What's in a name?
Let us suppose that a bad, repressive political faction took office in this country and tried to impose a theocracy -- to impose its moral and religious views by force of law.
Let us suppose that they succeeded in criminalizing, at least temporarily, not only abortion, but even distribution of birth control information and devices. (This was actually the status quo in some states as late as 1965, when the Supreme Court's decision in the Griswold case threw out a law of that nature in Connecticut.)
Now: What do you suppose our bad, draconian, hypothetical future repressive government would call the agency placed in charge of prosecuting people who violated these laws?
Would the clever government wordsmiths call it the Department of Womb Slavery?
I don't think so.
Would they call it the Department of Violently Repressing Reproductive Choice?
No.
They'd call it the Department of Motherhood. Wouldn't they?
Then, if anyone ever said, "Times are tight, we've got to cut somewhere, let's pare back all these raids and undercover entrapment schemes, trying to catch and arrest people for practicing birth control. People were better off when they were free to make their own decisions on these matters, anyway," how would the statists respond?
They would say, "Now, of all times, with Americans undergoing such hardships, is the LAST time we should cut back on Motherhood!"
Can you see how allowing the statists to control the words that get adopted to describe and label their government programs and departments cripples later attempts to cut them back or get rid of them, when they prove overly expensive, overly destructive of our liberties, or just plain useless or counterproductive?
Back in 1977, as a payback for all the help he received from the teacher unions in his 1976 election campaign, one-term president Jimmy Carter and his Democratic congressional allies created a new federal department.
But they didn't call it "The Department of Diverting Billions of Tax Dollars to the Statist, Ultra-Left Teacher Unions." No, they called it the "Department of Education."
Now, with the nation awash in unbelievable levels of debt, public attention turns inevitably to this tawdry and pointless department, which has never "educated' anyone.
After all, the rising power of the unions and other educrat bureaucracies has paralleled almost exactly the collapse of test scores and other indicators of how well American children are being educated. It has paralleled nothing less than a massive swelling of de facto illiteracy and innumeracy.
Schools used to cost taxpayers far less per capita from the time of the founding up through the 1920s at least, and in most cases up through the mid-1960s. Yet today's high school graduates would fail in any academic competition based on reading, writing, history, geography and arithmetic with American eighth graders of 60, 90, or 140 years ago.
If the federal "Department of Education" has not only done no good, but demonstrably overseen the greatest and most precipitous decline of academic competence in the nation's history, and given that it additionally costs a lot and extends federal control over matters which the Founders guaranteed us would remain in perpetuity matters of state, local, or parental choice, why not get rid of it?
And how do the statists respond to this "radical, wacky, extreme" proposal?
"Now, of all times, would be a disastrous time to cut Education!"
They mean "The Department of Education." But it sounds like they mean "to cut learning and literacy," doesn't it? Even though the "Department of Education" has done nothing to advance learning and literacy, and a whole lot to degrade them.
There is an answer. Refuse to embrace their purposely misleading euphemisms. They're not "public schools"; they're "government schools." And it's not the "Department of Education," it's the "Department of Mandatory Government Youth Propaganda and Literacy Limitation Camps."
And why on earth wouldn't we want to get rid of THAT?
This entry was posted on Thursday, Sep. 23, 2010 at 11:23 PM
and is filed under Vin Suprynowicz.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
37
Responses
to "What's in a name?"
but Vin, you don't understand... we need the
D of E to get us out of this morass. Can't you see that without the D of E we won't be able to funnel money to schools who have these problems. Just because the kids can't add 2+2 and get 4 consistantly doesn't mean they are not trying. Does it???
D of E to get us out of this morass. Can't you see that without the D of E we won't be able to funnel money to schools who have these problems. Just because the kids can't add 2+2 and get 4 consistantly doesn't mean they are not trying. Does it???
Yes, exactly. How Orwellian that an organization concerned with promoting quality elementary schools and with administering Pell Grants to college students would call itself the "Department of Education."
Sharron Angle wishes to abolish it.
By the way: about Mr. Suprynowicz's contention that "today's high school graduates would fail in any academic competition based on reading, writing, history, geography and arithmetic with American eighth graders of 60, 90, or 140 years ago." That's a lie.
Sharron Angle wishes to abolish it.
By the way: about Mr. Suprynowicz's contention that "today's high school graduates would fail in any academic competition based on reading, writing, history, geography and arithmetic with American eighth graders of 60, 90, or 140 years ago." That's a lie.
Petey, once again, you've got to change your moniker. You're giving New Yorkers a bad rap. Google one of those tests from 1908, that was required to pass 8th grade. Read it and try to imagine any high school kid, or college graduate, being able to pass it.
These kids can identify who was on American Idol, but are unaware of who is the Secretary of Education.
Sharron Angle shares my views of ending this waste of good taxpayer money. We need 434 more like her in the halls of congress. But we start with her.
These kids can identify who was on American Idol, but are unaware of who is the Secretary of Education.
Sharron Angle shares my views of ending this waste of good taxpayer money. We need 434 more like her in the halls of congress. But we start with her.
I don't see any such tests on Google. Looks like another right-wing urban legend.
The very idea of having a federal department called "Department of Education" should give anyone the creeps. The Nazi-like, Soviet-like implications are astounding.
Yeah, it's positively chilling. Even worse than calling the department devoted to national defense the "Department of Defense." Or the agency concerned with protecting the environment the "Environmental Protection Agency." Or the department concerned with energy issues ....
When language can be manipulated in such sinister ways we are not far from being dragged from our homes by storm troopers and robbed of our precious bodily fluids.
When language can be manipulated in such sinister ways we are not far from being dragged from our homes by storm troopers and robbed of our precious bodily fluids.
Here is just the arithmetic portion of an 8th grade exam (required for graduation), from 1895 (Source: Anthonia.com), from a school in the boondocks of Iowa:
Arithmetic (Time, 1:25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4 District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt
The "Department of Education" does not educate. Its purpose is indoctrination.
Arithmetic (Time, 1:25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4 District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt
The "Department of Education" does not educate. Its purpose is indoctrination.
to "paulwebler"
1. your purported source, "anthonia.com," does not appear to exist.
2. the exam you claim to be quoting looks bogus to me. I truly doubt that rural schools in Iowa were teaching the metric system in 1895.
3. In any event, most of this seems pretty much equivalent to what my kids are doing in 8th grade, and nowhere near as complicated as what they do in high school.
4. Since the federal Department of Education has nothing to do with local curriculum standards, the idea that it is engaged in "indoctrination" is absurd wingnut stuff.
1. your purported source, "anthonia.com," does not appear to exist.
2. the exam you claim to be quoting looks bogus to me. I truly doubt that rural schools in Iowa were teaching the metric system in 1895.
3. In any event, most of this seems pretty much equivalent to what my kids are doing in 8th grade, and nowhere near as complicated as what they do in high school.
4. Since the federal Department of Education has nothing to do with local curriculum standards, the idea that it is engaged in "indoctrination" is absurd wingnut stuff.
Ow Petey! You have to go a long way to try be any more obtuse. When you enter Anthonia.com, a site comes up, then type 1895 Math test in the search engine. Or ask your kid to do it for you.
And where did you see the metric system in those questions? Do you know what the metric system is?
Man, it pains me to have to school you like this. When are you fellas going to get a clue that big government is not the answer to life's problems?
And where did you see the metric system in those questions? Do you know what the metric system is?
Man, it pains me to have to school you like this. When are you fellas going to get a clue that big government is not the answer to life's problems?
ah, I've tracked it down! But it has nothing to do with Iowa. And it wasn't a test for eighth graders - it was a teacher certification. Very different. In any event, most of the math consists of conversions. Helpful for farmers, but not very challenging.
After all, the rising power of the unions and other educrat bureaucracies ….
Oh please. You're antiunion. Why are you trying to blame bad education on it? Haven't you the guts to come right out and say it?
As to the Department of Education; it's as necessary as my fight in Oregon, when I forced a change in their requirement that a student must only have one year of math (but 4-years of PE) in order to graduate (now it 2-years of math - still not enough). We also have states that want prayer before every class and Christian symbols and slogans on every wall; while they preach Creationism. You right wingers need an education yourself.
Oh please. You're antiunion. Why are you trying to blame bad education on it? Haven't you the guts to come right out and say it?
As to the Department of Education; it's as necessary as my fight in Oregon, when I forced a change in their requirement that a student must only have one year of math (but 4-years of PE) in order to graduate (now it 2-years of math - still not enough). We also have states that want prayer before every class and Christian symbols and slogans on every wall; while they preach Creationism. You right wingers need an education yourself.
My apologies. Try www.anthoniowa.com/school. And yes, this test was required for graduation from 8th grade. It was not a teacher's exam.
There is a conversion problem from English Standard to Metric. This is a skill that is more useful today than it was in 1895.
Iowa, incidentally, ranks 27th in per-pupil expenditures, at about $7,300. Compare this to DC's $13,200. Then compare SAT scores: Iowa is number one, at an average score of 1215. DC comes in dead last, with an average score of 925. (http://www.epodunk.com/top10/per_pupil/ and http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/sat-scores-by-state/).
The connection between high SAT scores and per-pupil expenditure is tenuous at best. In fact, the highest scoring states tend be average to low spenders; the top five states ranked 20th to 41st in per pupil expenditures.
There is a conversion problem from English Standard to Metric. This is a skill that is more useful today than it was in 1895.
Iowa, incidentally, ranks 27th in per-pupil expenditures, at about $7,300. Compare this to DC's $13,200. Then compare SAT scores: Iowa is number one, at an average score of 1215. DC comes in dead last, with an average score of 925. (http://www.epodunk.com/top10/per_pupil/ and http://www.realonlinedegrees.com/sat-scores-by-state/).
The connection between high SAT scores and per-pupil expenditure is tenuous at best. In fact, the highest scoring states tend be average to low spenders; the top five states ranked 20th to 41st in per pupil expenditures.
to "paulweber": the exam is from Kansas, not Iowa. and it appears to have been a teacher certification exam, not an eighth grade exam. Hence the reference to the "Applicant," which is not a term one would apply to an eight-grader.
As for the link between school expenditures and pupil achievement, I certainly agree that his per-pupil expenditures are no guarantee of achievement. The best correlate remains the socio-economic status of the student. That is why states like Iowa and New Hampshire, with homogenous populations and very little poverty do relatively well in overall achievement. In a poor city with lots of poor, badly-educated people, a school has to spend even more to overcome the deficiencies in the student's home environment. But, so what? That's a completely different topic. The children in my kids' middle school and high school are learning at rates unimaginable in Kansas in 1895. And I am really tired of ignorant people like Mr. Suprynowicz trashing our country's teacher, parents and schools.
As for the link between school expenditures and pupil achievement, I certainly agree that his per-pupil expenditures are no guarantee of achievement. The best correlate remains the socio-economic status of the student. That is why states like Iowa and New Hampshire, with homogenous populations and very little poverty do relatively well in overall achievement. In a poor city with lots of poor, badly-educated people, a school has to spend even more to overcome the deficiencies in the student's home environment. But, so what? That's a completely different topic. The children in my kids' middle school and high school are learning at rates unimaginable in Kansas in 1895. And I am really tired of ignorant people like Mr. Suprynowicz trashing our country's teacher, parents and schools.
Snap out of it, Jerry. Our education quality was tops in the world prior to Jimmy Carter's (2nd worst president in our history, behind the current occupant) creation. Ever since the 'helpful' Department of Education was founded, the caliber our education has fallen like a stone.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
"...I'm from the government, and I'm here to help..." RR
Coincidence? I don't think so.
"...I'm from the government, and I'm here to help..." RR
AsHos; an example of a poor education. If you can't understand it, blame the messenger. (Or a distant past president). You really are a stupid, stupid person.
Some of you are the dumbest Americans I have ever read. Don't worry, when the department of education goes back to the states, out from the feds, and you realize your end of the world fear campaign against it fails, it will actually increase free thought and education. You can send your kids there. We won't discriminate or tell them to think like us OR ELSE like you do.
"deepthoughts" agrees with Sharron Angle that Pell Grants for our kids going to college should be abolished, and that 50 state Departments of Education are more efficient than one.
NYpete, trivial argument. You cannot prove that one is any more effecient. It is all under theory. Theories are not proof. Therefore you are not anymore right than me. PROVE TO US WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY THAT ONE IS BETTER PETE! I didn't go to college, why should my taxes go to put you through it? YOU ARE SELFISH, THAT IS WHY. CREEP!
ok, "deepthoughts" has fairly set out the terms of the debate -- if you agree with him that Pell Grants should be abolished, you should definitely vote for Sharron Angle.
Selfish petey trying to save his government handout! Who wasn told, you have to go to college to be something. Who went to college and is paying off massive debt. Who doesn't have a job in their field they went to college for? So why is it important that we go to college again? Forced into a way of thinking that has proof that college may not get you that dream job, cost you years of debt. Were did this get us. So i ask you PETE, you would have us believe that college is the answer. When some are not working, not in their field, and paying major debt. Why the big push for college? Can you eat the paper your diploma was writen on. So you can agree with Pete or think the whole thing is a made up philosophy that democrats want you to believe. Want you to believe so they can raid your future with bad economic policies and tax greed. So pete? This is the truth of your stance. I bet all you can do is say I lie and ask questions. So pathetic. That is why your stances never hold water. You have to have some b**ls, not be a wuss.
Selfish petey trying to save his government handout!
I would presume this means no more handout or grants to corporations either? Big Oil? American Medical Association? Corporate farmers, for not growing crops? Milk Producers to dump milk? Or are you a Republican hypocrite?
Who wasn told, you have to go to college to be something.
The need for higher education? Where will we get our doctors? Who will engineer our infrastructure? Who will make the great social decisions of the future?
It's no mistake that colleges are considered the 'Liberal bastions of society.' The term, 'Liberal Professor,' wasn't made by accident. It's well known, the better educated you are, the greater chance you're liberal.
Then we have the Mississippi Redneck, sitting on his single-wide porch (with six dogs underneath), next to his pick-em-up truck with tires the size of a time zone; gun rack and Stars & Bars, prominently displayed; listening to Rush (for his drugs) Limbaugh.
I'll take education, thanks. I got most of mine on the GI Bill.
I would presume this means no more handout or grants to corporations either? Big Oil? American Medical Association? Corporate farmers, for not growing crops? Milk Producers to dump milk? Or are you a Republican hypocrite?
Who wasn told, you have to go to college to be something.
The need for higher education? Where will we get our doctors? Who will engineer our infrastructure? Who will make the great social decisions of the future?
It's no mistake that colleges are considered the 'Liberal bastions of society.' The term, 'Liberal Professor,' wasn't made by accident. It's well known, the better educated you are, the greater chance you're liberal.
Then we have the Mississippi Redneck, sitting on his single-wide porch (with six dogs underneath), next to his pick-em-up truck with tires the size of a time zone; gun rack and Stars & Bars, prominently displayed; listening to Rush (for his drugs) Limbaugh.
I'll take education, thanks. I got most of mine on the GI Bill.
Now that the US and UK pilots are letting the world know about Vyn's mothership, how long before he has to pack up fly back to the mother planet?
Vyn... an illegal 'alien' in the truest sense.
Vyn... an illegal 'alien' in the truest sense.
You can say thank you Jerry, Where do you think the money came from to pay the GI bill? My pocket, typical liberal. Your last post was a waste of digital space.
Thanks for the chuckle, Jerry. You posted, "If you can't understand it, blame the messenger. (Or a distant past president)." that wouldn't be anything like your Bush bashing, would it?
or
"You really are a stupid, stupid person." Now, coming from you, that is the highest form of praise. Thank you.
or
"You really are a stupid, stupid person." Now, coming from you, that is the highest form of praise. Thank you.
You can say thank you Jerry, Where do you think the money came from to pay the GI bill?
Part of it from my paycheck while in the military serving my country. You can say thank you, Deep.
Part of it from my paycheck while in the military serving my country. You can say thank you, Deep.
Of course, the real question is, "Where is the Constitutional authorization for the federal government to be involved in education?"
Hmmm, must be magically covered by "interstate commerce".
Hmmm, must be magically covered by "interstate commerce".
While waiting for the inevitable response of "promoting general welfare", I decided to post the following from the Father of the Constitution:
“To refer the power in question to the clause ‘to provide for common defense and general welfare’ would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms ‘common defense and general welfare’ embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” - March 3, 1817
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
“To refer the power in question to the clause ‘to provide for common defense and general welfare’ would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms ‘common defense and general welfare’ embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” - March 3, 1817
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
British bookmakers are setting the odds at 100/1 that 'first contact' with Vyn's mother ship will happen in the next year.
I believe they excluded Vyn from being able to place a bet though.
I believe they excluded Vyn from being able to place a bet though.
Jack, what a great rebuttal to Vin! Calling him an alien took such imagination! I'm so glad I never have to take you on in a debate!
Winsterman... it isn't an insult :)
Of course, the real question is, "Where is the Constitutional authorization for the federal government to be involved in education?"
And another 'real question' is, "Where is the Constitutional authorization for the federal government to be involved in traffic laws?"
At least once a week we have somebody post that really doesn't understand what the Constitution is about.
And another 'real question' is, "Where is the Constitutional authorization for the federal government to be involved in traffic laws?"
At least once a week we have somebody post that really doesn't understand what the Constitution is about.
Jerry Sturdivant had to fight, in Oregon, to include more math as a requirement for graduation.
I'm sure this was a laudable effort. However, we have several questions begging here:
1) In a free society, with all education being private, Jerry would not have to exert extraordinary efforts to make people follow his idea of a good education. He could just convince the private school he worked for. If his laudable efforts resulted in better education for students, his private school would attract more and more customers. Then, other schools would follow suit.
2) Some students and parents, though seeing the laudable goal of everyone knowing calculus and advanced algebra, would nonetheless choose not to take advantage of Mr. Sturdivant's great efforts. For example, students interested in careers that don't emphasize higher math might actually choose NOT to take Mr. Sturdivant's commendable courses!
In a free society (I know, this is tough for many to grasp), you have to CONVINCE INDIVIDUALS about the worthiness of your proposals. You can't just convince a school board and have your methods and ideas forced on thousands of students.
Now, on an abstract level, one can assert that "EVERYONE should pass calculus (or physics or Afro-American history or the music of Beethoven, or you name it)." In a free society, there is no harm in making such Olympian pronouncements--but you can't FORCE your obviously superior wisdom down others' throats. You have to convince them, voluntarily, to follow your enlightened ways.
I'm sure this was a laudable effort. However, we have several questions begging here:
1) In a free society, with all education being private, Jerry would not have to exert extraordinary efforts to make people follow his idea of a good education. He could just convince the private school he worked for. If his laudable efforts resulted in better education for students, his private school would attract more and more customers. Then, other schools would follow suit.
2) Some students and parents, though seeing the laudable goal of everyone knowing calculus and advanced algebra, would nonetheless choose not to take advantage of Mr. Sturdivant's great efforts. For example, students interested in careers that don't emphasize higher math might actually choose NOT to take Mr. Sturdivant's commendable courses!
In a free society (I know, this is tough for many to grasp), you have to CONVINCE INDIVIDUALS about the worthiness of your proposals. You can't just convince a school board and have your methods and ideas forced on thousands of students.
Now, on an abstract level, one can assert that "EVERYONE should pass calculus (or physics or Afro-American history or the music of Beethoven, or you name it)." In a free society, there is no harm in making such Olympian pronouncements--but you can't FORCE your obviously superior wisdom down others' throats. You have to convince them, voluntarily, to follow your enlightened ways.
So I'll enlighten you.
Part one:
Sports were the big thing in the town of The Dalles, Oregon. The Dalles was a one-business town; the aluminum plant. You went to school, played football, graduated, and then went to work in the aluminum plant like your father. You watched your own kid play high school football. When you entered the high school, the halls were lined with pictures of the high school jocks.
The school system in The Dalles Oregon got paid (by the state) by the number of students that crossed the threshold each school day. To keep the kids in school, (in order to get more money from the state) they made it as easy on the students as they could. I know, my kids went to school there: Easy classes, easy grades, lots of movies, lots of sports. (Kind of like the Texas school system).
On Snow Days, they still had the busses make the rounds, dump the kids at the front door; then - with the busses still running - took roll, canceled classes 'because of the snow' and sent the kids home. Even thought they were already there and it had stopped snowing. But The Dalles District still got paid for the kids that day, even though endangering them. And the day counted for the minimum number of school days required that year.
Part one:
Sports were the big thing in the town of The Dalles, Oregon. The Dalles was a one-business town; the aluminum plant. You went to school, played football, graduated, and then went to work in the aluminum plant like your father. You watched your own kid play high school football. When you entered the high school, the halls were lined with pictures of the high school jocks.
The school system in The Dalles Oregon got paid (by the state) by the number of students that crossed the threshold each school day. To keep the kids in school, (in order to get more money from the state) they made it as easy on the students as they could. I know, my kids went to school there: Easy classes, easy grades, lots of movies, lots of sports. (Kind of like the Texas school system).
On Snow Days, they still had the busses make the rounds, dump the kids at the front door; then - with the busses still running - took roll, canceled classes 'because of the snow' and sent the kids home. Even thought they were already there and it had stopped snowing. But The Dalles District still got paid for the kids that day, even though endangering them. And the day counted for the minimum number of school days required that year.
Part 2
The senior year, when most of the kids dropped out, they allowed two periods of PE (football); two periods of 'Study Hall,' and allowed them to leave at 1 PM. And as I said, Required Classes were at an absolute minimum. In order to 'qualify' to play football, you had to maintain grades equal to, or better than, four Fs and a D.
They ripped out a portion of the school library in order to put in a football field. The High School had 5 coaches; 5 Assistant Principles, and one math teacher. Computers became popular in the 80's and the only math teacher in the high school left to go into business. My son came home and told me the Biology Teacher was now his Math Teacher. They did not hire a new math teacher.
I fought them in the newspaper (which was on my side and gave me a byline) and at school board meetings. I was given information (by a janitor) that cases of new, unused, school books were tossed each year (the people that sell books bribed the school district). I told them that kids should take reading, writing, arithmetic and history, every year. That in the last 125 years of their high school, not one kid made a living in sports, but that every kid used math in their life.
I continued to fight on a state level. When we left Oregon they had finally increased requirements to two years of math. Big deal. Oregon is still an example of the poor education received by the kids in our country.
Did that answer some of your questions?
The senior year, when most of the kids dropped out, they allowed two periods of PE (football); two periods of 'Study Hall,' and allowed them to leave at 1 PM. And as I said, Required Classes were at an absolute minimum. In order to 'qualify' to play football, you had to maintain grades equal to, or better than, four Fs and a D.
They ripped out a portion of the school library in order to put in a football field. The High School had 5 coaches; 5 Assistant Principles, and one math teacher. Computers became popular in the 80's and the only math teacher in the high school left to go into business. My son came home and told me the Biology Teacher was now his Math Teacher. They did not hire a new math teacher.
I fought them in the newspaper (which was on my side and gave me a byline) and at school board meetings. I was given information (by a janitor) that cases of new, unused, school books were tossed each year (the people that sell books bribed the school district). I told them that kids should take reading, writing, arithmetic and history, every year. That in the last 125 years of their high school, not one kid made a living in sports, but that every kid used math in their life.
I continued to fight on a state level. When we left Oregon they had finally increased requirements to two years of math. Big deal. Oregon is still an example of the poor education received by the kids in our country.
Did that answer some of your questions?
"Department of Violently Repressing Reproductive Choice"
That's what Angle, O'Donnell, and Miller (the artard from Alaska) are going to call their Abortion Police if they ever get in power.
Vin, explain to me how Abortion Police are a libertarian ideal. Or are those clowns just fake libertarians?
Winsterman you wanna field that one?
That's what Angle, O'Donnell, and Miller (the artard from Alaska) are going to call their Abortion Police if they ever get in power.
Vin, explain to me how Abortion Police are a libertarian ideal. Or are those clowns just fake libertarians?
Winsterman you wanna field that one?
I think George Carlin says it perfectly.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd87z_george-carlin-education-and-the-eli_sport
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd87z_george-carlin-education-and-the-eli_sport
I noticed pete (indirectly) made the argument that one department of education is better than 50 (really 51 with DC). Possibly, they would be better at collecting and spending money, but do they actually improve education?
Efficiency should not be an end unto itself. Prior to the establishment of the US DofEd, most states didn't have their own. They don't necessarily have to create one if the US one is abolished.
I'm of the opinion that local control and funding would produce far greater benefits then the alleged efficiency of distant control and funding.
Maine should have on say in how Nevada schools are run anymore then Florida should over Connecticut.
Education should be a solely state issue, devolved to their counties if they choose.
Efficiency should not be an end unto itself. Prior to the establishment of the US DofEd, most states didn't have their own. They don't necessarily have to create one if the US one is abolished.
I'm of the opinion that local control and funding would produce far greater benefits then the alleged efficiency of distant control and funding.
Maine should have on say in how Nevada schools are run anymore then Florida should over Connecticut.
Education should be a solely state issue, devolved to their counties if they choose.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Comments (37)
Share your thoughts on this story.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.