Ellington

The Clarion-Ledger is making a lot of hay out of recent statistics indicating that only 50.6% of JPS students graduate, rather than the previously estimated 67%. The trouble is that the new figures do not factor in students who are covered by the GED Program; if they did, the actual graduation rate would probably be higher than 67%, not lower.

But this skirts more fundamental issues regarding education in Mississippi, issues that need to be resolved. Here are four proposals that I believe are worth entertaining:

1. Fully fund education.

The MAEP budget guidelines need to be met, period. Failure to meet these guidelines is a simple reflection of the fact that black and low-income white students make up the vast majority of the public school student population, most notably in Jackson, where only 2.13% of public school students are white. As such, failure to adequately fund public education is an act of overt racism on the part of the governor and legislature, and should be identified as such.

2. Expand the GED Program and end the adult daycare model.
3. Exceed MAEP guidelines with regard to high school vocational training.

The function of our educational system should be to educate students, not keep them busy. As such, any student, regardless of age, should be eligible to participate in the GED Program. If the state wants to establish productive compulsory programs to keep kids off the street during daytime, that's great, but the function of our public school system should be to give students a solid education, get them their diplomas, and equip them to enter the workforce. Period. Are we really surprised that teenagers get bored with school when "keeping them off the streets" is treated as the primary objective? Adults don't have daycare centers to "keep them off the streets"; they have jobs. Teenagers who would otherwise be inclined to drop out should have the same option (with some level of supervision), with the understanding that they will continue their education by attending flexibly-scheduled GED classes.

4. Fund the urban university.

There is absolutely no reason why our state's flagship universities should be located in Oxford and Starkville. Jackson is home to the state's largest public school district (JPS), within easy driving distance of our state's lowest-performing public school district (Canton), and it should be home to the state's most robust, well-funded, and well-attended university. Low-income students learn to function based on family, neighborhood, church, and other community roots. When we make relocation part of university life, we send the message that a college degree is what you get when you leave your community and join a different, less rooted community. I've said it before, and I will say it again: If we are serious about reducing crime and poverty, increasing the graduation rate, and ending school segregation at all levels, Jackson State University should and must become the integrated flagship of our state's public university system.

Okay, those are a few of my ideas. Got any of your own to share?

Previous Comments

ID

108492

Comment

Here's a great idea I just read from, I kid you not, Micah Gober of the Madison Republicans on the other blog: Merge the Canton and Madison County school districts to create an integrated school district so the underserved Canton kids (state's lowest graduation state) can benefit from the privileged Madison system (state's highest graduation rate). Damn. That's brilliant. I'm totally serious here; you can consider that proposal #5. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-19T21:36:19-06:00

ID

108493

Comment

Start at the beginning. Head Start needs to be expanded as well. We could not get our daughter into Head Start when we moved back here from KY, because the program was full. The closest Head Start program to us here in Clinton was in Terry or Bolton. We were also told by someone high up in the Clinton School District that she would not feel comfortable in Head Start: that she would need to "be around people who look like her." Take that as you will: I didn't take it very well. But there was nothing that I could do at the time.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2006-11-19T22:10:49-06:00

ID

108494

Comment

Oh, dear. And this wasn't 1965, either, was it? I love how this person in the Clinton district thinks that a toddler would not be "comfortable" around folks of another ethnic background. ("You're a wace twaitor!" "Am not!" "Are too!") I spent my early socializing years at the State Street YWCA. Didn't even completely absorb the concept of being "white" until I was like 9. My best friend growing up was biracial. What kind of world was this pathetic school district official growing up in? Anyway, great suggestion. Yes, let's definitely expand Head Start! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-19T22:32:52-06:00

ID

108495

Comment

I hold that the root of all our problems can be best summed up by Jeff Foxworthy. Some People "just don't get out enough."

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-11-19T23:12:28-06:00

ID

108496

Comment

You forget Mississippi's community and junior colleges, which lost a lot of funding-- more so percentage-wise than did the state-supported universities in the past several years (I'd say since at least 2000, maybe even 1999). Governor Barbour has been consistent (I first noticed this in his 2003 campaign literature) in calling for more funds for community and junior colleges, many of which did receive funding increases for this fiscal year. If I recall correctly, he's also called for increased funding for community and junior colleges in his recent budget submission for the next fiscal year. Hinds Community College is the largest college in terms of enrollment in the metropolitan area. Holmes Community College also has many Jackson-area students attending its Ridgeland campus.

Author

Ex

Date

2006-11-19T23:13:21-06:00

ID

108497

Comment

What I'm interested in is why he wants to increase funding for community colleges, but not for JSU or for our public high schools. Hinds Community College is 46% African-American and Holmes Community College is 35% African-American; JSU, located in the same metropolitan area, is 93% African-American. Knowing Governor Barbour's wither-on-the-vine approach to our majority black K-12 public school system, is it any wonder that his hope for higher education in the Jackson/metro area rests in the community college system? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-19T23:30:00-06:00

ID

108498

Comment

I will say that community colleges do at least allow students to go to college without leaving their communities--but since the largest JPS district and highest-crime city is Jackson, I fail to see why he doesn't believe that putting funds into JSU would accomplish the same purpose for the metro area, with other beneficial side effects. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-19T23:32:36-06:00

ID

108499

Comment

Your post did not mention anything about discipline, the training of teachers, accountability, how students should be tested, curriculum or anything similar. Just about all it said was money, money, money, we need more money.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T00:48:59-06:00

ID

108500

Comment

Tom-- In response to your question why Barbour wants increased funding for community colleges, GovernorBarbour.com states the following: Workforce training was not a state government priority. $43 million of job training money available from the federal government went unspent because the state was not managing the workforce training programs properly. During the Musgrove Administration, the budget for our Community Colleges, which are our principal workforce training institutions, was cut 16%.

Author

Ex

Date

2006-11-20T01:19:36-06:00

ID

108501

Comment

Kingfish, I opened the floor to suggestions. Got any? Ex, I am a little depressed at the 16% cut in the community college budget (I really do like community colleges as a rule), but at least Musgrove didn't stiff K-12 public education. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T03:16:15-06:00

ID

108502

Comment

I have plenty of suggestions. 1. Get our Congressional Delegation to get Goss v Lopez overturned. That has been the biggest impediment to school discipline in the last 30 years. It doesn't matter if you have a private or public school system, intergrated or segregated; if you have no discipline then there is no system that will overcome that factor. I'd be having our Congressional Delegation get with those of other states and working to either get that SC decision overturned or limited. Its effect has been devastating on school discipline. 2. Change the testing and tie it in to teacher pay raises. When I went to Baton Rouge High, a very good magnet school, we were given in science a diagnostic test at the beginning of the year. At the end we were given the same test. One student made D's all year. However, he also learned more than anyone else on the diagnostic test. He was just weak at science. This accounts for having students that are from troubled families or environments. Even if the student doesn't have high grades, it shows that the teacher is teaching him if he makes a good deal of progress on the diganostic test. I can think of few other professions that in the past have had as little accountability as the teaching profession. Having said that, if I went the diagnostic test route, I'd cut back on all the other standardized tests the teachers have to waste their time on during the year. 3. While I'm talking about teachers, have you looked at the curriculum they have in college? I was a Biology major at MC. The Science Ed majors had a curriculum compared to ours that was very watered down. Go online to the college catalogues if you don't believe me. We had to take a year of organic chemistry and then a semester of biochem. They only had to take this special class of organic/bio for one semester that was a very watered down version for Science ed majors. they took very few upper level science courses in comparison to the rest of us. I know some will jump on me for saying that but before you do, go look online and actually compare the curriculums at various colleges. You might be surprised at how much of a difference it is.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T09:03:50-06:00

ID

108503

Comment

that leads into my next idea that the teachers unions will hate. By the way, I'd throw out alot of those education courses and require more subject matter courses for the teachers. 4. This is the case now, but in the past, you had individuals who were true experts in their fields not allowed to teach or had to take alot of education courses first while teachers who were certified by going the regular route didn't have half of the education or expertise are the teachers. Anyone see a problem? We talk about how we want qualified teachers and how we lose them to private sector but we then make it harder for individuals who do have expertise and aren't motivated by higher salaries as much to teach. For example, I have a law degree. Yet in the past, could I teach civics at a high school? Nope. Even if I have much much more training for civics than a teacher, have more knowledge of the court system, etc, I was not considered qualified to teach civics yet a teacher who took a few classes in college and then a bunch of education classes was. I have a degree in Biology and a minor in Chemistry yet I could not teach even though I had twice as many science hours as a science ed major. The way the system was set up in the past, you could have a historian like Stephen Ambrose (I picked his name out at random, I don't have his actual bio in front of me) that is a true expert in the field yet would've been shut out of teaching history classes to students. For those that argue that all of these education classes are necessary, it seems that alot of individuals have no problem to making the jump to adjunct professorships at the college level. Its at the college level but its still using the same skills to teach. The question should be asked then, should such individuals be allowed to teach part time. Suppose you had a retired lit professor living in the area who wanted to teach one or two classes at the local junior high or high school a day. Suppose you had an author like Eudora Welty in her younger days when she was well known and decided she wanted to teach a little on the side or Ms Ladd decided she wanted to teach English Comp part time? Would not the students be better by being exposed to such teachers?

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T09:16:44-06:00

ID

108504

Comment

5. Get rid of the damned calculaters. There is no damn reason for calculators in the earlier grades. I tutor in Algebra some. You'd be amazed at how often students are being taught to use calculators. I have a front page WSJ story from several years ago about how in Louisville, KY the kids were being taught how to do their multiplication tables on calculaters. They were not even being taught how to memorize them or learn them. I realize learning by rote is a dirty phrase here but come on. Instead, they were being taught how to push buttons. Too often I tutor and the students don't know how to do fractions, figure percentages, cross-multiply, and do other basic tasks. When I tutor the first thing I do is take away the calculator. I tell them unless its some large multiplication or division, you dont need it and they don't. Math used to be a branch of philosophy and is a system of logic. The kids need to be taught how to think their way through things, not punch buttons. Other things I like to know is how many teachers choose to go the national certification route and get the pay raise that goes with it. I hear teachers complain about pay and then when I ask them that question, they reply that they have not done so more often than not. I realize there is work, family, etc but there is still a way for them to earn higher pay. Its no different than the rest of the business world. If you go to school for an extra 30 hours to get an MBA, you earn more than a guy with a degree in marketing. Its that simple. Here's another one for you Tom: take a look at the textbooks from 100 years ago. You might be surprised at how much harder they are than the ones now. That would be another area I'd look at as well.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T09:28:34-06:00

ID

108505

Comment

Have I mentioned money? increased funding? Nope. I know Emily and others (I'm expecting Kate to do so, ;-) ) are going to fire away at me. These are just some ramblings from someone who is strictly a layman. If I do not have a proper idea of how some things work I apologize (the teacher cert process for example, that is why I used past tense on that section). We are a poor state and it will be that way for sometime. We can either pour money into education, and it will never be enough, or we can look at other ways to improve it. The discipline would help ( yes teachers, I know how when you DO teach them right or actually use fair discipline here come the parents raising hell over their little angel being forced to work hard or you were unfair to him) and improve the environment for teachers.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T09:31:52-06:00

ID

108506

Comment

1. Sorry, but students have constitutional rights, too. Goss v. Lopez may be an impediment to discipline, but due process must be part of the system. 2. I'm generally in favor of testing, so I can see some merit to what you've got in mind (though I wouldn't go so far as to say that I favor it; I'd need to think about it), but this has to be handled carefully. The test must ALWAYS change in format, content, and so forth to such a degree that the instructor can't "teach to" the test--in other words, the student must demonstrate subject knowledge, not test preparation skills. We also need to bear in mind that privileged students will generally test better because they are more comfortable, do not have as much to lose, and are more likely to have been coached on how to take tests. 3. I am well aware of how easy the undergraduate education curriculum is, but I'm not sure removing pedagogy from the requirements entirely is the answer. Right now, certification requirements are what they have to be given the current limitations of the system. Think about it: If we make it harder to become a teacher without dramatically increasing pay ("throwing money at the problem"), then we will have fewer teachers, therefore larger classrooms, therefore a decreased-quality educational experience, therefore more need for "accountability," therefore tougher requirements, therefore fewer teachers... It's a vicious cycle that needs to end, now. If teaching were an $100,000/year profession, the requirements would be stricter, period, because the free market would demand it--hell, most teachers would probably have graduate degrees. Like most issues in our public education system, this is a funding problem. You get what you pay for. [continued]

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T16:39:57-06:00

ID

108507

Comment

4. There is such a thing as alternate route certification, and it isn't hard to do; two light semesters of night classes (or one heavy semester of classes) on pedagogy and you're in, provided that you already have a degree in another field. If I wanted to get AA certified, I could easily do so in time to teach summer classes--and if I wanted a temporary exemption to teach in the spring (which Stephen Ambrose would most certainly get, for example), then I'm reasonably sure I could find a school willing to give me that, too. 5. I'm with you on this one; I don't like calculators, either. I agree that students should be taught to, at the very least, do their math problems on paper. This is half the problem with the way math is taught today. Re textbooks: Look at the enrollment rate 100 years ago. Back then, schools were supposed to be for the privileged classes; now they're supposed to be universal. Also: Students had fewer textbooks and were not expected to learn the range of disciplines they are today; they were more specialized. Also: Rote learning (submit, memorize, regurgitate, submit, memorize, regurgitate) was emphasized, and little attention was paid to actually making sure that a student understood stuff in an organic, enduring way. So yeah, look at the textbooks, sure, but look at what the average adult knew 100 years ago compared to what the average adult knows today and you'll realize why we don't use that approach anymore--and why there's some value in those (admittedly too easy) pedagogy classes. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T16:40:04-06:00

ID

108508

Comment

Goss V Lopez ruined discipline in schools. It sounds so innocent: every student due process rights and is entitled to some form of hearing. Suddenly, every parent that felt little Johnny had a grievance decided that his due process had been denied and would file suit against the school. One of the main reasons discipline in school is weak is the fear of lawsuits. I even had college professors at MC tell me when we would complain about a student cheating by looking off of other papers that he couldn't give him a zero because he could be sued. Consitutional rights are one thing. However, kids are minors as well. That means they do not have fully formed powers of reasoning in their earlier stages. There is a reason kids are not allowed to initiate contracts, testify in some trials (its not until they are older in custody cases that the court will follow their wishes), and exercise other "rights" that an adult enjoys. I had a teacher tell me not to wear a Reagan t shirt. Was I mad about it? Yeah. Did it injure me? No. Its because of Goss V Lopez that the whole can of worms was opened and you see situations like in tupelo where a teacher is accused by the parent of assaulting her kid (which were false charges) and was strip searched by the police. Goss V Lopez has done more to damage school discipline than almost any other factor in the last 40 years.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T17:27:07-06:00

ID

108509

Comment

Actually, Kingfish, there is another whole side to that issue that you do not seem aware of. Let's just say: You're wrong.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-20T17:30:06-06:00

ID

108510

Comment

I am familiar with the alternate route for certification. that was why I spoke in the past tense. It has only been in effect for a short time. I'd still grant a waiver if you have experience at a higher level such as community college or a university. However, I'd still address what I said were the differences in the ed majors and the majors that are non ed in subject matter areas. take some time one day and go look at the online catalogues for colleges and compare what is required for math or science majors. You'll be surprised if you have not done so.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T17:32:36-06:00

ID

108511

Comment

Ok. I'll bite. How so?

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T17:33:45-06:00

ID

108512

Comment

Kingfish, allow me to introduce myself. I am Tom Head, co-author of Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning. I am well aware of what an education major requires, and I am well aware of the fact that education degrees are generally much easier than degrees that don't involve pedagogy. This does not mean that pedagogy is not worth teaching; this means that courses on pedagogy need to be more rigorous. Unfortunately, there are already too few teachers, so unless you think the solution to all our problems is fewer teachers and larger classes, you need to be prepared to dramatically increase the budget if you're going to dramatically increase the requirements for teacher certification. As far as Goss v. Lopez goes, your post on this matter speaks to my desperate need to do something on my civil liberties site pertaining to the rights of students and minors. I've been putting it off for a while because it's such a complex subject, but clearly public literacy on this issue is not very high, so it's getting to be time. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T17:37:57-06:00

ID

108513

Comment

It's simple. You are trying to find examples that would show why due process isn't important for kids, and obviously you can come up with ridiculous ways that the right is used, as you can for any "right." However, what is much more horrifying are all the ways that children's, and family's rights, are violated in school discipline, which makes it necessary to reaffirm the fact that minors are entitled to due-process protection. This is a serious issue. It was serious enough for me that I spent six months studying the ways children are hurt by discipline, especially "zero tolerance" policies (and was pay $25,000 to do it, I'm happy to report). The point of saying that is: You cannot be answered in a sentence or two. There are many thousands of examples of how families are hurt by these "discipline" policies that show why families need due-process protections. Your kneejerk reaction to this is very naive.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-20T17:39:39-06:00

ID

108514

Comment

What amazes me about all this: Kingfish says that public education staff are incompetent and undertrained, and yet in the same breath he says he wants to remove due process requirements protecting students from these purportedly incompetent and undertrained professionals. WTF? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T17:41:39-06:00

ID

108515

Comment

That's a typical line from people who do not support public education.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-11-20T17:46:30-06:00

ID

108516

Comment

Waaaaaaaaaait a second. WHERE did I say they were incompetent? I said undertrained in terms of subject matter. Big difference between that and how they handle kids in class. Yes, I think they are undertrained in some disciplines. All I have said is look at the curriculums and judge for yourself. I place a huge emphasis on subject matter and its mastery. I think a teacher who has taken more higher level college science classes as the science majors has is a better teacher for doing so. I never said incompetent. Not once.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T17:48:07-06:00

ID

108517

Comment

The one point I'll give him is that college education requirements are too easy--but that's because teachers are underpaid. We need teachers. We already have too few. So if you want to increase certification requirements for teachers, you'd better be prepared to dramatically increase their pay scale--and that means more funding. I mean, all of this basically does boil down to funding. People say it's all about money for us liberals, but I don't see these people renting $250/month apartments or buying all their food off the clearance rack. If you're willing to pay more for higher quality products and services, why shouldn't our government be willing to pay more for a higher quality public education system? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T17:49:22-06:00

ID

108518

Comment

Kingfish, I hear what you're saying, but I will reiterate: The fact that pedagogy classes are too easy means that pedagogy classes should be more rigorous, not that we shouldn't require pedagogy classes at all. Subject mastery is good, but the main thing a teacher needs to know how to do is teach. My mother had me prepared for college at 14, and she didn't even have a bachelor's degree at the time (she's a retired RN). What she had were good pedagogical skills. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T17:52:09-06:00

ID

108519

Comment

By the way, what you just posted falls in line with the conservative arguements for education. If we followed supply and demand economics, we would allow districts to pay more for science and math teachers as they are harder to find. However, the minute you suggest that, the teachers unions will complain about how that is not fair to other teachers, etc. I haven't argued with you at all about funding. I'd look at cutting back on some of the so called education requirements and increase the subject matter ones if that is the case. I'd be curious to know how other countries handle the curriculum of ed majors.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T17:54:34-06:00

ID

108520

Comment

Oh, and by the way: When Mom did get a bachelor's degree (by exam, the same way I did), she ACED the education GRE with no studying, at a sufficient level to get the maximum credit evaluation for it. Mom is and was very well-read, but she was an autodidact; she didn't have the kind of degrees demonstrating "subject mastery" that you're asking teachers to have. Mainly, she knew how to teach and she was willing to self-educate about a subject to better teach her student. If classroom teachers know how to do that, they don't really need subject area specialization. A good teacher can teach physics just as well as English literature, given adequate preparation time. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T17:55:22-06:00

ID

108521

Comment

I definitely agree that having Coach Smith teach biology because nobody else is available is not a good thing, but this speaks to teacher interest level in math and science more than anything else. It is not hard to get certified to teach in a different field if you want to, but most teachers just aren't very interested in math and science as disciplines, and if they're not interested, they run the risk of transferring that level of non-interest to students. I wouldn't necessarily be averse to higher funding for math and science teachers, but it needs to come with a package that includes higher across the board funding for all teachers. It's not as though nobody has to take remedial English; we need to see some improvement across the board. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T17:58:16-06:00

ID

108522

Comment

As an RN she also had her share of advanced science courses. I have news for you, a good teacher can NOT teach Chemistry or physics as well as English Lit. I minored in both. There are plenty of smart people who are good at English and literature but will not understand trig and the related laws of physics to teach it well to high school students. Some good teachers will be able to do so, some will not and it has nothing to do with preparation.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T17:59:16-06:00

ID

108523

Comment

And by the way, if teaching paid twice as much as it did today, teaching slots would be competitive--you'd have no trouble finding math and science teachers. That's simple supply and demand, as you point out. I can't keep track of what's liberal and conservative. What I'm interested in is what works, and the #1 criterion is that the government needs to make public education a priority, not something that it reluctantly does for "those people" who can't afford private schools. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T18:00:09-06:00

ID

108524

Comment

Kingfish writes: As an RN she also had her share of advanced science courses. ...which makes it all the more remarkable, based on your model, that my strongest subjects were composition and literature. Call me crazy, but I think I have a better understanding of my mother's academic background than you do. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T18:05:27-06:00

ID

108525

Comment

I took the same pre-reqs as she did. I know all about the classes she took in college. That is still 4 years of work from start to finish to become an RN. I said there are exceptions but that not all good teachers can teach any subject either. Some can obviously. But I can tell you from experience at Millsaps, Hinds, and MC as well as LSU the students that could master both English and science courses were not that common. By master I mean going several classes past the survey course.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T18:14:01-06:00

ID

108526

Comment

Kingfish writes: I took the same pre-reqs as she did. I know all about the classes she took in college. No, I'm afraid you have absolutely no clue what classes she took in college; she did her degree before you were born. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T18:26:43-06:00

ID

108527

Comment

And this speaks to the entitlement issue, by the way, which I would say is what keeps cropping up in these threads about education, sexism, racism, and so forth. I mean, I've actually seen my mother's transcript because I helped her plan out her bachelor's degree--she did hers a year after I did mine, from the same place--and yet you're telling me what this transcript, documenting courses she took in another state before you were born, says. Doesn't that make you feel just a little silly? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T18:40:01-06:00

ID

108528

Comment

weeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllll............. I'd say your mom took A&P, Microbiology, Chemistry, and other science courses at some point in her educational career or the some form of those. wouldn't you?

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T19:16:36-06:00

ID

108529

Comment

entitlements?

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T19:17:28-06:00

ID

108530

Comment

Kingfish wrote: Goss V Lopez ruined discipline in schools. It sounds so innocent: every student due process rights and is entitled to some form of hearing. Suddenly, every parent that felt little Johnny had a grievance decided that his due process had been denied and would file suit against the school. One of the main reasons discipline in school is weak is the fear of lawsuits. I even had college professors at MC tell me when we would complain about a student cheating by looking off of other papers that he couldn't give him a zero because he could be sued. I don't buy that statement with regard to colleges. I've taught classes in which I could (and did) give students zeroes for cheating and plagiarism. I've made sure to mention the authority in syllabuses and refer to appropriate sections in the appropriate college publications. I've not had any legal problems.

Author

Ex

Date

2006-11-20T19:17:34-06:00

ID

108531

Comment

Ex: I was surprised too. 3 of us went to professor and told him. He said he knew it and that is exactly what he told us. I didn't say he was right.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-20T19:48:43-06:00

ID

108532

Comment

Kingfish writes: I'd say your mom took A&P, Microbiology, Chemistry, and other science courses at some point in her educational career or the some form of those. wouldn't you? Those are pretty standard parts of an R.N. curriculum, yes. What's your point? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T19:51:22-06:00

ID

108533

Comment

Call me Lyndon Johnson, but what education needs most is more money. Investing in education is investing in democracy, and that is supposed to be our abiding passion. We have heard such groaning about government inefficiency for so long that we take it for granted, but anyone who has worked for a major corporation knows how inefficient they are. The problem is people! (Shouted as if Soylent Green is people, which it is!) Americans are such resentful cheapskates that we will not fund education or health care, even those are basic maintenance for a great power. We won't even properly fund or equip our conquering armies. But we'll pay that $3.99 ancillary charge on our cable bill and never make a peep.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-11-20T23:47:29-06:00

ID

108534

Comment

Agreed. Universal education and universal health care are achievable, they would have been easily achievable with that $1.4 trillion bribe that Bush calls a tax cut or the God-only-knows-how-much we'll turn out to have put into that mess in Iraq, but we pissed it all away. And that'll be the legacy of the Bush administration: It was the administration that had it all--money, a mandate, control of all three branches of government, international good will--and pissed it all away. What a wonderful country we could have been living in if the administration was run by folks who care about all of us, instead of folks who only care about lining the pockets of its donor base. I would say history will condemn the Bush administration, and it will, but the more depressing truth is that history will condemn us. We had the option of good or evil. We went with the bribe and picked evil. Kyrie eleison, kyrie eleison, Christe eleison. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-20T23:53:24-06:00

ID

108535

Comment

"We could not get our daughter into Head Start when we moved back here from KY, because the program was full. We were also told by someone high up in the Clinton School District that she would not feel comfortable in Head Start: that she would need to "be around people who look like her."... Lady Havoc makes a good point ( I am biased --- I work for Head Start). We are striving to get more ethnically diverse families to enroll in Head Start but we have to overcome old entrenched attitudes such as that exemplified by the Clinton official. I was often among only 2 or 3 African Americans in classes growing up and I seem o.k. The non-African American children who are enrolled in Hinds Head Start seem to be well-adjusted also. Head Start needs to be expanded to allow us to serve more than just those below 100% of the poverty level. We are reaching almost all of those below 100% in this county. There needs to be an expansion that would allow us to serve more children by extending income eligibility up to at least 150% of the poverty level. The public schools will benefit by children coming to school knowing more letters, numbers and phonemic sounds --- the building blocks of success.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2006-11-21T14:03:11-06:00

ID

108536

Comment

Except for Tom, all I've heard from anyone is throw more money at education. No one has suggested looking at discipline in schools and how to improve it. No one has suggested looking at how teachers or trained or what educational theories are used. What exactly is the best way to teach kids to read for example. Should education be co ed or single sex? Should social promotion be halted? The current education model is accepted as a golden calf and the only question asked is how much gold can be placed at its altar. I suspect that if such questions are asked someone here will write that that is a conservative position and what they usually say, as if that invalidates it. However, I think such questions need to be asked and that education is not going to be improved necessarily even if we give all the money requested for education. as for zero tolerance policies Ms Ladd, obviously most of those are a knee jerk reaction to Columbine, Pearl, Padukah, etc. There are going to be excesses on either side of the coin as you well know. However, we didn't have discipline problems until after Goss v Lopez as the culture of lawsuits took hold of academia. I can see where you are coming from. What I have a problem with in your posts is that you don't acknowledge at all that discipline is a problem in schools (in line of course with your anti-death penalty philosophy) or that educators and principals feel their hands are tied too often by a fear of lawsuits.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-22T01:03:37-06:00

ID

108537

Comment

Kingfish, I should try that approach whenever I get a bill. "All I ever hear about is how I need to throw money at the problem. Where are your new ideas?" But something tells me the strategy doesn't work when we're not talking about universal social services. Nobody would ever complain about how we're just "throwing money" at the Iraq War, for example, or just "throwing money" at corporations in the forms of subsidies, or just "throwing money" at voters in the form of tax cuts. No, for some reason this line of argument only works when we're talking about, you know, taking care of people. I think that's very sad. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-22T03:31:57-06:00

ID

108538

Comment

that is dead wrong Tom. I know alot of people who debate back and forth about tax cuts. You go to the WSJ editorial page and they favor tax cuts in the form of marginal rate reductions and in investment. You go to corporations, they tend to favor subsidies (which people like Thomas Sowell oppose). Others tend to advocate tweaking the tax code for their own special interest. As for Iraq, there is no monolith of opinion in conservative circules on how money should be spent there. The debate has been pretty heated between Buchanan, the neocons, and others. I don't know anyone who favors the war in Iraq or who favors staying there who just wants to increase funding. I hear alot of debate over strategy, tactics, and goals. You and I debate about the best way to teach kids. I favor increasing the subject matter mastery of the teachers, which I don't think you oppose. We debate about the best way to teach math. My point is that the policies, teaching methods, testing, curriculum, etc is rarely examined in these debates. I merely pointed out that other posts only said to the effect that we should fully fund education and little else. At least you and I are discussing some of those things and not just funding. When I read the CL editorial page pushing for educational issues, it usually involves funding and building things and little else.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-11-22T09:52:17-06:00

ID

108539

Comment

Okay, fair enough. And thanks especially for the first paragraph on the varieties of economic conservatism--I knew this, and I should have known better than to make such a sweeping statement. I apologize. But it does depress me that folks don't see universal public education and universal health care as the two most important investments this government can make. If more people are healthy and educated, everybody wins. If fewer people are healthy and educated, everybody loses. It's not rocket science. We'll end up paying higher bills anyway in the long run if we don't make these investments--for prison or at least social services if the poor can't find a niche in life, for emergency medical care if they don't go to doctors. Universal social services like public education and health care ultimately save the government a great deal of money by making enabling people to function and participate better in society. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-11-22T15:03:31-06:00

ID

108540

Comment

"I don't know anyone who favors the war in Iraq or who favors staying there who just wants to increase funding. I hear a lot of debate over strategy, tactics, and goals." Kingfish's statement makes me wonder about why people only talk about "throwing money at problems" in the debate about improving education for poor children. A recent New York Times article cites a plethora of research that indicates that in addition to changes in curriculum and methods MORE MONEY is needed to lure better teachers, provide high quality pre-school to all in need and to extend the school year and the class day. The foundation of capitalist economic theory says that you incentivize the behavior that you want to see. How are we incentivizing poor children when we spend much more money on the education of children who are better off than we do on poor children? Logically, shouldn't the opposite prevail? Should we not spend MORE money on those children who are more in need -- the least of these among us? Kingfish states that he doesn't know anyone advocating more money in Iraq only changes in tactics. Does Kingfish not realize that all of these "changes in tactics" involve money? Many, including John McCain, are advocating an increase in troops. Would not increasing troops involve throwing some more money down that Arabian rat hole? I would rather throw some money at poor children in America.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2006-11-28T10:44:09-06:00

ID

108541

Comment

Because nothing in this world is free, even that Kingfish mentions as non-money-throwing solutions, actually do (surprise!) cost money. If you are talking about changing teaching methods or curriculums, then you will have to "throw" some money at that solution as well. The only relevant question is not whether money will be "thrown", but only WHERE we will throw it!

Author

FreeClif

Date

2006-11-28T10:50:25-06:00