Why the heck is school out today????

I was downtown just a few minutes ago and noticed that school was out. I thought Uncle Joe and the Keystone cops we have for a legislature wanted kids in school 180 days!! Did I miss something?

Cato

The county/school is probably taking a faculty/senate day to give the kids a 4 day weekend, and in essance, the teachers a 4 day weekend.

Extending the school year to 210 days and going year round would take care of the 180 day problem.

Aaron wrote:The county/school is probably taking a faculty/senate day to give the kids a 4 day weekend, and in essance, the teachers a 4 day weekend.

Extending the school year to 210 days and going year round would take care of the 180 day problem.

Braxton also sent the kids home after they fed them their lunch.

A faculty/senate day is an "early out" day and a complete waste of time, money and resources for everyone involved.

On "early out" days they bring the kids to school, ....... feed them breakfast, ........ entertain them for an hour plus, ....... rush to feed them their lunch ...... and put them back on the busses and send them home.

And of course, that "hour plus entertainment w/food" is counted as one (1) of those 180 Instructional Days.

And iffen ya want "more of the same" then extend the school year to 210 days ....... and you will also get demands by the Teachers, School Service Personnel and their Unions for MORE MONEY, ........ MORE SICK DAYS ........ MORE PERSONAL DAYS OFF ....... and a BIG INCREASE in your PROPERTY TAXES to pay for it.

And the students will not benefit one iota from said changes.

Perhaps we should just eliminate public schools Sam.

Yesterday I went to Ritter Park in Huntington for rose clippings. Suddenly I hear, "Why aren't you in school?" followed by all this laughter. There were a few public school teachers who had called off work to get free rose clippings.

John Mara, the garden guy from WSAZ, was there cutting and handing out the clippings. He said, "What are you think you're doing skipping school?"

One of the women replied, "We have to. We can't afford to buy roses."

That is a true story, people. They say they can't afford roses, yet apparently they think taxpayers can afford to pay substitute teachers so they can get them for free. When their students haven't made sufficient progress this year I'm sure they'll blame it on their deplorable pay and working conditions, or poor parenting, or Boooosh for NCLB, or me for homeschooling.

Aaron wrote:Perhaps we should just eliminate public schools Sam.

Now that you are back working and making big money ......... why don't you write those Teachers a weekly check so that they can order their Rose clippings, etc., etc., On-line and won't have to take the day off to go get freebies somewhere,

Or better yet, maybe you could take the day off and do their errands for them.

I'm sure your boss wouldn't mind being it for a good cause, ...... its "for the children", ya know.

I'm not making big money, I'm making enough to get by and I'm still going to school. And you didn't answer my question. Would you have us shut down all public schools?

Aaron wrote:I'm not making big money, I'm making enough to get by and I'm still going to school. And you didn't answer my question. Would you have us shut down all public schools?

While I can't answer for Sam, I can answer for my self. If I could work my will, I would push private education at the expense of public education. I would not however close public education, but they would have to compete with private education. If a person chose to educate their child in a home school sitting or in a private school I would give them a tax credit equal to the amount their real estate, personal property, and state income tax that goes to public education. I would further not allow private schools to be regulated in anyway by the state Department of Education. The only thing I would require is testing be completed at the end of the 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th grades to determine the quality of the product.

Parents, not teachers, not government goons, or politicans bear the responsibility for seeing to their child's education. When that responsibility is placed back on the parent and they are expected to live up to that responsibility, then vast majority will start taking an interest in their kids education. Additionally, the fact of the matter is when public education has to compete with private education, public education would improve. Right now it has absolutely no incentive to improve.

That's reasonable Cato. The only thing I would add is that I would drop compulsory education at some point but that's just me and the influence Stephanie has had on me. Why force kids to go to highschool that don't want to be there, only create a need for teachers who end up babysitting and cost money.

Why not end mandatory school at a middle school level and from there on, make it all voluntary for the students with the family choosing where a kid goes to school and allow the tax dollars to follow them, whether it be a charter, private, public or home school?

That's it, I've corrupted Aaron! lol

I would not totally dismantle the public school system. I would, however, dismantle the federal Department of Education. I would also repeal compulsory education and teacher tenure laws. I would allow vouchers for families to use for private, parochial, and homeschoolers.

That would be a good start.

Aaron wrote:That's reasonable Cato. The only thing I would add is that I would drop compulsory education at some point but that's just me and the influence Stephanie has had on me. Why force kids to go to highschool that don't want to be there, only create a need for teachers who end up babysitting and cost money.

Why not end mandatory school at a middle school level and from there on, make it all voluntary for the students with the family choosing where a kid goes to school and allow the tax dollars to follow them, whether it be a charter, private, public or home school?

I agree with you on compulsory education. In my humble opinion kids ought to be required to attend school up through the maybe the 4th grade. At that point they should be able to read, write, and do basic math. From that point on school should be voluntary. However, said kid remains the responsibility of the family. If he chooses not to attend school, it is his family's responsibility to keep him off the streets and out fo trouble.

Stephanie wrote:That's it, I've corrupted Aaron! lol

I would not totally dismantle the public school system. I would, however, dismantle the federal Department of Education. I would also repeal compulsory education and teacher tenure laws. I would allow vouchers for families to use for private, parochial, and homeschoolers.

That would be a good start.

I agree in dismantling the Federal Department of Education. I'll go one step further and say the same for the state Department of Education as well.

I also agree with the voucher system so long as it doesn't exeed the amount of money the family pays in taxes.

I also agree with the voucher system so long as it doesn't exeed the amount of money the family pays in taxes.

No, that doesn't go far enough, Cato, and I'll tell you why.

It doesn't provide any kind of choice for people living in poverty. I don't believe in making children suffer for the sins, or misfortunes, or stupidity of their parents. That isn't even the primary reason why I say that. I say it because the per pupil cost is so much less in almost all cases than that of public schools. So, taxpayers can fund an inferior public school education for $9,000 a year, or they can give a bright student a better education with a $5,000 voucher. In many school districts it would be the only way to create competition and improve the public schools.

I do agree there needs to be some limit on the expense. Perhaps up to 80% of the per pupil cost of public school.

Stephanie wrote:

I also agree with the voucher system so long as it doesn't exeed the amount of money the family pays in taxes.

No, that doesn't go far enough, Cato, and I'll tell you why.

It doesn't provide any kind of choice for people living in poverty. I don't believe in making children suffer for the sins, or misfortunes, or stupidity of their parents. That isn't even the primary reason why I say that. I say it because the per pupil cost is so much less in almost all cases than that of public schools. So, taxpayers can fund an inferior public school education for $9,000 a year, or they can give a bright student a better education with a $5,000 voucher. In many school districts it would be the only way to create competition and improve the public schools.

I do agree there needs to be some limit on the expense. Perhaps up to 80% of the per pupil cost of public school.

Why should my labor be taken to provide for another by the government?

What galls me so about this attitude that I owe another who is in poverty is that it ends up where I have the resourses taken that I could use to provide for my kids so another's kids are taken care of. I've dealt with that with my children's college education. While I was being taxed to provide for the so called under privilaged, they got a free education and I and my kids had to borrrow to put for their schooling. That is BS in my book.

Right now my wife is having health issues, while I struggle to pay medical bills my insurance doesn't cover, the government has no problem taking 40% of my income to give to some who here illegally or lacks the spunk to work. I've played by the rules my entire life and I'm just plain sick and tired of taking care of everyone else and then needing to struggle to take care of my own.

So am I to understand Cato that you desire to completely privatize education without giving any form of subsidies for poor children?

Aaron wrote:So am I to understand Cato that you desire to completely privatize education without giving any form of subsidies for poor children?

The following is what I said at the beginning of this thread:

Cato wrote:

... If I could work my will, I would push private education at the expense of public education. I would not however close public education, but they would have to compete with private education. ...

Why should the state provide any subsidies beyond a refund of the taxes one pays? It is not any taxpayer's responsibility to provide a private education of another's child. Further just like the college system, both public and private education would exist. However, now they have to compete. As Joe Hardy, the owner of 84 Lumber once said, "it is competition that keeps us sharp".

A couple of additional thoughts by the way. The second the state starts offering subsidies, is the second the state starts exercising influance in private education. Once subsidies start be offered the definiation of poor will change to help the politicans buy votes. Ultimately you'd be right back where you started, with a system that is a complete and total failure.

Perhaps. Teachers have become corrupt for basically the same reason, money-and have placed their jobs above educating our youth, right!!!

Aaron wrote:Perhaps. Teachers have become corrupt for basically the same reason, money-and have placed their jobs above educating our youth, right!!!

Yes many have. However, what I was talking about with regard to government subsidies was influances like requiring lower standards for some students, limiting discipline, the assinine push for self esteem above all else, and not demanding the highest performance.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Perhaps. Teachers have become corrupt for basically the same reason, money-and have placed their jobs above educating our youth, right!!!

Yes many have. However, what I was talking about with regard to government subsidies was influances like requiring lower standards for some students, limiting discipline, the assinine push for self esteem above all else, and not demanding the highest performance.

Yes, and that includes teachers. If they don't settle for lower standards, limiting discipline, low self esteem and low performance, then neither will students. After all, they are part of the equation, are they not?

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:Perhaps. Teachers have become corrupt for basically the same reason, money-and have placed their jobs above educating our youth, right!!!

Yes many have. However, what I was talking about with regard to government subsidies was influances like requiring lower standards for some students, limiting discipline, the assinine push for self esteem above all else, and not demanding the highest performance.

Yes, and that includes teachers. If they don't settle for lower standards, limiting discipline, low self esteem and low performance, then neither will students. After all, they are part of the equation, are they not?

That's true Aaron. However, in West Virginia anyways the standards and practices are mandated by the State Board of the Education, not by the individual teacher.

I know where direction comes from but teachers have to share in the blame. They're not innocent victims in what has become of our educational system. Not when the BOE is the largest employer in 34 states and there are so many teachers, former teachers and spouses of teachers in the legislatures. If they truly wanted to, they could demand changes.

I agree with you on compulsory education. In my humble opinion kids ought to be required to attend school up through the maybe the 4th grade. At that point they should be able to read, write, and do basic math. From that point on school should be voluntary. However, said kid remains the responsibility of the family. If he chooses not to attend school, it is his family's responsibility to keep him off the streets and out fo trouble.

So we let 10 year-olds decide their future? They can't enter into contracts or drive a car, but we are going to let them drop out of school?

Here we have a glut of positions that need a high level of education (when was the last time you saw an "english-as-a-first-language" medical specialist, for instance?) and we are going push even fewer kids into striving and learning the tools you need to become a surgeon or a physicist or a research pharmacologist.

Ever so short-sighted.

I'm curious Terry, have you been in the high schools lately? If you had, you would see they are failing miserably. My second, Donnie went to WVU on a Promise Scholarship out of high school. After the first semester, he said he would have been better prepared had he went to Morgantown after his freshman year instead of wasting 3 years in high school.

That tells me we either need to get them out earlier or toughen up the curriculum and begin teaching college caliber courses in high school. The problem is, if we do that, the failure and drop-out rate will increase and kids won't be going to school anyhow.

I would agree that 4th grade is a little young but certainly 9 years is enough and that a 15 year old should be sufficiently educated and mature enough to make decisions about what he wants instead of shuffling them off to high schools they don't want to be in and we can't afford to keep open.

Yes, TerryRC, I do know English speaking medical specialists. And none of them got that way in 6th grade.

Yes, TerryRC, I do know English speaking medical specialists. And none of them got that way in 6th grade.

Nor is it likely they would have have if they dropped out in fourth grade. How many young teens go to school because they MUST? I'd say most of them. Also the above cite is not what I said. I said "english-as-a-first-language". We can deny that more and more foreigners are taking these specialized jobs but we would be lying.

I'm curious Terry, have you been in the high schools lately? If you had, you would see they are failing miserably. My second, Donnie went to WVU on a Promise Scholarship out of high school. After the first semester, he said he would have been better prepared had he went to Morgantown after his freshman year instead of wasting 3 years in high school.

That is his opinion. Both of my neighbor's daughters graduated from Sissonville HS and got to skip some freshman classes because they has college credits (AP, I guess) and tested out of others.

They don't think their HS school failed them. Perhaps Donnie didn't take full advantage of what his school offered.

I would agree that 4th grade is a little young but certainly 9 years is enough and that a 15 year old should be sufficiently educated and mature enough to make decisions about what he wants instead of shuffling them off to high schools they don't want to be in and we can't afford to keep open.

Then why don't we allow them to enter into legal contracts, marry without parental consent, drink or join the armed forces?... wait, I know this one... because most of us don't consider them universally mature enough to make those kind of decisions.