CBS "News" strikes AGAIN

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:KJdQb.3700$U%5.21168@attbi_s03...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
I figured you would want to throw parents who wouldn't pay for their
kids
education into jail. Looks like it was a bad guess.

People would educate their kids that same way the feed them, cloth them,
care for their health..the same way they do those things for them now.
If
they fail to do those things now, we call it...what?

That depends. If the failure is because the costs far exceed the parents'
income, we call it poverty and lend a hand, as we should.

No; it's called "irresponsibility". Any money spent on "educating their
kids" is going to be $$$ down a toilet...as wee see now where such kids
rules the schools. So, thus, it's a double whammy.

First, if the cost of feeding, etc, exceeds the parents income, they would
be less prone to breed IF there was no subsidy for irresponsibility. OTOH,
if someone decides to help those in trouble through no fault of their own,
there's already programs in place. Today scholarships and other programs
would be great, and are in fact reaching a heck of a lot of kids. It's also
amazing that so many parents that can't afford books, a computer, etc., can
afford all sorts of other "toys".

Now, if you want to sell your plane and donate the proceeds to some
open-ended education fund (no strings attached on the parents) be our guest.

Tom,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and would really like to see many
of these irresponsible parents get slapped. Especially the ones that had no
buisiness having kids in the first place.

However, what do you do to keep from punishing the kid for his parents
irresponsibility?



"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:KJdQb.3700$U%5.21168@attbi_s03...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
I figured you would want to throw parents who wouldn't pay for their
kids
education into jail. Looks like it was a bad guess.

People would educate their kids that same way the feed them, cloth
them,
care for their health..the same way they do those things for them now.
If
they fail to do those things now, we call it...what?

That depends. If the failure is because the costs far exceed the
parents'
income, we call it poverty and lend a hand, as we should.

No; it's called "irresponsibility". Any money spent on "educating their
kids" is going to be $$$ down a toilet...as wee see now where such kids
rules the schools. So, thus, it's a double whammy.

First, if the cost of feeding, etc, exceeds the parents income, they would
be less prone to breed IF there was no subsidy for irresponsibility. OTOH,
if someone decides to help those in trouble through no fault of their own,
there's already programs in place. Today scholarships and other programs
would be great, and are in fact reaching a heck of a lot of kids. It's
also
amazing that so many parents that can't afford books, a computer, etc.,
can
afford all sorts of other "toys".

Now, if you want to sell your plane and donate the proceeds to some
open-ended education fund (no strings attached on the parents) be our
guest.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Tom,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and would really like to see
many
of these irresponsible parents get slapped. Especially the ones that had
no
buisiness having kids in the first place.

However, what do you do to keep from punishing the kid for his parents
irresponsibility?

You don;t punish the kid...you punish the parent.

As for the kid, as mentioned there are a lot of programs (such as School
Trusts in the various states), but the problem is dealing with kids that
just don't want to learn. Throwing them into schools only causes enormous
disruptions.

As for me, we made sure all my kids got good _educations_, (not
indoctrinations) so that they could support my wife and I in our old age.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Tom,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and would really like to see
many
of these irresponsible parents get slapped. Especially the ones that
had
no
buisiness having kids in the first place.

However, what do you do to keep from punishing the kid for his parents
irresponsibility?

You don;t punish the kid...you punish the parent.

As for the kid, as mentioned there are a lot of programs (such as School
Trusts in the various states), but the problem is dealing with kids that
just don't want to learn. Throwing them into schools only causes enormous
disruptions.

They used to be segregated from the normal kids. Now days everybody gets
thrown into the same pot and everybody in the pot rots. Doesn't seem it
would take much brain power to figure out this particular social experiment
doesn't work.

As for me, we made sure all my kids got good _educations_, (not
indoctrinations) so that they could support my wife and I in our old age.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Judah wrote:

That's what happens when teachers make minimum wage, and celebrities make
$100,000 an episode...

Well, teachers haven't made that little in a LLLOOONNNGGG time! Around here, the
going rate is around 50K for substitutes and over 70K to start for regulars. By
comparison, starting pay for a software developer with an MS is about 50K.

According to salary.com the median pay for a teacher in New Brunswick, NJ is $51,
927 with the 25th percentile salary at $41,143. I think this is probably much
closer to reality. NO schools start at 70K and many top out below that. Somerset
High School is about $2,000 lower and NYC about $2,000 higher. Substitutes in
Fairfax County, VA get $10 an hour. Subs are almost always hired by the hour with
no benefits. A starting teacher in Fairfax County gets $35,813 and 7% of that comes
off the top to pay for pension (yes, we pay our own). Fairfax is considered a "good
paying" district in a very expensive area. 40 miles west of here the pay drops
almost $10,000 a year. http://www.fcps.edu/DHR/salary/scalepdfs/04tchr195.pdf
shows more realistic teacher salaries.
Margy





George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Judah wrote:

My kids are just starting in school. My son is in 3rd grade and my daughter
will start Kindergarden next fall.

Please advise on how I can ensure that my children grasp the knowledge
presented to them.

Ask higher order questions on Blooms Taxonomy (analysis and synthesis
questions) about the material they are presented. They need to know the who,
what, when , but the why and how shows understanding.

Don't push abstract concepts on young children!! Earlier is not better! Read
some Piaget. Don't teach little kids algebra (my 140 + IQ daughter struggled
through algebra in 7th grade and would have done fine in 8th. Even though
she's good in math (A in second semester Calculus as a first semester freshman
at Penn State) she's not confident in math because of that experience.

Due to the pressures of standarized testing students get more information and
less time to work on basics. Make reading and writing fun and practice at
home. Have your kids write the grocery list and do the grocery shopping. Have
them estimate what the total bill will be as they go through the store. Have
them play imaginitive games not on the computer. Make sure they play outside,
turn part of the yard into Mars or something and they can build vehicles to
explore. Ask them to write down what they do "on Mars" for you to read when
you get home from work. Write notes to your kids to convey information. "
I'll be home at 6:00 and then we can go to the store".

Contray to the uninformed opinion of other posters teachers really do study how
minds work. Make sure your kids DO when they are learning. Lecture format has
a 5% retention rate whereas adding a simple write it down increases it to 30%.
The more interactive the learning the higher the retention. For kids who have
a tough time spelling marching the words out to a tune really helps. Also make
sure your kids drink enough water as brain research has shown that dehydrated
brains don't absorb knowledge (most schools now allow the kids to carry water
bottles if they are clear plastic).

Margy



Thanks.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in
:


"Michael Houghton" wrote in message
...
snip
Well, if in sending my kids to public schools all these years (they're
all in or past college now) I'd seen even ONE that comprehended HOW the
young minds grasps knowledge I'd say "most". That's not been me
experience.


I won't deny that there are a significant number of teachers whose
ability to teach is questionable, but many teachers actually give a
damn about their students, doing their best to *teach*. Oh, and "rote
learning" is not so nearly ubiquitous as you would claim.

"Giving a damn" is completely worthless if they don't know _HOW_ it
works.

Your tirade is so full of manure that it is laughable -- or would be
if you weren't expressing a range of opinions that are painfully
common.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.


yours,
Michael



Best,

Tom

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

2) Dig out all you can about the Montessori method

So you can know why you want to avoid it.

And why is that?

Many Montessori schools only go up to 6th grade (some 3rd) and the students
often have a tough time transitioning to a more structured environment. Some
Montessori schools are more involved with making sure the parents (the ones who
pay the rather steep tuition) happy than making sure the children progress.
Some children do very well with the Montessori method and others do very
poorly.






5) Find some good works about abstract thinking and concept formation
(note: this teaches children to make associations, rather then just
perform memorization)

Also note that the ability to think abstractly is a developmental stage
that
typcially happens rather late.

Kids are good at forming concepts from the time they're about two or three.
So how do _you_ determine when they're ready?

Read Piaget, although his sample size was totally inadequate his theories have
played true for years.



Trying to cram abstract thinking into kids
who aren't developmentally ready for it isn't any better than rote
learning.

If they're ready for learning (other than potty training and the like) they
can start with easy concepts.

Not higher order, abstract concepts! Keep it concrete and real for kids under
about 12.

Margy

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

1) Avoid public schools

The education a child gets in school is more a function of the child than
the school.

2) Dig out all you can about the Montessori method

Some kids do better with this, some worse.

Since it is basic fundemantals, why would some do worse?


Because of the teaching techniques.

Corky Scott wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:28:42 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:

The Look-Say rading methods; 1940's - still in place

It's spelled "reading" and most schools are teaching reading using
phonics now.

Some educational methods work well and don't need changing. Phonics
is one of those things. Schools kind of got away from it back in the
late '60's and '70's, developing something called "whole language",
which was presented as a better method without any testing actually
being done to see if it really was more effective or not. It wasn't,
and most educators now acknowledge that phonics, which is not new, is
by far the more effective method.

ACK!! I knew we would get into phonics/whole language sooner or later.
The sad truth is NEITHER is better for all students! Some kids can't
learn to read with whole language and need phonics. Others find phonics
frustrating and boring and do much better with whole language. Some of
the best reading systems I've seen use a combination of both (Reading
Mastery is one good one) in a structured fashion with old fashioned basal
readers!

Margy



So just because the method may seem old doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Also, children tend to learn almost despite the method with which they
are taught. Smart kids learn. Children with attitudes, which they
inevitably pick up from their parents, often have trouble in schools.

Corky Scott

Rob Perkins wrote:

(Jeb) wrote:

Montessori method- God I can't believe some people still hang with
that method. Ok for the 80s but the world has moved on - but when you
are deperate or .....

My sister has seen remarkable success with her kids in a Montessori
school. My niece is on track to enter a community college at age 15 or
so...

Not always the best idea either. I've seen way too many kids who go off
to college at 14 or 15 and end up as social misfits. Make sure your niece
maintains contact with AGE APPROPRIATE peers. This is of course also very
hard to do as the kids the same age as your neice are "boring, dumb,
etc.". We were fortunate enough to have a school system that provided a
segregated program for advanced students starting in the 3rd grade. All
the "scary, smart" kids went to school together. They still behaved like
10 year olds, but it was a bit different. For example: When the girls
(5th grade) woke up in the cabin on the field trip SCREAMING about the
bugs walking over them the conversation quickly digressed into what type
of bug it was and how you could tell (with the approprite field guide
coming from someones backpack). She stayed in high school full time and
graduated high school with 24 AP credits, but still did all the high
school stuff (plays, proms, color guard, etc.)

Margy