Man, thats a block of text right there, anyone who reads that whole thing: Props . Lets keep this topic as friendly/unoffensive as possible.

 

I think everyones bitter on the subject lol

I would just like to say, i didnt cast my vote in this thread ^_- just like i didnt for the 2004 elections, cause i knew bush would win

 

I don't think I'm bitter just yet, but I definitely love to debate. I'm wierd like that. I kinda view myself as independent, but the Democratic party didn't really have a good candidate for 2004 so, yeah I don't know.

 

I like to argue more then debate, lol, but i viewed 2004 as, if the other guy got into office, things would be a lot worse right now, but im just bitter cause everyone attacks bush with out any truely justifible reason.

 

MMM.... I am definately staying out of this 1

 

Actually the government does have something to do with education. If the government hired more teachers then you would have classrooms with 30 kids to a room. The student to teacher ratio is a big part of education. If the teachers have less students, they can take out the time to help the students one on one which helps a lot. The places that have really bad test scores have no money. Some of these teachers are paid $22,000 a year. I'm pretty sure these are the same schools with 30+ students/class. Leaving everything up to a students is pretty hard. You can't teach yourself everything. Go pickup a book on calculus and try and teach yourself. Some people might be able to do it, but most people cannot. I will agree that good teachers make a difference, but do you think anyone that is smart enough to be a good teacher will work for 22k a year? I don't think so, it is alot easier for them to work in the private sector and get more money. The people that make the best teacher are usually very smart b/c you really have to know your stuff to be able to teach it. If your that smart you can prolly do better than 22k a year.

 

A good point. 22k is way too low for anyone to be attracted to becoming a teacher, so this crisis could only get worse. Could I therefore assume that the teachers now are mostly good sumaritans who want kids to learn? I really think that this problem is not as much the governments fault as it is the teachers, because teachers definitely have a say on how students, throughout the course of their young lives, are formed into adults. Basically teachers, family, religion, and a person's friends are the big influences in their lives. Then is it just the kids not caring? Something had to instill that. Sure some kids may be born with it, or parenting and what not, but I don't think that accounts for the percentage figure we are seeing of kids not learning/caring. I'm pretty much just typing what I'm thinking right now. Perhaps a pay increase all around is a good start, though it certainly won't fix the whole thing. It may help, but remember that deficit figure you were blaming capt. Bush about.

 

Yea, i have 3 teachers that gave up higher paying jobs for teaching high school. Not every teacher makes 22k, teachers in a better neighboorhood make more money, some of the top people at our school make 100K. I live in a middle class area and we have really good schools. However, my issue is with inner city schools. The kids in these schools need the direction and motivation of good teachers the most. They also have the least amount of money. We want to fight a war on drugs and crime, but there is no point trying to be tough on crime unless you fix the schools in the areas that the criminals come from. I think that we have to put more money in the inner cities and schools where they need it the most instead of cutting thier funding b/c thier test scores are low. If the test scores are low, there is a reason for it. Someone else mentioned that the kids don't car, you better make them care because the kids that don't care are gonna be the same kids that end up in gangs, sell drugs, kill people, and end up in jails.

 

You still cant make the kids care, cause there are so many that do get a good education and dont give a damn. Singling out inner city schools as a problem area needing to be fixed .like singling out the kid with glasses to torment. A bunch of schools in my area were complaining about how they didnt have enough funding and pushed to get more, when they were assessed for the need for updating and more funding for teachers, they found that most of the schools had a surplus of money that they didnt want to spend, and things werent in disrepair and there was not a thing wrong, so extra funding was denied. I'm not saying thats how it is in every area but when a school manages the money that they do have things become a lot better. The on top of that, being a teacher has been known as a low paying job for many years, and the 7 people I know arent going into teaching for money, but to teach, theres an odd concept dont you think?

 

You say that you know a school with a surplus but doesn't want to spend it. What about the schools that don't have a surplus not to spend? What about the schools that barely have enough money to keep the doors open? I think that these are the schools that deserve more funding. I use inner city school as an example b/c those schools are a good example. The schools are poor, the people are poor, and the kids get shafted. It sounds like you are pretty much saying screw them they are hopeless and i don't believe in that.