parents be interested in the first
    place. Many are not, Ms. Gay suggested. ``Parents don't keep tabs on
    their kids like they used to; they don't know where they are or what
    they're doing. Families are more mobile, and they don't have the
    extended families grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins to help
    them keep tabs on them. 
    
    ``Parents need to ask kids what happened in school, and make sure
    they're doing their homework. And if they can't help them with their
    homework, find a neighbor or someone who can.'' 
    
    Many of the problems teachers face in the classroom each day are rooted
    in the parents themselves, Ms. Gay said. ``The public has a bad
    attitude about teaching, and that gets transmitted to the kids. 
    
    ``The public doesn't back teachers up, but if they want to save
    America, they'd better.''

    .311
    
    "Ms. Freudenberg thinks teachers are expected to handle problems that
    used to be parents' exclusive domain. Increasingly, she said, the trend
    is toward ``drive-by parents'' and ``drive-through students,'' who
    expect education to just happen with little involvement on their part. 
    ``There are lots of good parents out there, but we have so many
    single-parent households [and parents who are] holding down two jobs,''
    Ms. Freudenberg said."
    
    I think you have identified a good piece of the problem.  The rest is
    with the system that let's a kid graduate with less than a third grade
    reading ability and teaching nonsense classes, or mandating
    volunteerism.
    

    
    Lets see.
    
     Unemployment in USA 3-4%
    
     Unemployment in typical Yoorpeon country 12-15%

    Can't...find....broken...system.  Must...continue...searching.....
    

>                     <<< Note 850.313 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>

	yabbut, yabbut... what kind of jobs are they doing!?  ;>

	

    Lets see.
    
    Yoorpeon countries have high degree of socialist programs, spending and
    outlook.  USA still has a strong capatilist thrust.
    
    Unemployment in USA far below Yoorpeon countries.
    
    Can't...find....broken...system.  Must...continue...searching....
    

>maybe we should make all employees wear suits and ties cause it will make them 
>more productive.

Funny you should say that, I was told it was too cold to wear shorts to work.
`Wear trousers on monday'

Steven 
    

    Ahh good.  So we can cross economic improvements off the list of
    educational "goals".  That will be taken care of by the capatalist
    system.  or the Capitalist system, even.

    
    Interestingly, there was a report on NHPR this morning stating that
    although New Hampshire has cleared the way for charter schools, not one
    has been established in this state as yet.  There are many in MA. 
    Considering the careful eye that NH residents keep on their taxation
    monies, and the current debate over educational equality, you'd think
    that if the system was "busted" the richer NH school districts would be
    rushing to implement available independent solutions such as charter
    schools.  Not so.
    
    The converse is true,  lawmakers are now embracing the idea that more
    state schooling in the form of kindergarten is a great investment, and
    plans to spend more cash on state education are in the works. 
    Conservative New Hampshire legislators also voted to accept goals 2000
    money last year, allowing school districts to apply for and use the
    additional federal funds.  However, this was vetoed by Gov Merrill - an
    act that might have damaged the chances of his potential Republican
    successor.  Seems everyone but Merrilly-we-rollalong believes that a
    little cash can make a difference. Baffling, since we _know_ that
    spending extra money makes no difference, and that programs that reduce
    gumment interference (like charter schools) are way better  Even more
    baffling in that this profligate mentality is found in conservative NH.
    
    A look at national and international rankings of NH schools might give
    a clue.  For example, in the math report cited before, they ranked
    _above_ Noo Joisey in some categories.  Ranking first in one.
    
    Here's one school's recent improvements:
    
    Stacking Up Success: Souhegan Takes Its Measure
    
    SAT scores. Before Souhegan opened in 1991, only 59 percent of students
    from the towns it serves took the SATs; their mean score for math was
    473 and for verbal 448. By 1994, the third year of Souhegan's
    existence, 83 percent took the college-entrance tests, and their mean
    scores jumped to 513 in math and 472 in verbal-levels well above state
    and national averages. 
    
    College Acceptance. Among New Hampshire's public high schools with
    graduating classes of over 35 students, Souhegan ranked second only to
    Hanover High School in the percentage of students accepted to college. 
    
    Recognition. The school was named New Hampshire's 1994 Secondary School
    of the Year by a consortium of educators and businesses giving
    Excellence in Education awards. And in 1995, Souhegan principal Robert
    Mackin received the group's Secondary School Principal of the Year
    award. 
    
    Academic Challenge. All students must take three years of demanding
    math science courses; the school offers no watered-down "basic" or
    "general" math courses. More than half of Souhegan students are taking
    Advanced Math by junior year, and fully 16 percent of seniors take
    calculus. All students take at least three years of study in a foreign
    language, and the school's 156 seniors have signed up for a total of
    235 Advanced Placement or college-credit classes. 
    
    Costs and enrollment. Souhegan spends approximately the same amount as
    New Hampshire schools of comparable size - $7,221 per pupil in 1995,
    not counting the mortgage on its $12 million building. Enrollment is
    growing, with a dozen tuition students enrolled and more on the waiting
    list. 
    
    
    Hmm.  The system doesn't seem to be badly broken here.  Grasshopper
    must continue his travels.
    
    

Goals 2000 acceptance has more to do with the effect it'll have 
on the taxpayers than on the schools. If you check the towns that 
were pushing the hardest, Derry, Londonderry and other towns with 
high property taxes were the most in favor. The charter school in 
Londonderry, arguable a "wealthy" town, failed because the school 
system is well regarded and many saw no reason for a charter 
school. 

Pointing to the rejection of Goals 2000 money as being the least 
bit important in Ovide Lamontagne's loss to Shawheen is 
laughable. Lamontagne was a miserable candidate who ran a 
horrible campaign with no message. 

Interestingly, with all these high scores, NH ranked dead LAST in 
spending per student.

Jean Shaheen's (Her Motto: Raise taxes, raise them alot, raise 
them now) kindergarden plan has not made it through the NH 
House and the House approved Sytek's pared down version.
It'll go back to the Senate again.

daryll

|   Well we can pretty well disregard most of your points since you base
|   your position on your personal experience.
                                                                         
    I do?  IDNKT.  Odd, and here I was looking at studies that show that
    today's students achieve more than we did back in my day.
    
|   In addition, over half of your educational experience was in private
|   institutions and not the public institutions that are really being
|   discussed.
    
    How so very odd, since one of your first reform "proposals" was public
    financing of private education.
    
|   As far as your contention that you "know" they are doing a "*better*"
|   job today goes, on what do you base this?
    
    The same studies.  See, when you actually objectively measure performance
    over time and find that on the whole things are the same or better, what
    does that tell you?  (I know, I know, it's a conspiracy.)
    
|   My personal experience is that the average student is more lacking in
|   basic history and geography at the conclusion of high school than I was
|   at the conclusion of grammar school.
    
    Since your recollection of events of recent weeks has proved so very
    accurate, forgive me for doubting your recollection of how good your
    peers were at history and geography.  (Hint.  Back then, if some
    of your classmates couldn't locate Scotland, you probably thought
    it was their fault, since you knew were it was.  Today, when you
    find students who can't locate Scotland, you blame the education
    system.  And finally, there was a PBS show based on young
    children being able to locate Scotland.  Gasp, young children educated
    in our "education system in crisis" schools can indeed locate Scotland.
    But how can this be?)
    
    Oh, help me again.  Which one of us is relying on "personal
    experience" here?  Let me help you out here.
    
|   Based on my personal experience, public schools are doing worse.
    
    That's what I thought.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   The last part of your note is duly dismissed as amusing but
|   uninformative.
    
    Hey, at least it's amusing.
    
    								-mr. bill

    I wasn't going to get into this, but I'll add my .02 cents worth.
    
    A little background.  I have just finished my M.A. Ed., and have been
    in the classrooms since last year.  The problems are there, they are
    real and the blame......"I will not go there".
    
    Goals 200; Good and Bad...Meaning, it has several good points ( All
    students meeting a minimal standard of education. )
     
    Bad: Government intervention, need I say more.
    
    This is in itself a whole discussion by itself.  To much typing at this
    point in time to get into it.
    
    Society: Yep, that can be considered a problem....Kids for the most
    part do not have basic social skills.  They demand things, and want it
    now.  They have this "dis" (disrespect) thing, yet they do not respect.
    
    The biggiest problem I see, is a problem with the LACK OF PARENTING.
    Not that all parents are bad, or don't care; but show a lack of 
    something ( I don't know ) for their child/children.
    
    I am generalizing; Parents are to busy with their lives to get involved
    with their child/ren.  It is easier to buy them off, video games,
    videos, jackets..whatever....
    
    In the classroom, I am not a only a teacher but a social worker,
    counselor, pharmacist, cop, ...blah blah blah...
    
    The one thing that I can really say about anybody that has a complaint
    about our educational system ...GET INVOLVED!! VOLUNTEER...Go to the
    schools and be ACTIVE...The teachers will LOVE YOU and appreciate YOU!
    
    I love teaching,  I have more fun educating kids...it is a real turn
    on..But I have to fight battles all the time, that don't deal with the
    educational process....Gangs-Wannabe's; S.A.C sexual assualt on one
    of my kids, Parents that want me to raise their child...blah blah...
    But, it is still a WONDERFUL feeling when a students say "I GET IT!!"
    
    And as far as measuring our students against the "Yoorpean" and other
    countries,  one must first ask..."how and what do they measure?"
    
    In most Industrialized countries, not all the students are allowed to
    go to a High School, or what we percieve as a High School.  If a high 
    school student tests scores are high enough he may persue a high school
    environment geared towards higher education.  If not that student will
    go to another school, or trade type school.  
    
    Now, there is a limit to the number of students allowed to attend the
    schools established for highier education, So the testing process it 
    real competitive and limited.
    
    So, when everything is said and done..and they start measuring our 
    graduates against other countries graduates...we are measuring the 
    ENTIRE populace of graduating students versus a country, such as
    Japan, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland ...etc..etc.. who is measuring
    say ( I DON'T HAVE THE STATS.) 25% of their populace who should be
    graduating from High School.  
    
    Why don't we measure our top 25% against their 25% and see what the
    outcome is then.
    
    
    Jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Thanks from a school volunteer.
    
    meg

    .319
    
    Since your experience was largely in the private sector and you saw it
    as successful, then I would think that you would support greater use of
    the private system over the public system.
    
    But the real issue is whether or not schools are actually doing what
    they are supposed to do and whether or not educational time is used to
    improve performance or on nonsense issues, the mandatory volunteerism
    just being the most recent example of wasting students time and
    focusing schools on non-academic matters.
    
    And let's not forget dear Minneapolis where $500 million resulted in a
    decrease in performanc eon the test they used as their measure and the
    funds went to higher salaries and increased administration costs.  One
    would think that if a targeted program received $500 million they would
    have seen some improvement, not a decrease.
    
    Also, as was pointed out the NH schools do a godd job and rank near the
    bottom on spending per student.  MOney is certainly not the answer.
    

    re: .317 by Smurf::Walters
    
    
    "[Soughegan] was named New Hampshire's 1994 Secondary School of the
     Year by a consortium of educators and businesses giving Excellence in
     Education awards."
    
    
    Soughegan spending per student:		$7,221 [1]
    New Hampshire spending per student:		$5,433 [2]
    US spending per student:			$5,325 [2]
    
    Only four states spent more than Soughegan; New York, New Jersey,
    Connecticut, Alaska.  And of course, the frequently quoted by the
    factlet hurlers Washington DC, outspent Soughegan.
    
    Anyone think the nearly $2K/student was wasted?
    
								-mr. bill
    
    -----
    
    [1] 1995-1996
    [2] 1993-1994

|    .319                     
|    
|   Since your experience was largely in the private sector and you saw it
|   as successful, then I would think that you would support greater use of
|   the private system over the public system.
    
    Well, oddly enough, the majority of my K-12 experience was public.
    
    (But I did leave out the scholarship to six weeks of private school my
    senior year in High School.  *Those* six weeks dramatically changed my
    life.)
    
    I'm absolutely agnostic about greater or lesser use of private schools.
    
    But I am quite opposed to public financing of private schools.  Which
    you strongly support as "the answer" without a shred of evidence that
    it could help performance.  (It certainly would increase costs.)
    
    -----
    
    (Finally, *you* keep bringing academic credit for volunteerism up.
    Oddly enough, many of the most competitive colleges consider
    records of volunteerism in admissions.  Maybe they know something
    that you don't know?  Nah.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Well, in that context I used the example of Souhegan to show that with
    an injection of cash, concern and a bit of determination a district had
    managed to turn around a school in a very short time. Although the
    state average expenditure averages around  $5000 per capita and is
    nationally one of the lowest, it can vary from $3500 to $8000 from
    district to district. From way below the national average to way above
    it.
    
    Also, in NH in 90% of the education expenditure comes direct from local
    property taxation.  The Claremont case indicates that in spite of the
    success there is widespread disaffection in NH with perceived
    inequalities in the funding system, although statewide success rates
    are considered to be acceptable and represent good value for money.  40
    school districts joined the Claremont case to try and make this point. 
    (The NH State Gov't spend $400,000 fighting to prove that munny duzzent
    madder.)
    
    Although NH is very high on the achievement lists, some of the States
    above it spend more, others spend less.   The funding bases are also
    radically different.   Point here is it's very difficult to make fair
    and realistic comparisons between towns, let alone States and nations.
    
    On the other hand, it is also possible to find clear evidence of
    extremely poor standards both nationally and internationally. and
    hard not to note that performance (or lack thereof) correlates well with
    spending levels and poverty levels.  Texas is a state with a large
    percentage of poor, and spends less per student than many other states
    and has one of the poorest performances by many criteria.
    
    Not surprising.  The reason you see such wide disparity in performance
    in the US is because the school districts are often segregated on
    funding lines.  Both within states and between states, differences
    between outcomes such as SAT scores results could easily be an artifact
    of the local control/funding model.
    
    The reason you don't see this pattern so much in the "socialist"
    countries in Yoorp is because they operate such segregation much less. 
    More funding is controlled centrally, funds are distributed regardless
    of tax base.   Naturally, you still see  market forces at work.  The
    best teachers gravitate to the best schools and best pay in the best
    districts over there just as they do over here.  But they also send
    kids to school far many more days per annum and for longer hours than
    in the US - and they pay them for it.
    
    Because the US system self-segregates and is ghettoised it's obvious
    that the regions  with the least resources will get progressively worse
    and pull down the national scores.  Low funding, low performance, low
    skills, less employment, fewer opportunities, less income, lower
    property values, less of a tax base, less money for schools.
    
    Thus, international comparisons are more odious than they seem.  NH and
    NJ might perform well in Math and science, but Texas would pull down
    the US national average to a miserable standing internationally.  
    
    It  _might_ actually be possible to achieve a national
    improvements by changing the pattern of funding a little to favour the
    worse off regions.  With the better off regions performing very well,
    spending a couple dollars more would change results only a marginally. 
    However, in the poorer regions, spending several dollars more could
    bring a marked improvement in both local and national test scores.
    (If that's the criteria that would make folks happiest)
    
    NH has voted to spend more by introducing funding for kindergarten
    because they realize that there is a potentially huge return on
    the investment.  
    

    .325
    
    Can you tell me why sending a portion of the taxpayers earnings to the
    educational location of their choice would increase costs?  would this
    be that the public system has built up a huge, expensive, unresponsive
    and inefficient administrative and staffing network?  Otherwise, there
    would be no increase in cost.  In most cases, there funds that a choice
    family gets is less than what is going to the present school.  In many
    cases it is less than half.  So if anything, the public system would
    have more money available to teach the remenaing students.  But then
    this might mean that some church affiliated achool would get the money
    and we all know that that situation can never be tolerated because..
    well, I forget all of the irrational arguments against it, but I'm sure
    you know them all.
    
    Also, if a student wants to do volunteer work to improve their resume
    and get into a better college, that is a choice the student makes based
    on their needs, wants and goals.  It is not based on some federal
    madate that you must volunteer.  One is a personal choice, for personal
    reasons, the other is a government rule based on government
    interference.  One is good and the other is bad.  I think you know
    which one is which.
     

    So many errors, so little time.
    
    I'll only adress the most offensive, rather than all of those that are
    simply wrong.
    
|   But then this might mean that some church affiliated achool would get
|   the money and we all know that that situation can never be tolerated
|   because.. well, I forget all of the irrational arguments against it,
|   but I'm sure you know them all.                                          
    
    A free clue.  The name of the school I went to from K-5 began with
    "Saint."  HTH.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   Well, in that context I used the example of Souhegan to show that with
|   an injection of cash, concern and a bit of determination a district had
|   managed to turn around a school in a very short time.
    
    I suspect it was concern and more than a bit of determination which
    led to changes that increased performance in a very short time.  Some
    of those changes apparently cost a little bit of money.
    
    Nice to see a school district focus on what matters.
    
    This probably makes many folks more happier.  But what do I know.
    I'm sure that there are folks who are more unhappier.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .328
    
    And.........
    

    re: .330
    
|   And.........
    
    Too tough a clue for you?
    
    								-mr. bill

Re: the question asked in .324 -- I, for one, am certain that a great
deal of the "$2k" is wasted.

Words, words, words, bull, bull, bull. 

I can't take much more of this crap.

Souhegan was named "top" by "a consortium"... Right. A consortium of
similar Outcome-Based Education schools, that's who. And "Doctor Bob" as
the Principal or Headmaster or Potentate is called (we have a dozen or so
"Deans" so I get confused) is occasionally named "top educator" or some
such, by the same consortium of like-minded playgrounds for academics.
They take turns issuing self-serving, empty awards.

They take turns naming each other's schools as "top" and take turns
naming each other's leaders as "top" - with meaningless drivel that is
aimed solely at lending credence to what they're doing. You do me and
I'll do you.

Look up the word consortium: "a...association...to effect a
venture...requiring considerable capital investments"...(AHD). That's
Souhegan, all right.

So they claim "Look how many Souhegan kids take the SATs now" - big deal.
If they make taking the SATs culturally mandatory, what's a kid to do?
They take the SATs. 

So they claim "seven of our kids went to Dartmouth and other good
schools" -- the fact is, Dartmouth is *involved* in this social
engineering experiment that's being conducted at Souhegan. There is
someone from Dartmouth *there* much of the time. They HAVE to admit some
of the Souhegan kids. Let's see how many of the seven graduate from
Dartmouth. And as far as the "other schools" are concerned, there are
Coalition colleges that essentially guarantee admission to kids who come
out of the coalition high schools. Take a hard look at the schools the
Souhegan kids are going to, and you'll see a good many with names like
Grace L. Ferguson Aluminum Storm Door and College - and not many to WPI,
RPI, BU, MIT, Stanford, UCLA, Georgia Tech, Wharton, or even UNH or UMASS.

I *have* followed up on some of the kids who came out of Souhegan. They
went to small, no-name schools, and they're having problems there. Why?
Because they didn't learn fundamentals at Souhegan. Because they didn't
learn how to provide hard answers to hard questions -- because everything
in Outcome Based Education (and Souhegan) is *subjective* rather than
objective. The kids who do well in Physics and Chemistry and general
engineering put in a lot of time memorizing - and learning how to
memorize - and learning how to build solid structures with finite shapes
and dimensions. The fuzzy methods at Souhegan produce fuzzy thinking.
That's okay if you're only going to be tested in a fuzzy way. 

How much is 2 plus 2? Well, at Souhegan the absolute sum of 2 and 2 is
not as important as the self image that will result from knowing that you
were judged "top" by your peers on the committee to evaluate the summing
of 2 and 2 (which you need never complete, but you'll gain much valuable
insight into teaming).

Here's another great lie: "People are moving into Amherst because of
Souhegan."  Face it - the real estate market crashed in New Hampshire,
taking all the major banks with it. People have been moving into Amherst
because the real estate was cheap. The house down the road from me
recently sold for $83,200. Six years ago that house sold for $189,900.
Nothing wrong with this house.  Another house went for $145k at auction -
it had been appraised at $399k (4200 square feet; indoor swimming pool
etc). Yet another in the neighborhood sold for $179k -- six years ago
sold for around $260k.  My house was appraised at $210k - I'd be happy to
sell it now for $170k (it's not on the market). They're moving into
Amherst because they're picking low-hanging fruit. It wasn't that long
ago that the AVERAGE time to sell a house in Amherst was 510 days.
Recently this figure has come down, for a couple of reasons:  Fidelity,
and highly motivated sellers. 

One of the people who moved into town in the last five years or so
recently held a meeting to describe the damage that was done to her house
by the eighty-teenager drug and alcohol party that trashed her house
while she was out of town. Ask *her* how impressed she is with Souhegan -
one of her public comments was something like "they should shut down that
smoke pit."  Yes, students smoke at Souhegan. They're encouraged to smoke
if it enhances their self image. Forget that the rest of the country is
trying to stop people from exposing themselves to multiple varieties of
cancer, heart disease, and so forth - it's OKAY at Souhegan. I'm OK,
smoking's OK, while the students drift in and out of the "open" building,
going hither and yon at will, addressing the faculty by their first
names.  Study hall in the bed of a pickup truck or the back seat of a BMW
-- this is in the daytime.  Cellular phones abound. I can't verify this,
but I was told that a school policy had to be formulated because of the
disruptive effect of students' cellular phones ringing during a "class"
(such as they are).

What are they learning there? Certainly not to respect authority figures.
Certainly not to study hard and establish good study habits and a study
ethic. 

We spoke with one parent (I'll keep this anonymous) who flatly told us
that their offspring was lucky to get a C at the previous high school, and
that was with much cajoling to force the child to do homework. At
Souhegan this child has been on the honor roll - spends two hours a night
on the phone - and never so much as cracked a book during the whole
1995-1996 school year. This parent CANNOT imagine what the child is
learning, but the fact that the child is on the honor roll means that the
*other*, estranged parent, cannot gain custody now, because "look how
well X (the student) is doing!" So this parent will not complain. Look at
the Milford Cabinet's page of honor roll students. A column or two of
names from Milford High. Now look at Souhegan's half page of names. What
do they do to get on the honor roll? Give an acceptable presentation at a
ten-student Advisory session where you talk about how you feel about the
weather? 

I know - they get on the honor roll by learning how to manipulate. By
learning how to build in so much obfuscation and bureaucratic buffering
(Amherst ballot+Amherst School ballot+Souhegan ballot) that the
democratic process is subverted, so a small number of elitists can
maintain control. Whoever came up with the idea of dropping two bus
routes and moving that money so that the granite post fence around the
"campus" could be built -- THEY should be on the honor roll. I think I've
got it now.

Gimme a break.

Art

| Words, words, words, bull, bull, bull. 
    
    Thanks for putting the bottom line on top.
    
    Tough call here.  A long rant or objective measures.
    
    Which should I believe?
    

    								-mr. bill

Ahh, just a long rant by someone who should know better. They're
completely out of control, so I should just learn to accept it.

"When rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."

But this *is* the Soapbox, so I exercised my license.

Art

    Well, oddly enough, the math team did rather well recently, placing
    only 10 points behind Phillips Exeter.
    
    Got to be a rigged contest.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Oh, btw, you'd have a bit more credibility if you identified the
    correct Ivy League school closely involved with Souhegan.
    
    (Hint, it's not Dartmouth, Penn, Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Yale
    or Princeton.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    .336
    
    Gee, there was one mistake, possibly provided by one of the stellar
    students at the subject institution, and weell, all of the rest of it
    must be wrong also.
    
    Perhaps, the system is broken as many, many people have indicated for a
    a variety of reasons.  You insist on saying that those who oppose more
    money for the existing system are wrong and that we must focus on
    improving performance.  I, for one, want to see an increase in
    performance, but not at any cost.  I want to see the money they are
    currently getting reduced and what is left used 100% efficiently on
    academic mattrers.
    
    When the sytem can give conclusive proof that they understand their
    role and make sure that students learn the basics and then can tackle
    advanced matters, I will be happy to see increased funding.  Until
    then they. like you, are an empty barrel which makes a lot of noise and
    no sense.
    

     It might be a tough call, but I'be tempted to make 
     Johnny's allowance and access to the BMW keys conditional
     upon his grades.  Might want to invest in one of those
     lockable 'phones too. Maybe some of the parents who have
     successful kids at Souhegan do terrible things like this
     to their kids.  Sound like the thinking is fuzzy because
     the gratification hasn't been defurred.
     
     
     

|   Gee, there was one mistake, possibly provided by one of the stellar
|   students at the subject institution, and weell, all of the rest of it
|   must be wrong also.
    
    One mistake.  Bahahaha.
    
|   I want to see the money they are currently getting reduced....
    
    All those surprised by this "revelation" raise their hands.
    
    								-mr. bill
                                                          

    
      I know, I know...  it's that one in Providence where they fall
     out of windows...
    
      bb

>    Well, oddly enough, the math team did rather well recently, placing
>    only 10 points behind Phillips Exeter.

  So, a math team is representative of a schools performance in total?

 

    
    	If it's his school, yes.
    
    	If it's your school, no.
    

|         -< it only takes a few brite kids to form a math club ... >-
    
| So, a math team is representative of a schools performance in total?
    
    Nope.
    
    Just like a parent who doesn't have a clue what her child is learning
    isn't representative of parents' performance.
    
    								-mr. bill

>| So, a math team is representative of a schools performance in total?
>    
>    Nope.
 
 And so, the reason for pointing out the math teams performance was ... ?   

    .339
    
    I'm still waiting to see your answer to the claim that more private
    choices will increase spending.
    
    Is any one surprised that this hasn't been answered?
    

    
      Actually, if a public school was able to field a math team that
     came close to upsetting the math team from a posh private school,
     it's a fairly impressive result.  It means SOME kids in the school
     actually learn some hard math.
    
      It is often claimed that we should judge an organization by its
     average result rather than its best.  I'm not sure I agree.  You
     need a few who are excellent, from time to time.  After all, one
     knock on public education (often, by college professors), is that
     it inadequately prepares teenagers for competitive academics.
    
      bb

|>| So, a math team is representative of a schools performance in total?
|>    
|>    Nope.
| 
| And so, the reason for pointing out the math teams performance was ... ?   
    
    Those dots were so close together I figured you could handle connecting
    them.  I didn't think anyone could get "whooshed" by such a thing, but
    here you are.
    
    Identify every anecdote in .332 that is not representative of a school's
    performance in total.
    
    
    While you are at it.
    
    While I would prefer NAEP data on Souhegan, I really need these dots
    connected.  (I've been completely whooshed here.)
    
    	Thesis - Souhegan's academic performance is going down.
    
    	Suporting data -  A significantly higher percentage of students
    	now take the SATs, *AND* they achieve a higher mean on the
    	tests than just a couple of years ago.  This is a strong
    	indicator that accedemic performance at Souhegan is going down.
    
    	Further supporting data - Elite students (math club) scores
    	in math competitions are quite high.
    
    	Well, you all who "know better" sure got me here.  Can you
    	explain how they managed such a horrible blunder?
    
    								-mr. bill

|    Actually, if a public school was able to field a math team that
|    came close to upsetting the math team from a posh private school,
|    it's a fairly impressive result.
    
    Lexington has placed number one in New England two years in a row.
    (They got a perfect score this year.)  Second place was Phillips
    Academy.  20 points behind them was Phillips Exeter Academy.  10
    points behind them was Souhegan.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >  Actually, if a public school was able to field a math team that
    > came close to upsetting the math team from a posh private school,
    > it's a fairly impressive result.  It means SOME kids in the school
    > actually learn some hard math.
    
     I don't find it that impressive, frankly, especially when it comes to
    posh private schools. Posh private schools admit students on the basis
    of who they are and how much money their parents have. That is not an
    especially strong determinant of aptitude. There are plenty of talented
    kids in public schools from which to choose a small team of mathletes.
    
    >  It is often claimed that we should judge an organization by its
    > average result rather than its best.  I'm not sure I agree.  
    
     I'd claim that looking at the cream of the cream is not an accurate
    method of assessing the efficacy of a program. What would you consider
    to be a better program on the whole, a program that graduated 2
    students that got 1600s on their SATs and 998 that didn't break 600 or
    one that graduated no students with 1600s but a dozen with scores in
    the 1500s, dozens in the 1400s etc and no student with less than 1000?
    
    >You need a few who are excellent, from time to time.  
    
     Wouldn't it be better to have a lot that are excellent, though?
    
    >After all, one knock on public education (often, by college
    >professors), is that it inadequately prepares teenagers for competitive
    >academics.
    
     And you think that providing a handful of students with superior
    educations and great masses with inferior educations is a solution to
    this problem?
    

   My public high school placed first in New England when I was on the math 
   team. Several private schools were represented, though I would be hard
   put to remember them.  The finals were help at Concord Carlisle(sp?) 
   high school.  I wonder if the penny I hid is still there?
kb

>    Those dots were so close together I figured you could handle connecting
>    them.  I didn't think anyone could get "whooshed" by such a thing, but
>    here you are.
 
  OK. Consider me wooshed.

  Could you please explain the reason for pointing out the math teams 
  performance. ? What meaning was it to bring to the discussion at hand?

  Doug.   
 

|    Actually, if a public school was able to field a math team that
|    came close to upsetting the math team from a posh private school,
|    it's a fairly impressive result.

   No one would argue that many children get a fine education in public schools,
   and that some public schools are better than some private schools.

   When you can show a consistent result over time, then you've got something.
   A one year performance is relatively meaningless.

   The first couple of years Soheagan was full of MASH students. I'm wondering
   how the overall performance of Amherst students has changed since the 
   breakup of MASH. 

   Better SAT scores are encouraging, and a far better marker of school 
   performance than the track record of the math club.

   Better SAT scores? Better than what? Previous SATs from Amherst students?
   Better than SATs scores from MASH in total?

   What are we measuring against?

   Why do I ask? MASH has always provided a very good education. If Soheagan
   is performaing better than did MASH, I'd be impressed. But I've yet to 
   see any direct comparisons.

   Doug.

    re: Another "is that a fact?" from Levesque about posh schools and
    lack of aptitude.
    
    Yeah, I was completely shocked at the AP Physics and AP Calculus
    classes at Phillips Academy.
    
    I think there were only two Seniors taking AP Calculus at Phillips,
    myself and my roommate.  While there were more seniors taking AP
    Physics, their numbers were still quite small.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >Yeah, I was completely shocked at the AP Physics and AP Calculus
    >classes at Phillips Academy.
    
     Did they teach you your attitude as well? They obviously didn't teach
    you a thing about reading comprehension.

|   Did they teach you your attitude as well?
    
    No, my attitude about your brazen make up facts comes from
    long experience.
    
|   They obviously didn't teach you a thing about reading comprehension.
    
    No, they didn't.  I went to Phillips to study physics.  But they were
    flexible enough to permit me to study calculus as well.
    
    
    But this has nothing to do with your absurd contention that
    "posh private schools" such as Phillips (either one) admit people
    on the basis of who they (and I suppose their parents or relatives)
    are and how much money their parents have.
    
    Oh, dear.  Did I leap to a conclusion here?  Perhaps I did.  Do you
    *not* consider Phillips (either one) a "posh private school?"
    
    								-mr. bill
                               

    >But this has nothing to do with your absurd contention that
    >"posh private schools" such as Phillips (either one) admit people
    >on the basis of who they (and I suppose their parents or relatives)
    >are and how much money their parents have.
    
     So all "posh private schools" admit students strictly on the basis of
    academic aptitude? ITDNKT

    Ask Ted Kennedy.

    shaggenfraulein!

    
    yes!  yes!  he vas my boyfriend!!
    

    .355
    
    Since you seem to think that there is nothing wrong with the present
    system, or maybe you do, but we just need to spend more money.   Or
    maybe you don't, we just need higher performance.  Anyway, I am not
    clear what your position is, but I detect that you seem to question
    that there is anything wrong with our present system.  If you do think
    there is something wrong, I would be interested in know ing what you
    think the answer might be.  I know you gave a no answer to a similar
    question earlier.
    
    If you think that everything is fine with our present system, which you
    lead me to believe as you attack any information presented that
    identifies problems, perhaps you could answer the following question.
    
    If there is no problem then why does the President, with the full
    support of the NEA, plan on spending $2.7 billion on a volunteer
    program to teach third graders how to read.  If the present condition
    is identical to the historical condition then why is this a crisis that
    needs $2.7 billion to correct?  Apparently the reading level of third
    and subsequent grades is worse than it previously was, therefore
    requiring this new multi-billion dollar federal program.  If there is
    no problem, then Clinton and the NEA is looking for another program to
    dump more billions of taxpayer dollars.
    

    
    	RE: .358
    
    	What knockers!!
    

    What hump?

|   So all "posh private schools" admit students strictly on the basis of
|   academic aptitude? ITDNKT.
    
    I thought you could follow along.  Context.
    
    
    We were not talking about *ALL* posh private schools, we were talking
    about specific posh private schools.
    
    BB thought it was impressive that a public school's math team could
    be competitive with a "posh private school's" math team.  (Souhegan
    vrs. Phillips Exeter.)  Shows at least some of the kids learn hard
    math.  (He's quite right.  Course, that's just evidence that they
    learned it somewhere else, huh?)  Since someone just claimed that they
    don't teach hard math at Souhegan, might be something to think about.
    (Maybe not.)
    
    I added that not only could math teams from public schools compete, they
    could beat the "posh private schools."  (Lexington vrs. Phillips Academy.)
    
    You said this was unimpressive, expecially since posh private schools
    admit students based on who they are and how much money their parents
    have.
    
    
    So help me out here.  It is unimpressive that the math team of
    Souhegan is competitive with Phillips Exeter, and it's also
    unimpressive that the math team of Lexington beat Phillips Academy,
    especially because you haven't identified some unnamed "posh private
    school" that has low admission standards?
    
    
    You might hurt yourself if you continue to wave your hands that hard.
    
    
    Some other factlets, number of students enrolled in each school:
    
    Lexington		~1400
    Phillips Academy	~1200
    Phillips Exeter	~1000
    Souhegan		~ 600
    
    								-mr. bill

  >  Since you seem to think that there is nothing wrong with the present
  >  system, or maybe you do, but we just need to spend more money.   Or
  >  maybe you don't, we just need higher performance.

  This is getting ridiculous. While Mr. Bills presentation leaves a great deal
  to be desired, he has, on several occasions, stated his position on the
  state of the current system.

  He hasn't said there is nothing wrong with the system.
  He hasn't said he wants to throw more money at it.
  He hasn't said he wants to throw less money at it.
  He hasn't said he want to throw the same money at it.

  He has said there is room for improvement.
  He is all for better performance.
  He doesn't discount spending more money if it achieves better performance.
  He has provided REAL data on the performance of education country wide.
  
  So lets move on from there ...

  Geesh .....

    .363
    
    OBTW, here's another example of the waste in the current system.  Our
    elementary and high school systems provide bus service for the
    students.  the elementary schools provide free service for those
    students over 1 mile away.  All other students pay for service.  the
    service is provided by a private company.
    
    The high school students, in order to keep driving to a minimum,
    receive free transportation.  this service is provided by the schools
    own bus drivers.  Of course every student drives as soon as they get
    their licenses and have access to a car so no fewer students drive
    because of the free transportation.
    
    The district maintains a Transportation Department to coordinate all of
    the buses in the district and each school has its own transportation
    coordinator.  In addition, the private drivers receive fewer benefits
    and have a lower rate of pay, even though the requirements for both
    drivers is the same.  Also, since the drivers don't work all day, they
    are only paid for hours worked.  The school paid drivers receive pay to
    go to and from home between shifts.  The private drivers are on their
    own.
    
    If the high school operated as the elementary system did, the costs
    would be significantly lower to the taxpayers.  this is just more waste
    duplicating a service already available.  Once again taxpayers fund
    costs totally unrelated to education.
    
    Oh, and the school drivers are unionized so trying to get changes made
    is almost impossible.
    

    Rocush,
    
    would you like to provide documentation for the statement that ALL High
    school students begin driving as soon as they can?  We would have loved
    to have had a bus, as Lolita's school was 2.5 miles as the crow flies
    and 3.5 realistically walking.  However, no transportation was
    provided, and we car pooled for a few years, until one of the kids got
    a license.
    
    meg

    .364
    
    So if the figures indicate that the system is working why is the
    President and NEA supporting spending $2.7 billion for "volunteers" to
    teach kids how to read?
    
    Either there is a problem or there isn't.  If there is, then all of the
    figures are in error that show everything is OK.  If there isn't then
    the NEA is just trying to get more money and less work.  this is a
    problem and shows that we are wasting a lot of money as it is.
    
    Which one is it?
    

Sundays headline on the Lawrence Eagle Tribune:

	'Crisis Looms; school committee bickers'

 (or some such)

Another article talked about a Connecticut school system being
taken over by the state in similar manner to Lawrence, Ma.

Indeed there are pockets of, sometimes severely, troubled education
systems around the country, and that they continue to persist may
constitute a crisis in those areas.

Many times, throwing money at the area has produced no improvements while
implementing new teaching techniques have resulted in poorer performance
(such as the 15 year failure of the LA Ebonics program).

Meanwhile, everyone is waiting for someone else to step in and solve the
problems (Washington DC for example).

So, while there may be no crisis of our citizenry drowning, that is
no consolation to those individuals that are in the process of drowning.

Doug.

    .366
    
    Is there some reason why you asked this question and then answered it
    yourself at the end of you note?  YOu claimed that you carpooled until
    one of the students got a car.  Well it works the same way here in
    Illinois as it does in Colorado.  As soon as the kids get their
    licenses and a car they drive to school, just like they do in Colorado
    
    Also, the statement speaks for itself.  If the student doesn't have a
    license or a car they don't drive.  that is why I stated that they
    drive as soon as they can.
    
    Also, you missed the point.  Taxpayers are funding half full buses and
    paying additional benefits that the private system doesn't.  If you
    eliminated this waste of tax dollars you could use it to have improved
    classrooms, etc.
    

    Doug,
    
    I think the solution is that we must manage the education business
    just like HP and Compaq manage their computer business.  I'd trust
    solutions offered by employees of the 'troubled computer giant'
    a bit more if said giant was a lot less troubled.
    
    Educational failure being discussed to death by a bunch of dweebs (self
    included) who work for a company that can't make money on the world's
    fastest microprocessor.
    
    This irony is probably not lost on Mr Bill.
    

if we just nuke the major cities, i would venture to say that all the major 
social programs screaming for mo'a mymoney [education crisis incl] would nearly
disappear or at best fix themselves up real fast.

most of us can't really argue the supposed problem 'cause our kids are in rural 
or suburban schools with families and teachers that care and work hard to make 
better lives for our kids and ourselves, thus knowing what it takes to survive 
and what responsibility means.

i believe the root of our problems stem from the fact that a lot of lazy useless
people flock to the cities and crowd themselves in 'cause they know where the 
free 'n easy money is.  close the cities.

ogre.

    A double whammy for your Bomber tax dollars there, Mr Rocush.

    Ogre,
    
    My kids and I live in an inner city environment and like it.  It is
    more diverse, and far more environmentally correct than living in
    culdesac hell where everything is a drive.
    
     

meg-

no culdesac for me; we aren't exactly rural, but we're far enough away to be 
classed suburban [we used to be rural, now the damn area's growing too fast] and
far enough away to have to plan our trips for special shopping, etc.  granted 
medical may be questionable sometimes, but we're all trained in first aid and 
well stocked 1st aid kit available in the house. we can get to gas and food real
easy and we don't have to worry much about anything else; just have to plan to 
get to it.

less i say, we're granted the time to soak in creation that hasn't been plagued
by the ever present force of gov't yet still close enough to chat with our 
neighbors.

BUT: i've _never_ seen an inner city that is environmentally friendly?!?! 
however, Co just may be diff than the NE.

ogre.

    
    
    	evironmentally friendly city? oxymoron alert! I have no problem
    with people who enjoy city living (it is "convenient"), but to claim it
    is more environmentally friendly than living in a suburb or rural
    community? Is that why I can't friggin' breathe in Boston on a hot and
    humid day? Why Boston harbor had to go through such an extensive
    cleanup? Come on, be serious.
    
    	

    Environmentally friend in this case is equivelant to how much driving
    and spewing poisons into the air one has to do to get to work, buy
    groceries, get kids to school, buy clothing, etc.  In my neighborhood
    one can hoof it or bike it to everywhere but work, and I telecommute
    whenever possible.  
    
    Culdesac hell has more grass to poison the ground with herbicides,
    longer travels to get basics, and often a car pool or bus or just
    driving, not to mention the extra asphalt and cement that spawns with
    sprawl.  I won't even get into the amount of wildlife habitat being
    chewed up so someone can have a tract mansion in culdesac hell.  
    
    You wan't environmentally friendly?  check out Portland OR, and their
    plan that is actually preserving country, as well as reducing the car
    load in the area.
    
    meg

    Re .355:
    
    >     No, my attitude about your brazen make up facts comes from
    > long experience.
    
    No, your attitude comes from long experience of having your head stuck
    up the wrong part of your anatomy.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    .377
    
    What eric really meant before it gets deleted is, mr. bill, eric thinks
    you don't speak kindly of others as say, i do. He thinks you need to
    repent in your ways. you must learn to be a kinder and gentler noter.

    
    .377
    
    I'll bet this gets deleted within the hour. It is now 8:25 CDT

    Nah. Mr Bill's going to demand a correction, apology, and retraction
    for the next decade or so.

    
      It all goes back to edp's "sentience" myth.
    
      bb

re: .367 Rocush


  >  Either there is a problem or there isn't.  If there is, then all of the
  >  figures are in error that show everything is OK.  If there isn't then
  >  the NEA is just trying to get more money and less work.  this is a
  >  problem and shows that we are wasting a lot of money as it is.
  >  
  >  Which one is it?
  

  You'll never find out by arguing against positions your opposition 
  hasn't taken .... (which was the point of my note)

  
  

    
    	There's a good chance that edp LIED in .377.
    

Fair enough Shawn. Let's have a show of hands.

    
    13 minutes left. i might have been wrong. anyways, it will be gone
    before the day is over.

    
      gee, batti's, i hope not...what will become of 'boxness iffen
     we repress pugnacity ?
    
      bb

|   This irony is probably not lost on Mr Bill.
    
    I measure performance every day.  The irony is not lost.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   13 minutes left. i might have been wrong.
    
    You think?
    
|   anyways, it will be gone before the day is over.
    
    I'll have nothing to do with it.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	
re:             <<< Note 850.376 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>
    
    
>    Environmentally friend in this case is equivelant to how much driving
>    and spewing poisons into the air one has to do to get to work, buy
>    groceries, get kids to school, buy clothing, etc.  In my neighborhood
>    one can hoof it or bike it to everywhere but work, and I telecommute
>    whenever possible.  
    
    	'tis true that one has to drive places when living in the
    country/suburbs. But, you can't house all the city workers in the city.
    You also conveniently leave out the massive amounts of waste that a
    city produces. Trash, sewage, etc. 
    
>    Culdesac hell has more grass to poison the ground with herbicides,
>    longer travels to get basics, and often a car pool or bus or just
>    driving, not to mention the extra asphalt and cement that spawns with
>    sprawl.  I won't even get into the amount of wildlife habitat being
>    chewed up so someone can have a tract mansion in culdesac hell.  
    
    	You assume most people use chemicals on their lawn. We've already
    discussed commuting (not everyone can live in the city). Extra asphalt
    and cement? As compared to a city??? har har. As far as wildlife
    habitat goes, let's just suffice it to say that animal populations are
    up substantially from a century ago, even with all the people around.
    We have had bear wandering around my little town in MA, along with
    moose, and coyotes have made a big comeback (lots of sheep and small
    animals being lost to them here). I don't believe we should build on
    endangered species living space or on wetlands, but it would seem the
    animals are doing very well despite us. What exactly do you consider a
    "tract mansion"? 1/4acre? 1/2acre? 1+acres?
    
>    You wan't environmentally friendly?  check out Portland OR, and their
>    plan that is actually preserving country, as well as reducing the car
>    load in the area.
    
    	Care to point me to some info (web page, news articles, etc)? I'm
    not familiar with what Portland OR is doing these days. 
    
    	jim
           

    
      I used to live in the city.  Paid big bucks to leave, but it was
     worth it.  I'd slit my wrists before I'd live in any city again.
    
      But now and then, I visit one.  Not so far, this year.  Maybe next.
    
      bb

	Seems as though bb is Eddie Albert and I am Eva Gabor!

    .376
    
    Oh, so living in the suburbs is terrible and city life is to be
    preferred.  I believe you left out the other positive aspects of city
    living; namely, congestion, pollution, rape, murder, robbery and
    assault.
    
    Gee, the suburbs are terrible.
    

>      <<< Note 850.377 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
    
>    No, your attitude comes from long experience of having your head stuck
>    up the wrong part of your anatomy.

	what would be the correct part of your anatomy to have your
	head stuck up, one wonders?

    
    
    	re: -1
    
    	Now, if it were stuck in someone ELSES anatomy....
    
    

    > Care to point me to some info (web page, news articles, etc)? 
    > I'm not familiar with what Portland OR is doing these days.
    
    http://www.planning.gatech.edu/acsp/places/portland/portland.htm
    
    DougO

| <<< Note 850.395 by FABSIX::J_SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>



| Now, if it were stuck in someone ELSES anatomy....


	JIM MARIE!

    Now back to an earlier topic in this tring regarding dress coes, etc. 
    The Sunday paper had an interesting article.  According tot eh article
    75% of high school students believed that schools should prohibit the
    wearing or displaying of gang colors, symbols, clothing, styles, etc.
    
    this is coming from the large majority of students.  Apaprently they
    would feel no problems or loss of rights by having gang related
    activities curtailed.  Now all of those adults who know better than
    kids can explain to them why they are wrong in wanting schools to
    actually take control of what kids do in the schools.
                                 

>    this is coming from the large majority of students.  Apaprently they
>    would feel no problems or loss of rights by having gang related
>    activities curtailed.  

Perhaps they do not feel a problem becuase it is generally not their 
activity/clothing being limited.  If so many are FOR such restrictions,
why aren't they voluntarily restricting themselves?  

And just what are the 'gang related activities' mentioned above?

yes, me too want to know what gang related activities as it pertains to 
clothing need to be eliminated.  i would also care to  find out just what gang
clothing/colors are; i'm guessing fluorescent green bandannas when worn as a 
sweat rag in texas is a gang clothing/color as i was informed that i could not 
wear it into six flaggs in dallas.  

and, unless portland, or is tearing itself down and planning gardens, i don't 
believe i'd call that city enviro friendly either as i wouldn't call any city.

ogre.

p.s. what about those college riots in co? city living, yeah, right! i'll 
commute anyday and i still don't commute to a "city" to work.

    The same level of trash is generated per person whether they live in
    the suburbs or the cities.  In suburbs the garbage has to travel
    further on its pick up routes and still has to travel to a landfill. 
    Even with recycling, composting, and resuse of every bag, ziplock, etc.
    we still put out at leat a bag of trash/week for four people, an
    unacceptably high level to me, but not every package food and other
    things come in is reusable/recyclable.  
    
    If you live in the country, or the suburbs, unless you are in a
    properly designed earthship and graywater wetland, you are still
    flushing sewarage, gray water, and the same stuff those of us in
    higher density housing flush.  You may be contaminating more
    groundwater, unless you are meticulous in your septic systems.  Gas,
    electricity, water, and other utilities still have to come out to you,
    (unless you are living in that earthship, complete with solar s***
    burners, and have a cell phone)  
    
    I find I have no fewer and no more problems with crime than the
    suburban people I know.  The same graffiti shows up on the backs of
    suburban stores as does on the back of city ones.  
    
    And there is still that commute, complete with exhaust spewing single
    person vehicles (or are there boxers around who actually carpool?),
    there are still the roadkilled bambies to deal with, and the inevitable
    deaths of predators when they make a mistake and try munching on
    Muffie, the asthsmatic, overweight cocker in the back yard.  At least
    in Colorado, where you have deer, you also have coyotes and cougars,
    and they aren't picky about what fresh meat they eat.  Then there is
    the damage to the hillside eco-system, at least until we have a windy
    dry summer and careless people with matches.  
    
    and you know what?  it seems the city dwellers know more about their
    neighbors, and don't seem to have the unreasoned fears about other
    people, including kids.
    
    BTW, that same survey with kids on gangwear, also said that they were
    against uniforms in about the same percentage, and wanted to wear their
    subculture clothing.  Hmmmm?  Sounds like kids are just people.  If it
    isn't affecting themselves, why stand up for another?
    
    meg

    .399 & .400 you guys are too funny. if you really want to help the gang
    bangers retain their constitional rights please tattle to the ACLU.
    they'll be more than happy to oblige.

    
    
    
    	re: .401 Meg,
    
    >    The same level of trash is generated per person whether they live in
>   the suburbs or the cities.  In suburbs the garbage has to travel
>    further on its pick up routes and still has to travel to a landfill. 
    
    	The garbage has to travel furthur? Why? Does not the garbage man in
    the city have to drive around and collect the garbage, just like the
    garbage man in the country/suburb? Also, there are LESS people in the
    suburb than in the city! I'm not talking about garbage produced per
    person, I'm talking about garbage produced per area. 
    
>    If you live in the country, or the suburbs, unless you are in a
>    properly designed earthship and graywater wetland, you are still
>    flushing sewarage, gray water, and the same stuff those of us in
>    higher density housing flush.  You may be contaminating more
>    groundwater, unless you are meticulous in your septic systems.  Gas,
>    electricity, water, and other utilities still have to come out to you,
    
    	Contaminating more groundwater than the average city? Har har. Most
    of the places I've lived have had private septic systems with the well
    only a short distance away. Whenever the water was tested, it always
    came back cleaner than anything supplied by the town/city. Gas,
    electricity, water and other utilities still have to come out to the
    city, too. 
    
>    I find I have no fewer and no more problems with crime than the
>    suburban people I know.  The same graffiti shows up on the backs of
>    suburban stores as does on the back of city ones.  
    
    	Now this is funny. Just because YOU have never had any more
    problems with crime than the average suburbanite does not mean that the
    city is just as safe as suburbia in relation to crime! C'mon now....you
    KNOW that's a stretch. And I'll tell you now that I don't see the same
    graffiti on the stores in my town that I see on the stores in the
    nearby city.
    
>    And there is still that commute, complete with exhaust spewing single
>    person vehicles (or are there boxers around who actually carpool?),
    
    	There are many people I work with who carpool everyday.
    
>    there are still the roadkilled bambies to deal with, and the inevitable
>    deaths of predators when they make a mistake and try munching on
>    Muffie, the asthsmatic, overweight cocker in the back yard.  At least
>    in Colorado, where you have deer, you also have coyotes and cougars,
>    and they aren't picky about what fresh meat they eat.  
    
    	Errr...we have coyotes, bear, etc. And as I said before, predator
    numbers are on the rise and have been for some time. 
    
    
>    and you know what?  it seems the city dwellers know more about their
>    neighbors, and don't seem to have the unreasoned fears about other
>    people, including kids.
    
    	It SEEMS, to you anyway. You are allowed your opinion, but it is
    very wrong IMHO. I would place it exactly the opposite way.
    
    jim

In this mornings Union Leader; Business section:

Headline:	Business gives Education an "F"

Highlights:

	7 in 10 American business executives believe the nations's public
	educational system is incapable of providing them with a sufficient
	pool of well educated potential employees.

	Executive believe that without educational reforms the forces of global
	economic competition and increased reliance on technology will only make
	matters worse.

	This year , 13-year-old students in 41 nations competed in the Third 
	International Math and Science Study, the US finished 17'th place in
	science and 28'th in math. - trailing the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and
	Bulgaria.

	A conservative think tank forcast of an economic "train wreck" describing
	our educational system as "rickety".

	No executive rated out education system as excellent. 3% said it was good.
	41% said fair. 43 said poor. 12 said very poor.

	Schools are turning out fewer people trained in math and science, in 
	particular, and the new economy is demanding more of them.

	"Now we are saying we need and education system where the vast majority
	of students, if not all of them, reach a much higher level of knowledge
	and skill"

Doug.



	

	

    Supertramp.

It really is tricky educating people so that they'll be prepared for
today's job market.

On the one hand, you want them to be intelligent, well educated, and able
to use a myriad of basic skills (such as writing, mathematics, and
computers).

On the other hand, you don't want them to realize that they're being asked
to work 65 hours for 40 hours of pay with no benefits.

    
    These are guys like Bob Palmer, right?

    
      If you want to train them for today's market, start by lying to
     them, feeding them a lot of cleverly designed hooey for a few weeks.
     Then in about the fourth week, swap teachers around, and announce
     that the previous lesson plan has been cancelled and the curriculum
     is being restrategized, but in the meantime they will be taught
     meaningless filler.  After two weeks, reorganize them by swapping
     kids among classes.  Lay off some of them.  Now, give a test on the
     new material you haven't even taught them yet, with one week's
     notice.  After everybody has studied very hard to get ready, postpone
     it a week.  When the results are bad, as they will be, throw them out
     and substitute the grades you think they should have gotten.  Give
     "student of the week" awards to those sitting immediately to the
     left of the highest performers in class...
    
      bb
     are poor, 

Londonderry NH school committee votes to institute "traditional 
track" classrooms for elementary students. Classes will be the 
traditional reading, writing, and arithmetic. Students in these 
classes will be required to keep up or spend extra time outside 
of class to do so. The rest of the class will not be held back 
for slower students. All students will be working on the same 
tasks at the same level at the same time. Students in these classes 
will once again receive tradional report cards. Currently, 
students are graded with a checklist and teacher comments rather 
than standard letter grades. Parents must request that their 
child be placed in the program. Forms were sent out last week. 
Apparently, the administration is currently being deluged with requests.

    imagine recommending a goal oriented system coupled with
    accountability.
    
    what will they think of next.

    Boy, wish they'd do that here. That check list thing is a real joke.
    The report cards are useless. Nothing like and A or and F to define
    your progress or lack of it. The fear of an F was always a good
    motivator for me.

>       <<< Note 850.411 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Pangolin Wielding Ponce" >>>

> Nothing like and A or and F to define

	I think you might need some parens there.

    an an
    
    sorry

    
    
    re: .396
    
    	I read the page you pointed at. Very interesting. I'd love to find
    data as to how the city compares to other cities of similar population
    and size.  thanks for the pointer...
    
    jim

    the F never really bothered me, it was the back of my father's hand
    that was the great motivator.

    I thought you are supposed to write the answers on the back of your
    own hand?

    Well, now you just get a check mark and a comment like "Chelsea needs
    to work harder on her writing". 
    
    This really is a big help I'll tell you.

    
    .417
    
    she can't write too bad, i mean, she is attending Stanford.