Halloween Canceled: Bush to blame!

j_garcia said:

How's that? He said it was not recorded OT, so it's hours that aren't put down on a timecard somewhere and are unpaid, but they still work them. I figure my buddy puts in 12-14hrs, which means 3-4hrs outside of the school, a day and gets paid for 8. That's what I believe he's talking about, and that IS overtime in my book.

Ca. law says OT is anything over 40hrs in a week for any regular, full time employee (including contract workers), which of course, does not apply if you are a salaried employee.

Click to expand...

Which they are salaried employees. Im sure he doesn't put in 12-14 hrs/day. If he did put in say, 12hrs/day then he still isn't working OT on salary.

The economy seems to be going along just fine...people are still buying cars, homes, AV equipment, etc...

Click to expand...

Give it a few more months. These gas prices will put the economy in a slight recession. If gas prices don't fall below $2.25, people will start saving rather than spending. No more vacations, flights, etc... The price of all goods and services will increase to account for transportation costs. It's going to be a total nightmare and some don't even see it coming.

Oil prices have already halted car sales. Have you read up on Hemi sales? Production of large cars as well as SUV's will slow, and demand for more fuel efficient vehicles will increase. This has some good effect. People are driving with a lighter foot on the accelerator, and becoming more efficient when they have to run errands. That saves fuel. But in the meantime, when truckers have no other option but to ship goods, they must raise their prices to account for the 30+ percent increase in fuel. If Bush does something about the price of deisel, it will have a huge impact on the general price of goods. But as far as gasoline powered vehicles go, people will spend less to account for the increase in fuel.

As far as the teaching profession goes, you couldn't pay me enough to teach. Political correctness is killing off any authority teachers once had to run their classrooms. Parents, politics, and lawyers govern the classroom anymore. And as for these standardized tests, how about standardizing the localities, too? Lets mix it up a bit. Transfer half the students in the $10,000 a year private schools to a failing inner city school, and those students to the private school. Now lets see how those transferred students do. Those tests are a bunch of BS in my book.

Buckeyefan 1 said:

Give it a few more months. These gas prices will put the economy in a slight recession. If gas prices don't fall below $2.25, people will start saving rather than spending. No more vacations, flights, etc... The price of all goods and services will increase to account for transportation costs. It's going to be a total nightmare and some don't even see it coming..

Click to expand...

Right, and demand will drop for oil so the prices will eventually come down. Then people will start buying their Hemi's again and prices will go back up. Thats supply and demand.

Those tests are a bunch of BS in my book.

Click to expand...

Buckeye, you must be kidding right?

These test help show accountability I see nothing wrong with making sure these teachers are actually teaching our kids something instead of just passing them on for someone else to worry about.

Mac, I'm liberal and you know it. But I'm not stupid enough to blame Bush for oil prices being high (that's greedy gas companies...50+ cents in 8 hours), or for the disaster in the wake of the Hurricane. On one hand, the dikes should've been better. That's a failure of many governments. But of course, people shouldn't have stayed. And now they're shooting at people trying to rescue them, stealing, looting, and rushing helicopters carry food so they can't land and give aid. That's just stupidity. The people still in New Orleans only have themselves to blame for letting the situation deteriorate into the state it is now.

jaxvon said:

Mac, I'm liberal and you know it. But I'm not stupid enough to blame Bush for oil prices being high (that's greedy gas companies...50+ cents in 8 hours), or for the disaster in the wake of the Hurricane. On one hand, the dikes should've been better. That's a failure of many governments. But of course, people shouldn't have stayed. And now they're shooting at people trying to rescue them, stealing, looting, and rushing helicopters carry food so they can't land and give aid. That's just stupidity. The people still in New Orleans only have themselves to blame for letting the situation deteriorate into the state it is now.

Click to expand...

AMEN!.....Oops thats a different thread

jaxvon said:

Mac, I'm liberal and you know it. But I'm not stupid enough to blame Bush for oil prices being high (that's greedy gas companies...50+ cents in 8 hours), or for the disaster in the wake of the Hurricane. On one hand, the dikes should've been better. That's a failure of many governments. But of course, people shouldn't have stayed. And now they're shooting at people trying to rescue them, stealing, looting, and rushing helicopters carry food so they can't land and give aid. That's just stupidity. The people still in New Orleans only have themselves to blame for letting the situation deteriorate into the state it is now.

Click to expand...

Well, your no lib then. Libs say it's the govt's fault that all of this is happening there. They say relief didn't get there fast enough. As fo the oil prices, they say that the war is causing them to ho higher. Which is BS, Iraq is producing more oil now than any time in history. You might think your a lib, but your really more conservative than you know.

I think "moderate" is more like it. I've got a real mix of viewpoints that I'm not going to get into. That aside, I can say for sure that I hate stupidity. It's so rampant in our society, NO being a grisly example of it. But one can see it every day, on the road, in the office, in the news, etc. Now I'm not going to pretend to sit on a high and mighty chair and say that I'm vastly superior to everyone around me. I'm not. I can sit here and think of at least 10 people that are much more intelligent than me, that I know personally. I can go to class every day and be astounded by how brilliant some people are. Conversely, I can also go to class every day and be amazed at how stupid people are. Perhaps not all of them are stupid in the IQ sense, but so many people lack common sense that it's frightening. Computer Science majors that don't know how to do basic tasks in Windows, [random example from New Orleans], people who cross a busy street without looking, and the list goes on. Good thing this is the steam vent, because this thing is hitting just about every tangent it could.


Note: Just because I don't stupidly blame Bush for our nations problems does NOT mean I approve of him. I find that some of his policies (or those instituted by people in his administration) to be shortsighted and not in the best interests of the country. Of course, this is my opinion and my only. I'd love to be right, but I honestly don't know who is.

Buckeyefan 1 said:

And as for these standardized tests, how about standardizing the localities, too? Lets mix it up a bit. Transfer half the students in the $10,000 a year private schools to a failing inner city school, and those students to the private school. Now lets see how those transferred students do. Those tests are a bunch of BS in my book.

Click to expand...

Lets see if I've got this straight. In order for a test to be valid it must be tailored to the ethnicity, SES, and geographic location in which it is administered. Hmm...well then, since that is impossible on so many levels (prohibitive cost, introducing a staggering level of complexity to the test design, etc) the only solution, based on your argument, is to get rid of standardized testing altogether.

Great, so where does that leave us? Well, colleges have to have some way of knowing how stupid (or bright) their applicants are but they can’t test (according to you). SATs, ACTs, GREs…all those are out. So they are supposed to just hope they pick good applicants? No, that won’t work. So they interview every applicant. Well, that introduces a whole new level of bias and discrimination that standardized testing eliminated. Can’t tell what race or income level Joseph White is by his name alone, but get him in a room with a number of prejudiced people and all of a sudden you have the ability to discriminate without fear of reprisal. So all the Latinos interviewed poorly? What of it? Not my fault.

And what about the additional costs? Standardized testing is cheap. It’s fast. And it is valid. You may not want to think it is, but for the most part the research has shown that a higher SAT or ACT score correlates with better grades. Are they perfect – no. But ALL other methods would easily double or triple the cost of a higher education in this country and add absolutely ZERO predictive validity. What I am saying is that not only are other methods more costly, most are no more accurate. Some considerable less so. The ones that are more accurate (accepting everyone for the first semester then kicking out the boneheads comes to mind) are cost prohibitive.

But what about all those stupid standardized tests the kids take in school? The CTBS, the SAT/9 (no relation to the college entrance test), and more? What about those tests. Well, Buck, I hate to break it to you, but these are MINIMAL skill level tests. If it is a 3rd grade test, it is testing the absolute least amount of knowledge that one should have in order to be considered a third grader. How is that not fair? Tell me how a 3rd grader in the inner-city schools should be allowed to have a different minimal level of ability than those in the more affluent ones?

In Florida we have the FCAT. Texas has the TAKS. Other states have their own version. Each test is designed to insure that, at each grade level, the child has learned the basics for that grade. The hot topic 10 years ago was athletes not knowing how to read. Standardized testing is a way to help prevent that from happening. God knows what we had before wasn’t working.

The real problem is…the REAL problem…is that people don’t like to be tested. The test wasn’t fair. The answers were confusing. Test anxiety. The test was biased. The room was too hot. The room was too cold. I was sick. My cat got run over the night before and I was distracted. All of these and more affect the outcome of a test – no doubt. But come up with a better solution. I dare you. Many, many, MANY people are trying right now. Beat them to the punch and you’ll be rich.

I’ll leave you with a last example that shows exactly how crazy people get about testing. In one state (pretty sure it’s Colorado) they have (or had, could have changed in the last few years) a statewide reading/writing test. Research has shown conclusively – and by conclusively I mean with an outrageous amount of statistical correlation – that a certain type of multiple-choice question correlates with how well a person can write. But no person outside of the research community will buy it. It doesn’t make sense. How could a multiple-choice question show how well a child can write? But it does. So, what does this state do? Do they educate their populace about how much money the state could save by not having every student in the state write an essay and having to pay to train umpteen-million graders how to grade the test reliably and everything that goes into that? Nope. They all write essays. The state spends millions training graders. All because people won’t believe that a multiple-choice test can show how well a child can write. But it does.

Great points, Tom. I agree completely. Standardized tests that at least test for a minimum aptitude are valuable and necessary. I have never understood the argument about race bias on standardized tests. It's like saying 'Look I'm a (insert minority here) and I am stupid, so it's not fair that I should have to pass the same test as white people. It's dumb and insulting because surely not every non-white person is too stupid to do well on the test nor is every white person learned enough to do well on the same test.

One of my interests is Finance. I laugh when I see books like 'Financial Planning for Gay Women'. Same principle as the standardized testing debate. Money neither knows nor cares whether you are male or female, gay or straight, black or white and the principals of investing and money management are the same for everyone. I don't think it's too much to expect that everyone reach a certain proficiency in the three R's (reading, writing, and 'rithmetic) and be able to pass a test of those basic skills, regardless of what 'type' of person you are.

I grew up in FL and went to school there from Kindergarten all the way through Grad School. We were subjected to standardized tests at practically every grade level. One I remember well is the CLAST (College Level Academic Skills Test) that you MUST pass to get into your college after your first two years. Even if you get great grades, you don't get admitted to your college if you don't pass. I thought it was pretty simple and I think I know what you were getting at with multiple choice questions that may indicate your degree of skill in writing. I remember questions like:

Choose the sentence with the correct tense:
A. I am going fishing, to run, and camp.
B. I am going fishing, running, and camping.
C. I am going to fish, to run, and camping.

If you don't know the correct answer to such a trivial question, the education system has failed you, not the test.

MacManNM said:

Do you watch the news, or read the papers? Every lib in the country is blaming Bush for all the above.

Click to expand...

Maybe they are wrong to blame him for everything??? Is that a possibility, by chance? And I didn't vote for him, nor plan to, ever

Tom,

Why did schools have to go to standardized testing? Why was this not an issue 20 years ago? Are we testing the students, or the teachers?

Buckeyefan 1 said:

Why did schools have to go to standardized testing?

Click to expand...

One word accountability. Standardized testing is a way to hold the children accountable for learning, the teachers accountable for teaching, and the schools accountable for the monies they spend. They had to go to standardized testing because the old way (hoping teachers were good and taught everything a child needed to succeed) was not working systematically. Yes, some were great teachers but some weren’t.

Buckeyefan 1 said:

Why was this not an issue 20 years ago?

Click to expand...

It was, but no one at that time had a solution for the problem. Parents would communicate with each other about who the “good” teachers were and hope that their information was correct. Kids were admitted into college based on whether they had a family member attend or not.

What happened (amongst many other things) was that parents and the community started getting upset about the state of graduates in this country. Think of it from a business point of view. Without some sort of minimal skills test to ensure that graduates have at least X level of skill, the diploma really has very little meaning. Businesses had to know which HS were tougher and which were more lenient. That’s fine if you’ve lived in the area for a long time but not so good for most businesses. They want to know that the HS diploma actually means something.

This should sound familiar. Colleges operate in exactly the same way. Harvard is good. Princeton is good. American College of Mediocrity…maybe not. That is why, in many professions, they have some sort of certification or licensing showing a minimal level of skill in that profession. It’s all fine and good to have a civil engineering degree, but you can’t sign off on your own work until you have a PE. Lawyers have the bar, doctors have the boards. It all amounts to the same thing. Does that that mean there are no “bad” doctors? We all know the answer to that question. But it does mean that even the bad ones have a minimal level of knowledge (unless they cheated).

Buckeyefan 1 said:

Are we testing the students, or the teachers?

Click to expand...

Yes. Accountability goes both ways. In fact, accountability goes all the way to the top. Money for schools comes (at least in part) from the federal government. If children in this country score low, it quickly becomes a political platform for the next election. Standardized testing tests the whole system. If the child scores low, the system failed.

Now that I started all of this I thought I'd throw in a few points. My mother has been a national certified board teacher for 10 years. She was the first Board cert teacher in Ohio. She has only taught in inner city schools in her career. I say this because I have a unique perspective of the problems. I am conservative, and my mother is a typical bleeding heart. The problem is the parents. The teachers can’t teach the kids because there is no support from the home. It puts the middle and upper class schools at an advantage because the parents are much more involved. We can’t expect the teachers to be parents. The funding then becomes unfair because the performing schools get the $$$ and the sub-par schools get less $$$. It is a disaster waiting to happen. The other problem is that most teachers don’t care. They went into the profession because they wanted an easy job, and chances are that they barely made it through college. Most places only require a 2.5 GPA to become a teacher. These are the people teaching your children. Don’t get me wrong there are great teachers out there, but there are more slackers than not. I believe these are some of the reasons the education system isn’t working as well as it should be.

Now back to the original topic.

Is it right for this school to cancel Halloween festivities? Why can’t they have a parade at lunch, and send a note to have healthy snacks?

Now, these teachers get 3 months off in the summer, all federal holidays, and several of these in-service days a year off. This equates to 4 months off a year. I guess these in-service days are for curriculum review and planning. What do they need these days for? Don’t they have 3.7 months throughout the year to do this? To blame the installation of higher standards is pathetic. These teachers are making the kids suffer to promote their political agendas. What is wrong with working for a living? I guess it’s true, “those who can’t, teach”

Click to expand...

If it wasn't for your last paragraph Macman, I would have blown my stack at you . My mom is a teacher as well. Teachers do get paid slightly better in Canada than in the states. That said my mom has her Masters Degree and over 30 yrs experience. She has never received less than excellent on a review. She gets up every morning at somewhere between 5:30 and 6:00. She preps for an hour, goes to school an hour early, and never leaves till after 5:00 pm. She puts in at least 2 to 3 hrs at home grading and getting ready for the next day. If she was an exec at a big company she'd make hundreds of thousands, and I am 100% sure that she'd be getting at least 2 months a year vacation.

I agree with you that in almost every instance the parent is the problem. My mom has a story where she asked a parent if they read to their child at home. The parent got enraged and told my mom rather smugly, " Of course not, it's your job to teach my kid to read!" Ten years from now, that kid is going to be busting their butt to make shift manager at McDonalds, or holding up a liquor store, or god forbid explaining to their kids how it's the teacher's fault they can't add 2 + 2.

I know that there are some slacker teachers out there, but I would argue that the majority are good, hardworking, dedicated professionsals.

MacManNM said:

The problem is the parents. The teachers can’t teach the kids because there is no support from the home. It puts the middle and upper class schools at an advantage because the parents are much more involved. We can’t expect the teachers to be parents.

Click to expand...

This is a particularly astute observation. Research has shown this to be the case but most people don't think about it. It mostly has to do with education level. Those with more education tend to feel at least on par if not superior to school staff. They feel like they should be able to have a say in their child's education. Lower educated people tend to think that school staff knows best and therefore have a, "I raised them so far. Now it's your turn" attitude. Gross generalization but is borne out in the research.

MacManNM said:

The funding then becomes unfair because the performing schools get the $$$ and the sub-par schools get less $$$. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

Click to expand...

This is the big argument against NCLB - it rewards higher performing schools. But once again, what is the alternative? The lower performing schools need the money more - no doubt - but if you reward the lower performing schools then what motivation is there for a school to improve? It's a catch 22 in a lot of ways.

MacManNM said:

Is it right for this school to cancel Halloween festivities? Why can’t they have a parade at lunch, and send a note to have healthy snacks?

Click to expand...

No. That was a totally BS excuse. In my opinion, they are playing politics, making the children their weapon to rile the parents up. Completely unethical. The simple fact is that school is rarely fun. The only thing most children look forward to is celebrations like Halloween. To choose a teacher prep day over a yearly tradition would have me banging down the school’s doors. Time to contact the superintendent of the district. Call the paper. Get people upset. That’s what I’d do.

Oh, and about the snacks. They are absolutely right. Passing out sweets once a year on Halloween is the cause for obesity. Sure it is. It also causes cancer, and hair loss, and SARS. Whatever. What a bunch of tools.

Note, it says, “staff is considering the possibility of not having the usual celebration” not that the celebration is definitely canceled. I’d make sure they knew how emphatically you would disagree with the decision to cancel it.

Takeereasy said:

If it wasn't for your last paragraph Macman, I would have blown my stack at you . My mom is a teacher as well. Teachers do get paid slightly better in Canada than in the states. That said my mom has her Masters Degree and over 30 yrs experience. She has never received less than excellent on a review. She gets up every morning at somewhere between 5:30 and 6:00. She preps for an hour, goes to school an hour early, and never leaves till after 5:00 pm. She puts in at least 2 to 3 hrs at home grading and getting ready for the next day. If she was an exec at a big company she'd make hundreds of thousands, and I am 100% sure that she'd be getting at least 2 months a year vacation.

I agree with you that in almost every instance the parent is the problem. My mom has a story where she asked a parent if they read to their child at home. The parent got enraged and told my mom rather smugly, " Of course not, it's your job to teach my kid to read!" Ten years from now, that kid is going to be busting their butt to make shift manager at McDonalds, or holding up a liquor store, or god forbid explaining to their kids how it's the teacher's fault they can't add 2 + 2.

I know that there are some slacker teachers out there, but I would argue that the majority are good, hardworking, dedicated professionsals.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can compare the US to Canada in these issues. Canada has more of a socialist govt and that is what the US is moving toward. Therefore the definition of poverty is different.

That being said, there are good teachers, I have stated that.

I have a problem with people using these tactics to push their political views. This is pretty much what terrorists do. Why is it wrong for terrorists, and ok for other political groups to use these tactics? It is becoming more and more widespread through our society, as the libs loose more and more elections their tactics become more and more drastic.

My stepdad was a teacher. He worked his tail off for barely enough money to support us. He did it for the kids, not to make money or sit on their tails or whatever else you want to pop off about disparaging teachers.

As to the central question, it smells of ulterior motives to cancel Halloween for educational purposes. And, parents don't do enough to help the education process. But to say that teachers, by and large are selfish, lazy people is one of the most pathetic and shortsighted views I've ever heard.

If we want to attract the best and brightest minds to the noble profession of educating the next generation, we should pay them more, not less. Teachers endure tremendous stress from all sides. Anybody looking for the "easy way out" is in for a rude awakening after getting the job. I doubt many of these people stay long.

miklorsmith said:

My stepdad was a teacher. He worked his tail off for barely enough money to support us. He did it for the kids, not to make money or sit on their tails or whatever else you want to pop off about disparaging teachers.

As to the central question, it smells of ulterior motives to cancel Halloween for educational purposes. And, parents don't do enough to help the education process. But to say that teachers, by and large are selfish, lazy people is one of the most pathetic and shortsighted views I've ever heard.

If we want to attract the best and brightest minds to the noble profession of educating the next generation, we should pay them more, not less. Teachers endure tremendous stress from all sides. Anybody looking for the "easy way out" is in for a rude awakening after getting the job. I doubt many of these people stay long.

Click to expand...

Paying them more does nothing. We have been throwing money hand over fist at the education system for years and have seen no results. You’re right, it’s not fair to say that they are selfish and lazy, but life isn't fair. I have heard my mother speak of these teachers, and I have seen them. I would bet that 30% of teachers are selfish and lazy, 25% just don't care, and the other 50% actually give a damn about their job. Society is the problem here, namely the lack of family values. What is the reason for this? An education system run by liberal tree hugging hippies.

MacManNM said:

Society is the problem here, namely the lack of family values. What is the reason for this? An education system run by liberal tree hugging hippies.

Click to expand...

So you're a lib, eh?

Can you say "dual income families," and "single parent households?" Could this be the issue of the downfall of society?

The college I attended was popular as an education major. It seemed the worst performing students were the education majors. I remember my roommate studying for a final. He was going over basic subtraction and division problems. Here I am trying to figure out Soviet Economics, and Money and Banking. He was struggling.

I think teachers are - as you say, "tree hugging hippies" because of the system. They feed off the government, and must push for school levies for money. Otherwise, they need to get the additional degrees to make more income. You know, the shop teacher with his masters in Sociology making $68,000 a year after 15 years in a wealthy suburban school.

Could you imagine what this country would be like if parents were actually held responsible for their own child's education?

Parents actually involved with teaching their own children.