Great Depression of 2016

[frenchblackcopper]

The real living "joke" in the classrooms today is the No Child Left Behind law.Many of these children do not belong in a classroom with other students. They have mental issues that actualy distract the other students. State law says these children will not be discriminated against,that they have an equal right to education. But the real fact of this matter is in many circumstances the schools has become a babysitting service for this type of child which in all reality,if they are not under prescribed medication they are unmanagable and a threat to others.So we send these drugged kids to school along with children that have no learning disabilities,and do not need prescribed drugs to be managable. The aides who handle these kids get beat on,bruised up,cussed at and any number of other threats-actions and yet the parents only do not want their child "labelled" so regardless of their behavior they are still "equal" to other classmates. Children born from parents who used drugs during pregnancy,kids who has been abused,both sexually and physically are lawfully put into classrooms around others who does not have these issues.Who is it fair to? My wife currently works with a girl with downs syndrome each day. This girl will never achieve recogntion for her sports or knowledge abilities.She needs one on one supervision all day,every day.Although she is a sophmore in hs age wise her level of learning is that of maybe a 4th grader.
This may go against the grain here but once again is it the responsibility of everyone to cover the costs of this? Or should the family bear the cost and children like this be taught seperately-schooled diffrently,ect?
Old Rooster, your story above about getting a GED is worth taking note of. But on the same token I can easily understand why my daughter gets so frustrated with kids her age who didn't have to do the homework,didn't have to attend school,didn't have to write theme papers of 1000 words or more,didn't have homework 5 nites in a row,week after week to be able to just go in,sit down,take one test and get a diploma.Each individual circumstance is diffrent and I realize that but I hope you can see too why my daughter gets so mad at others who choose the easy way out. A GED now is not considered "equal" to a high school diploma and in many cases it shouldn't be.If your stopping at high school as your highest level of education that is. But if as in your story the peron does move forward and gets a college degree,the GED makes no diffrence.

 

[newfoundland]

I would be very interested to know what other people's answer to these problems are? In any society there are those children whose needs are so complex that they cannot be met in what we term 'mainstream schools.' For those very few children, specially adapted schools that follow a much reduced curriculum, whilst enabling the pupils to achieve to their own potential is probably the best option. Here, those schools are funded the same as any other school and are often linked to mainstream schools. But what about the children whose learning disabilities are not so severe? How should they be educated?

It is and has been for many years, the practice here to stream children roughly into ability levels, certainly for the core subjects of maths, English and science. This allows children to progress at a pace suitable to their aptitude and ability. Brighter ones are not held back and less able children are able to learn at a pace suitable to them. Free movement of children between the streams allows for late developers and those who have fallen behind due to illness etc, but have progressed sufficiently to move up.

I think that a 'one size fits all' approach to education is the root cause of most of the problems outlined above. I for one would not like to go back to the days when some children were considered uneducable, and just abandoned. That would to me be a retrograde step and I hope never to see it.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I would be very interested to know what other people's answer to these problems are? In any society there are those children whose needs are so complex that they cannot be met in what we term 'mainstream schools.' For those very few children, specially adapted schools that follow a much reduced curriculum, whilst enabling the pupils to achieve to their own potential is probably the best option. Here, those schools are funded the same as any other school and are often linked to mainstream schools. But what about the children whose learning disabilities are not so severe? How should they be educated?

It is and has been for many years, the practice here to stream children roughly into ability levels, certainly for the core subjects of maths, English and science. This allows children to progress at a pace suitable to their aptitude and ability. Brighter ones are not held back and less able children are able to learn at a pace suitable to them. Free movement of children between the streams allows for late developers and those who have fallen behind due to illness etc, but have progressed sufficiently to move up.

I think that a 'one size fits all' approach to education is the root cause of most of the problems outlined above. I for one would not like to go back to the days when some children were considered uneducable, and just abandoned. That would to me be a retrograde step and I hope never to see it.

Who said anything about abandoning your children? If your child has a learning disability, it is your responsibility as a parent to care for your children. That is not the responsibility of the government or others to deal with the child you chose to have. Yes, it is unfortunate, but that is life and you need to step up and take responsibility.

The system now does more harm than good for the disabled.

There are only a limited number of spaces in advanced courses and less deserving students are shoved in there because it makes it look like the worst students are achieving and it helps the schools look better than they really are.

This is why the solution is for the good kids to be removed from the system and let the rest suffer. Good kids should never have to suffer for the lack of responsibility of others.

Unfortunately, the good kids can not get together, because that would lead to a lack of tax revenue and then the bad kids would just be forcibly assimilated into the new, better school at the expense of the tax payers who do not want their children to suffer for the less capable.

There is nothing right or just about that at all. It is parasitic leeching.

Homeschooling is the best option until we can remove the PC and rot from our public schools.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I was in special classes all threw school. I made ok grades but they tried to hold me back an my grandmother refused. I enjoyed my friends but school made me feel dumb. I think that I had it in my mind that I was dumb until around 11th grade. Then I took the ASVAB. I breezed threw that whole test other than math. That summer I got my first military phone call. From then umtil I was in my mid 20s I got hundreds of them. I eventually got it to stop but I had learned something. Other than the math part I had made one of the highest grades in the school. In a few sections I had one of the highest grades in the nation. One section that was hundreds of technical questions I had aced. One question wrong on paper an their was debate over if that one was actually wrong.

Took some IQ tests later. One scored me at 130 an the other at 140. Out of college by then I now know books are useless for learning.. Our brain has evolved to learn threw play. Reading pages of text will get you past a test but not retained knowledge.

I can teach 10th grade economics to a 10 year old by letting them play a week on World or Warcraft.

Geometry by playing pinball an pool.

Chemistry with a has-mat book on a road trip playing a modified game of spot the tag.

Everything we think of as hard is only hard cause we teach it threw a book. You cant always cover as much detail threw play but you retain more in the end.


I have wanted to set up a place here where people that dont like normal school could come an teach their kids in fun ways. I have two possible buildings in mind if I can finance it.

 

[frenchblackcopper]

Our schools must take ASAB tests once each year in every grade level 1-12. Depending on how good of grades the kids gets correspondes to how much tax money the school gets from the state.The higher the scores,the more money is made available.This year was the first time our school districts average went down enough to lose significant funding.So the kids in each class are divided up into 3 groups,the high scoring ones,average and the below average ones.The lower two catagories the teachers has specific instructions on testing these kids.One group the teacher is supposed to actually read the question to the students, and the lowest groups they actually tell the correct answer,all the kid has to do is mark it right on the test.
Our area benefits huge tax money from a wind farm that became operational 3-4 years ago,so our district still has plenty of funding.Our state is so far behind with tax money already I doubt they will ever catch up.We are somewhat lucky here as most all land raises corn and soybeans. Not much valueless land a at all,so taxes are assessed by the fact you can raise and sell crops off most all of the and in my county.
Bluebonnet,,I'm kinda leaning with you on if you decide to have children,you should be ready to support them,no matter what. It was me and my wifes decision to have a child,noone told us we had to,thus noone else should be responisble to support him or her. Granted no child has a choice about entering this world. Noone can choose their parents. Yet we all know someone who should never have been allowed to have any children. To walk away from a child in need is something I cannot due.But using my tax dollars to help rehab the childs mom or dad from life long addiction to drugs,knowing what causes pregancy and how to prevent it,and giving them a welfare handout is something I hate.I don't know how to draw a line but these children and people is what scares me during a major catastrophic event.

 

[Bluebonnet]

Our schools must take ASAB tests once each year in every grade level 1-12. Depending on how good of grades the kids gets correspondes to how much tax money the school gets from the state.The higher the scores,the more money is made available.This year was the first time our school districts average went down enough to lose significant funding.So the kids in each class are divided up into 3 groups,the high scoring ones,average and the below average ones.The lower two catagories the teachers has specific instructions on testing these kids.One group the teacher is supposed to actually read the question to the students, and the lowest groups they actually tell the correct answer,all the kid has to do is mark it right on the test.
Our area benefits huge tax money from a wind farm that became operational 3-4 years ago,so our district still has plenty of funding.Our state is so far behind with tax money already I doubt they will ever catch up.We are somewhat lucky here as most all land raises corn and soybeans. Not much valueless land a at all,so taxes are assessed by the fact you can raise and sell crops off most all of the and in my county.
Bluebonnet,,I'm kinda leaning with you on if you decide to have children,you should be ready to support them,no matter what. It was me and my wifes decision to have a child,noone told us we had to,thus noone else should be responisble to support him or her. Granted no child has a choice about entering this world. Noone can choose their parents. Yet we all know someone who should never have been allowed to have any children. To walk away from a child in need is something I cannot due.But using my tax dollars to help rehab the childs mom or dad from life long addiction to drugs,knowing what causes pregancy and how to prevent it,and giving them a welfare handout is something I hate.I don't know how to draw a line but these children and people is what scares me during a major catastrophic event.

I too would like to help these children, but the fact of the matter is that we can not be responsible for, nor can we actually support the care of such individuals. The personal responsibility for that rests with the parents.

I refuse to disadvantage my children by throwing them into that mess of a system and I think it is equally cruel and damaging to the already disadvantaged children.

What we have now is not working and until it finally collapses, all of the children will continue to suffer.

This is not because I want to single anyone out or make anyone feel badly, it is just pretending like what we are doing is helpful is cruel to those kids. I feel equally that it is the responsibility of the parents, not the government to educate their children.

I have an extreme dislike for the current system, which has destroyed the family unit.

We need to get back to what worked.

 

[Fierlin1182]

Well I suppose everyone has different values when it comes to this kind of thing.

I think it's a good thing that people aren't pressured into living in this 'family unit' that used to be the norm. In some cases the mother may be able to get a better job because of her qualifications or her personality, and the father may be very good with children - every family/household should be able to work things out in their own way and find what's best for them. It might be restrictive if everyone has to stick with the man being the breadwinner and mum staying at home. Of course, divorces, step-parents, single parent families etc. aren't great for the kids in a lot of situations, but there are ways of making that work too, and many of my friends and ex-schoolmates are kids from these "broken families" who have done very well and are happy with their lives, despite not having both parents around all the time.

In England, my mother had a better job than my father, there was greater stability and she made more money. They both did long hours and didn't spend much time with me during the week, but because of that I learned to be independent and got around on my own from a young age, and frankly I had a lot more fun at our friends' houses where they'd put me when they were busy.
In 2008 we moved country for my father's work - he's got a high-paying job now and my mother does part-time work and has more time to spend with me. Classic family unit and how it's supposed to work. Is it any better than the lifestyle we had when we were in England? No... My father got more promotions and with each one became less respectful of his wife, who doesn't have a very classy-sounding job, and his daughter, who can't even find a job let alone a classy-sounding one even though she's out of high school already! (Epic fail, I know)

All that aside, we get by fine, even though we argue and nobody in my family seems to like anybody else much, lol. I always got on well with my teachers, and our adult friends, and people like my aunt though, so it doesn't matter so much to me that we aren't a "close-knit" family. (Although I will admit it wouldn't be all that bad either, I went on exchange to Germany and lived with a host family for two months - they were the kind that went on family outings and played board games together, which was kind of awesome. But every family is different, we can't expect them all to be happy or functioning the best with that kind of structure.)

I don't get the same feeling about our public schools here that I've seen described in this thread - I know people from public schools who are just as respectable and successful as those from my school or any of the other private schools in the city. When I go to award ceremonies for some maths or science competition, a large portion of the top prizes are usually taken out by students from public schools - I think it's great that people who can't afford twenty grand a year, or a hundred grand for international students (we have a lot of them here), to go to private schools can still get an education, and what appears to be a pretty good one at that. I think going out to school and socialising with other kids is important for developing life skills - I'm not a very charismatic person and I've never been very good at making friends with my peers, but after a while of having to associate with everyone else I found friends at school who have become my best mates. I would probably forget how to have a conversation if it weren't for school, seeing as not much of it goes on at home.

Although here we don't have problems on the same level as in the US (hey, there are only 20 million people scattered across this colossal island) so maybe I don't have a complete grasp on the situation at hand...

And also, why should a child not be given a chance in life just because they have a disability? It's hardly like their parents or they themselves chose to be thrown that lot in life. And a child with a disability may also bring great blessings to the parent, just because they're different or less able doesn't mean they're exclusively a burden that has to be "dealt with". I think we should do what we can to help people who are disadvantaged of no fault of their own (whereas welfare to support druggies or people who just don't want to work, that's another matter).
And if the parents can't educate their children because they make bad lifestyle choices themselves, the kids should at least be shown an alternative in school, so they can see what's possible if they choose a different path. Whether they take it or not, that's a different story... But I don't believe the ending is always a bad one involving gangs and drugs, there are still those kids who go on to university or valuable contributions to society because they were given a chance through school to break the cycle that their parents etc. started.


...Oh dear, this post is too long. I can't even remember what I was trying to say at the start o.o Please excuse me if it makes no sense or displays a glaring lack of logical progression. Or logic at all, lol.

 

[blythspirit]

I too would like to help these children, but the fact of the matter is that we can not be responsible for, nor can we actually support the care of such individuals. The personal responsibility for that rests with the parents.

I refuse to disadvantage my children by throwing them into that mess of a system and I think it is equally cruel and damaging to the already disadvantaged children.

What we have now is not working and until it finally collapses, all of the children will continue to suffer.

This is not because I want to single anyone out or make anyone feel badly, it is just pretending like what we are doing is helpful is cruel to those kids. I feel equally that it is the responsibility of the parents, not the government to educate their children.

I have an extreme dislike for the current system, which has destroyed the family unit.

We need to get back to what worked.

I understand what you are trying to say, and to a point I agree, there is part of it that I don't agree with.
I too dislike the current system, it needs to be changed to where the 'slowest' student does not set the pace for the rest of the class. The 'no child left behind' is a disaster that will have ripple effects for generations. There needs to be an actual educational process going on, not just teaching to pass 'the tests' given that determine the funding the schools receive. This is totally wrong and will lead to our country's continued slide into 'third world educational poverty'. We will not be able to 'harvest' engineers, and educated persons to fill much need positions to keep our country moving forward.
However: the Family unit thing. I disagree that by the virtue of someone's sex they should be the nurturer or breadwinner. It is whoever can best do the 'job' or fill the role of what is needed to keep the family healthy and happy, morally on course, and able to meet financial obligations of the family unit. My husband is the most caring loving and compassionate of the two of us...and I make more $ than he is physically or mentally capable of making. He has health issues that will forever keep us 'making the payment' to the hospitals and doctors and I know I will die in debt to them..short of winning the lottery. He is gentle and kind and shows the children an unwavering love and kindness but a 'stick to it' attitude that I am in awe of. Example: Last month he had a huge health crisis that yet again landed him in the hospital, he was there all night long, had emergency surgery, I took him home in the wee hours of the morning..and I'll be darned if he didn't get up 2 hours later and go to work..yes he went to work because he knows the burden on us because of his health issues and what little money he makes he wanted to be sure he wasn't let go from his job because of an absence. I on the other hand am always trying to keep the wolf off the door and make sure the family's focus is not on money and the making of it. I am the 'business' brain..right wrong or in between, my husband could not look at the bills each month and not have a physical reaction to them. We are happy and for the most part healthy and well rounded. My children all had/have the opportunity to attend college. If that is what they have chosen there is no financial burden to them because of the preparations my husband and I have made for them. My youngest is heading off to college this fall. She has seen an example of a family that stands together and that it is not determined by sex which role people take. If she marries someone that 'can't' or ***forbid 'won't' she CAN...They all can. Sorry to sound so severe but my family has faced many comments of..'oh yeah' I would 'dump' him (referring to my husband) because of his health problems. I won't, my children won't and the world that values 'the man must provide' attitude needs to open their eyes. My husband would not leave me if I could no longer clean the house or wash the clothes. It is so silly in the end.

 

[Bluebonnet]

I think that folks have gotten the wrong idea. A family unit does not mean that the mother exclusively raises the children, that is BOTH of the parents' jobs, not just the mother. Women should be able to work if that is how things work out best, but I am totally against the idea of women having to work if they do not want to.

As for giving students the best chance, that is the responsibility of the parents and the students themselves, not the taxpayers or government.

 

[blythspirit]

I think that folks have gotten the wrong idea. A family unit does not mean that the mother exclusively raises the children, that is BOTH of the parents' jobs, not just the mother. Women should be able to work if that is how things work out best, but I am totally against the idea of women having to work if they do not want to.

As for giving students the best chance, that is the responsibility of the parents and the students themselves, not the taxpayers or government.

I agree with you..I misunderstood your point of view, I am sorry