I'm looking over the Harry Reid race, and it appears they went full metal crazy. In addition to the usual withdraw from the UN and abolish the department of education nonsense, this woman wants to privatize medicare.
She wants to replace a system that has a 97% money to payout ratio with a private system that will spend 5 times as much on administration.
Oh God, her wikipedia article gets worse. She wants to abolish the tax code,
And she started ranting about deregulating offshore drilling in the middle of of the oil spill.
If she wins I get to have this woman on CSPAN *and* I'm rid of Harry Reid.
In the interest of reasoned and intellectual discourse, I'll ask your opinion on this:
OTHER than desegregation of the school system, what other great steps has the dept of education accomplished since its inception?
what do you say to the fact that education levels have fallen across the country since its inception and the fact that we're
way behind other industrialized nations in education?
do you believe standardized testing as mandated by the Fed are beneficial and a good measure of a child's ability to learn?
how do you reconcile the lowering of the bar to meet the lowest common denominator of student (I.E. passing students so they can stay in the same class with their peers)
what would you change to address the literacy rate among college age students within the current framework of the dept of edumacation?
Truly, I am curious and would love to have a reasoned talk about it, as I also believe that the Federal Dept of Education has failed in ways that a more local, state run or community run group would have become much more competitive.
I'm not saying abolish everything.. but the mandates that bind the hands of teachers and administrators, that give parents no say in the form of their children's educations..
I'd really love to hear the other side of this from someone who's passionate about their position, without ad hominem.
Killing the dept of education is part and parcel of ending all federal funding for schools. States already have the option of ignoring the federal gov when it comes to education if they don't want the money.
Also, integration of the schools was 20 years before the dept of education was founded.
Besides desegregation, we need central oversight of the education system to avoid things like Kansas teaching Creationism or Texas teaching that America was founded as a Christian theocracy. The Fed sucks at everything, but somebody has to make sure an education from California is as valid as one from Vermont. If you leave control to States or, God help us, local school boards, there will be all kinds of crazy shit being taught to American kids.
QuoteKilling the dept of education is part and parcel of ending all federal funding for schools. States already have the option of ignoring the federal gov when it comes to education if they don't want the money.
Yeah, I've never heard of a state rejecting federal funding for education.. and this could honestly be my lack of knowledge on the issue but I'm really beginning to research this issue.. currently dating an elementary education major and the shit she tells me that the DOE mandates sounds like a bunch of bull shit. I'm trying to talk her into taking her degree and using it in the private sector as she wont have nearly the out of pocket expenses the DOE requires (yearly fingerprints?? why not just run the fingerprints she paid $180 for last year)
QuoteAlso, integration of the schools was 20 years before the dept of education was founded.
thanks for the clarification.. I admit I didn't do the research before I posted. That will not happen again.
QuoteBesides desegregation, we need central oversight of the education system to avoid things like Kansas teaching Creationism or Texas teaching that America was founded as a Christian theocracy. The Fed sucks at everything, but somebody has to make sure an education from California is as valid as one from Vermont. If you leave control to States or, God help us, local school boards, there will be all kinds of crazy shit being taught to American kids.
Isn't that what accreditation accomplishes? I have to admit my bias here for honesty's sake.. I'm not worried about math and science.. the evidence put forth in those fields will be a driving force for all but the most heavily indoctrinated.. I firmly believe the children of the 70's and 80's are moving away from religious indoctrination at a steady enough pace to have it moved from the group think mind within the next 15-20 years.. I'm more worried about history, politics and economics and the way it is taught.. Are you telling me that being taught that we to go into WWI is a good thing in our national interest? That the treaty of Versailles was a good thing? That teaching our children that the reason we went into WWII was because we HAD to take out Hitler (and not mentioning the fact that the second front against Russia was already guaranteeing his downfall) or that we only declared war after Pearl Harbor even though we had sanctions against Japan long before they attacked us? Since the Fed is so concerned about Education, why hasn't there been a class added to the curriculum mandated that teaches children about currency, capital, and debt, it's uses and abuses?? If this had been something we brought our children up learning in schools, we would likely have less of a debt problem than we have now.. (speculation is speculation, I know..)
Secondary to that, the text book writers write new books every single year that add only what we've learned.. um.. within that year.. but charge the same price for a brand new book, draining your bank account or driving up the price of student loans and what state governments have to pay for those books.. does every state use the same text book? then how are we guaranteeing our children aren't being taught something different from children in other states? they're not.. it's a profit motive.
I'm delving into the realm of private, university education here and I realize that.. but I can't help but think it's all a little bit linked..
this should have really probably gone into rants.. I've had this bottled up for a long time.. but since I don't share my thoughts anywhere it has all come out here.
It isn't personal, but I'd love to hear another perspective.. unlike some other libertarians, I really am receptive to new ideas..
I'd still like someone to address the questions in my first response.
FACT: I've been drinking this evening, and I apologize if this rambles on.. and on.. and on..
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 05:10:10 AM
I'm not worried about math and science.. the evidence put forth in those fields will be a driving force for all but the most heavily indoctrinated.. I firmly believe the children of the 70's and 80's are moving away from religious indoctrination at a steady enough pace to have it moved from the group think mind within the next 15-20 years..
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/99153999.html?showAll=y&c=y
It's going to heat up down south... we're already losing ground in Texas and according to some right wing blog Tennessee is next. Be prepared for a brutal war of attrition. Every time someone pronounced them dead they just keep coming back.
I'm not meaning to join the debate Vrtig0 here though. I'm not American and much of your concerns deal with American federal politics and every country has a different bureaucracy and therefore different challenges.
Though I will say if I was by some act of divine providence you guys made me American presidente (refuse to to be president) your military spending would be cut in half and lot, and I mean lot, more would be delegated to education, including post secondary. There would be also a lot more prostitutes around the white house.
Quoteyour military spending would be cut in half
half isn't enough.. it's already some obscene amount of GDP and other than the countries we supply military hardware to, we can expect no
international threats to possibly defeat us..
It's a few very powerful people making a lot of money selling expensive, RnD tech to other very powerful people and governments..
and using tax dollars to do the RnD on really unnecessary equipment..
no one has matched us since the 80's and if anyone has, it's because we sold them the tech.
but that is really for another thread.
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 05:34:52 AM
we can expect no
international threats to possibly defeat us..
You obviously don't know about our Canadian Moose Cavalry do you?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 19, 2010, 05:29:17 AM
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 05:10:10 AM
I'm not worried about math and science.. the evidence put forth in those fields will be a driving force for all but the most heavily indoctrinated.. I firmly believe the children of the 70's and 80's are moving away from religious indoctrination at a steady enough pace to have it moved from the group think mind within the next 15-20 years..
Though I will say if I was by some act of divine providence you guys made me American presidente (refuse to to be president) your military spending would be cut in half and lot, and I mean lot, more would be delegated to education, including post secondary. There would be also a lot more prostitutes around the white house.
If you want more money for schools then start teaching creationism, but demand that all the students families pay a tithe to the school. If the family refuses to pay their tithe to the Holy School of the lord Jesus Christ then their child gets the heathen course about monkeys and Darwin.
But in all honesty, throwing money at the schools doesnt fix them, we need some sort of reform.
QuoteYou obviously don't know about our Canadian Moose Cavalry do you?
thanks for reminding me that this is all.. ALL of it..
really just very absurd.
sleep now.
DOE didn't prevent Texas from rewritting history and I'm not sure they will prevent Dan Schruender from being in charge of school policy. Besides signing the checks what do they really do?
Nothing, they don't even cause the problems, that's capitol hill fucking up our schools, the DOE just gets stuck with that policy.
So they just want to remove the middleman?
I was hoping for anarchy :(
The problem is while there may be good reasons for wanting to remove the DOJ's say over the school cirriculum (historical studies, have shown that a national cirriculum was one of the main tools in forging a national identity in the late 19th/early 20th century, for example, with all the idiocy that entails) it's that a Republican is proposing it, and I for one find it impossible to believe in the good intentions of the GOP, because they don't have any. They're a party of oligarchs run on spite and disenfranchisement, and that attitude informs their every policy.
I don't know, if I were a Nevadan, I'd be pulling the lever for "none of the above". Angle may be bat-quano crazy nuts, but Reid is a spineless lump of fail. I'd rather have some crooner from a Vegas martini bar in office at this point.
Apparently, Angle is a Christian Reconstructionist (http://www.slate.com/id/2264348/), who believes that the Rapture
has already happened, and Christ will return once we have gotten the secular government out of the business that is supposedly under Christ's domain, and have established Biblical Law.
QuoteReconstructionists prioritize reforming America into what they consider a godly country and bringing the legal structures of our country in line with Old Testament law, with a specific eye toward pushing the government out of all arenas they consider the sole province of church and family.
How this is any different from those who claim muslims want to establish Sharia in the US, I have no idea.
Anyway, to tie this in to the ongoing discussion, she wants to get rid of the DOE because she believes that education is a religious matter, and not subject to secular concepts. Or regulations. Or standards.
Unfortunately for her, Earth's gravitational pull still equals 9.80665 m/s2 and dense objects thrown at the head are still likely to cause brain damage, though in her case it may be hard to tell the difference.
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 05:10:10 AM
Isn't that what accreditation accomplishes?
Who is the accreditation authority, if not the DOE?
And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.
QuoteAnd while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.
I don't argue against this concept.
But standardized tests are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning. Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.
I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 19, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.
Unless you're a republican or a libertarian, in which case you prefer an aristocratic approach.
NCLB was an abortion to begin with. Standardized testing is shit. Back in my day, we had ONE test...The Iowa Basics. It happened once a year, and it was effective in determining what areas were in trouble. It was basic math, English, etc. It worked for decades.
Then we had NCLB, which forked over billions to standardized test-making companies that suddenly sprung into existence, and it hasn't done shit except allow the pinheads to point out that "We're spending more money on education than ever, and it's still failing." They neglect to mention that this extra money is being given to certain people to make bullshit tests, not being used to fix the system.
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 04:22:37 PM
QuoteAnd while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.
I don't argue against this concept.
But standardized tests are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning. Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.
I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.
...so what would you use to quantify the results of what is being learned? What litmus test do you think is better or more usable or flexible than what we already use? How should we determine that students are learning the skill sets they need in order to survive? Notice I didn't say "compete" or "succeed."
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 04:22:37 PM
QuoteAnd while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.
I don't argue against this concept.
But standardized tests as they are currently designed and promoted are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning. Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.
I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.
It is slightly more difficult to design a standardized test that does not encourage regurgitation, but it can be done.
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 04:25:19 PM
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 04:22:37 PM
QuoteAnd while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.
I don't argue against this concept.
But standardized tests are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning. Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.
I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.
...so what would you use to quantify the results of what is being learned? What litmus test do you think is better or more usable or flexible than what we already use? How should we determine that students are learning the skill sets they need in order to survive? Notice I didn't say "compete" or "succeed."
How did we do it in 1962?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:24:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 19, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
And while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.
Unless you're a republican or a libertarian, in which case you prefer an aristocratic approach.
NCLB was an abortion to begin with. Standardized testing is shit. Back in my day, we had ONE test...The Iowa Basics. It happened once a year, and it was effective in determining what areas were in trouble. It was basic math, English, etc. It worked for decades.
Then we had NCLB, which forked over billions to standardized test-making companies that suddenly sprung into existence, and it hasn't done shit except allow the pinheads to point out that "We're spending more money on education than ever, and it's still failing." They neglect to mention that this extra money is being given to certain people to make bullshit tests, not being used to fix the system.
The actual framework of NCLB started out ok, it just ended up fouling up what was already working because no one built in the caveats that would keep that from happening. It causes states like CA that already HAD a system for regulating what was going on in the classroom to back up, either tank the funding used for the one already in place or have them compete against each other, which confused not only school districts but also the teachers and classroom teaching that needed BOTH sets of funding to survive the ever-decreasing budgets.
Not to mention NCLB became one of the WORST unfunded federal mandates.
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
That was our best decade for public education, for the most part. How did we get by without NCLB back then?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:27:39 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 04:25:19 PM
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 04:22:37 PM
QuoteAnd while NCLB and standardized testing have been greately mishandled, and are certainly weighed down with beurocracy and politics, the concept of making sure that all children are sufficiently educated is not a bad idea.
I don't argue against this concept.
But standardized tests are little more than regurgitation of knowledge crammed into several months at the sacrifice of real learning. Teachers now let other subjects fall by the wayside as they attempt to teach to the test to secure better funding for their school.
I don't know what the solution is, but the status quo is failing in a big way.
...so what would you use to quantify the results of what is being learned? What litmus test do you think is better or more usable or flexible than what we already use? How should we determine that students are learning the skill sets they need in order to survive? Notice I didn't say "compete" or "succeed."
How did we do it in 1962?
Personally, I don't want to go back to 1962. I'd rather move forward...the fact that urban and segregated (and then desegregated) schools suffered EGREGIOUSLY through inadequacies in funding is a great excuse. Folks think we have disproportionate funding system NOW--back in '62, it was horrifically bad, the difference in resources between white and "urban" schools. ONE projector for films in a school of 500+ students, for example.
The reason we have federal and state mandates, by the way, is because of those funding discrepancies back in the day. It's SUPPOSED to ensure more equalization in funding.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
That was our best decade for public education, for the most part. How did we get by without NCLB back then?
I challenge you to look at black and latino achievment back in those times.
Sure, white middle class students did awesome.
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 04:30:58 PM
Personally, I don't want to go back to 1962. I'd rather move forward...the fact that urban and segregated (and then desegregated) schools suffered EGREGIOUSLY through inadequacies in funding is a great excuse. Folks think we have disproportionate funding system NOW--back in '62, it was horrifically bad, the difference in resources between white and "urban" schools. ONE projector for films in a school of 500+ students, for example.
The reason we have federal and state mandates, by the way, is because of those funding discrepancies back in the day. It's SUPPOSED to ensure more equalization in funding.
Saw that one coming. Okay, so we had two systems. One worked, and one didn't. The fact that one didn't means that no good ideas can be garnered from the system that DID work.
Because it was all funding, there wasn't a single literate Black person in America until the end of that decade.
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 04:31:42 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
That was our best decade for public education, for the most part. How did we get by without NCLB back then?
I challenge you to look at black and latino achievment back in those times.
Sure, white middle class students did awesome.
Which means that the teaching methods used by the White system that did work are obviously on the level of the medical experiments at Auschwitz, and can't ever be studied or used elsewhere out of shame.
Righteo, let's keep writing standardized tests. We're bound to get it right eventually.
The problem is not as simple as "abolish the DOE" or "get rid of standardized testing." The problem is pretty complex as the funding for this, that and the other is gummed up in bureaucracy. I've been studying this and have been in the middle of this debate for YEARS. Close to a decade. I've talked with the Legislative Analysts Office, I've sat in Governor Schwarzee-poo's office and debated with HIS people. Gone to seminars, written letters, visited leg offices in Sacramento. Harrassed people on the phone in the San Diego local leg offices.
But here's the kicker: this problem is big because the number of students we are now teaching is larger than ever before. They keep saying "cut the fat, cut the fat" and when your budget is 80% teachers and classified employees (bus drivers, janitors, school librarians and office clerks), that means cutting teachers, etc., at least in my school district.
And cutting programs, like GATE. Cutting stuff that might enhance and round out what your kid is experiencing in "how to be a drone 101" school, but isn't "necessary" and so isn't mandated by law. And cutting school counselors and psychologists, who might be able to stave off the next school shooting, or keep that girl off the streets who's been offered a "sweet deal" by her "uncle" to make money. What does she need school for, anyway? (Anyone ever look at the child trafficking stats lately?)
So, as state budgets have hit the skids, so has education funding. Now, the "don't throw money at it, run it better!" camp seems to think that we don't need to increase funding to offset standard of living adjustments, population increases, and other changes in what we call "life" and its costs. No, just do better with less!
Ok, so you cut your administration in half, lay off a third, rollback the salary of EVERYONE to pre-2000 levels, and cut counselors, nurses, librarians, teachers' aides, ancillary after-school programs, teacher-training, and what do you have left?
Parents making up the difference. And that's what's happening, Folks. In the neighborhoods the parents can AFFORD to buy more supplies, volunteer in the classroom, make copies, fund all the art, music, PE and after-school programs, those kids are not feeling the pinches nearly as much.
Guess what's happening in the schools where the parents 1) can't 2) don't know they need to 3) haven't a clue what's going on because they don't care?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 04:31:42 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
That was our best decade for public education, for the most part. How did we get by without NCLB back then?
I challenge you to look at black and latino achievment back in those times.
Sure, white middle class students did awesome.
Which means that the teaching methods used by the White system that did work are obviously on the level of the medical experiments at Auschwitz, and can't ever be studied or used elsewhere out of shame.
Righteo, let's keep writing standardized tests. We're bound to get it right eventually.
I don't know what you mean, but I don't see the two as equal, Rog.
Polemics aside, Dok brings up a good point. How could we ensure that every child receives and equal level of sufficient education without resorting to standardized testing?
I know that I was thinking soley in ways of making standardized testing non-regurgitable, not for other ways to go about it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 04:30:58 PM
Personally, I don't want to go back to 1962. I'd rather move forward...the fact that urban and segregated (and then desegregated) schools suffered EGREGIOUSLY through inadequacies in funding is a great excuse. Folks think we have disproportionate funding system NOW--back in '62, it was horrifically bad, the difference in resources between white and "urban" schools. ONE projector for films in a school of 500+ students, for example.
The reason we have federal and state mandates, by the way, is because of those funding discrepancies back in the day. It's SUPPOSED to ensure more equalization in funding.
Saw that one coming. Okay, so we had two systems. One worked, and one didn't. The fact that one didn't means that no good ideas can be garnered from the system that DID work.
Because it was all funding, there wasn't a single literate Black person in America until the end of that decade.
That's not what I said. But are you going to say that what we have now is worse? I don't think it is.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 19, 2010, 04:43:07 PM
Polemics aside, Dok brings up a good point. How could we ensure that every child receives and equal level of sufficient education without resorting to standardized testing?
I personally don't see standardized testing, per se, as the root of all evil here.
But that could be because it pays my bills.
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 04:44:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 19, 2010, 04:43:07 PM
Polemics aside, Dok brings up a good point. How could we ensure that every child receives and equal level of sufficient education without resorting to standardized testing?
I personally don't see standardized testing, per se, as the root of all evil here.
But that could be because it pays my bills.
Well, some people were complaining about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you identify the main problem as one of funding?
To bring the two points together, is there a way to complare proportional percentages of funding in the successful schools in 1962 with the schools of today?
That is to say, were schools funded better back then, and by how much?
Federal school funding for public schools started in the late nineteenth century (anyone listen to "Backstory"? It's on NPR sometimes, I download the podcasts...). Basically, the states tried to wrest the power from the feds in how to run the schools because they wanted to keep them segregated (remember "separate but equal"?). But once the desegregation laws and lawsuits made Federal public school funding a state compliance issue, the Department of Education was then thought to be a good way to more or less nationalize the standards across the board.
However, the DoE still relied upon the states' abilities to regulate themselves, and as you can imagine, there were plenty of smaller public schools that just didn't make a difference in the communities they were in to the point that they helped the public to rise above their problems. This started to change in the 70's and 80's, though, and standardization (with the help of public funding changes and standardized tests that allowed a more calculable way of gathering data across many planes of factors) of public education became more realizable.
I don't know where Roger's getting "1962." Again, I'd posit the data (which in large part would be missing, because the sort of things going on in 1962 in urban and minority school populations was something to be hidden under a rug, not put on a plate and advertised or shared) would not show favorability for a number of reasons.
As for better or adequate funding back then, again, I think the tax base in certain areas required that the schools there would be better than where the tax base wasn't so high.
The problem is complicated. Getting funding of any kind is too damned complicated. Unfunded federal mandates (where schools and districts MUST, BY LAW, spend their money a certain way, even if it doesn't benefit the school or takes more away from the school than it gives), lack of equalization in funding, teacher contract issues, teacher training issues, lack of best practices being shared, etc. are all little things that can add up to a lot. I've written a lot on these subjects and lectured a lot on these topics for PTA and our school district.
Sigh. I'm not denying the problem is huge and not helped by reliance on testing rather than training. But throwing out testing is throwing out baby with the bathwater, to me. I like quantifiable results. Why? They hold people accountable, they're accessible, and they make sense for a place like the US that has few communities that are across the board terribly similar. You have a large area with a wide distribution of population characteristics. It makes sense to use standards-based curricular assessments.
How about this: keep one standardized test as a basic check on educational quality, but make funding for schools dependent on how well the students in those schools do at the next level of education. Elementary schools' funding is tied to their students' performance in middle school; middle schools' funding is tied to their students' performance in high school; and high schools' funding is linked to the percentage of their students that go on to receive degrees or meaningful certifications in college or vocational schools.
What determines what the performance is? What keeps schools from inflating grades and shoving kids into grade levels they aren't prepared for, in order to get the funding? (This is already happening where such things are required, and the audit system required for this becomes another sticky wicket, but I'm sure it could be done if it's tailored to a specific standard that's held across the board.)
If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 05:10:37 PM
What determines what the performance is? What keeps schools from inflating grades and shoving kids into grade levels they aren't prepared for, in order to get the funding? (This is already happening where such things are required, and the audit system required for this becomes another sticky wicket, but I'm sure it could be done if it's tailored to a specific standard that's held across the board.)
Do away with "skipping grades" by creating effective "advanced" classes where students do not move
ahead in the material, but rather go
deeper and learn more background material, history, and theory. Measure performance as it relates to funding by national, universal standardized tests that are graded by humans and contain at least 50% essay questions as opposed to simple multiple choice (scoring for grammar throughout), but do not use these tests to determine students' grades. Determine grades with traditional classwork under a curriculum approved and standardized nationally.
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 04:43:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:33:39 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 04:30:58 PM
Personally, I don't want to go back to 1962. I'd rather move forward...the fact that urban and segregated (and then desegregated) schools suffered EGREGIOUSLY through inadequacies in funding is a great excuse. Folks think we have disproportionate funding system NOW--back in '62, it was horrifically bad, the difference in resources between white and "urban" schools. ONE projector for films in a school of 500+ students, for example.
The reason we have federal and state mandates, by the way, is because of those funding discrepancies back in the day. It's SUPPOSED to ensure more equalization in funding.
Saw that one coming. Okay, so we had two systems. One worked, and one didn't. The fact that one didn't means that no good ideas can be garnered from the system that DID work.
Because it was all funding, there wasn't a single literate Black person in America until the end of that decade.
That's not what I said. But are you going to say that what we have now is worse? I don't think it is.
Dunno. What I DO know is that I had to memorize the multiplication tables in grade school, and I can still do fairly complex problems in my head. My kids were taught using coins (presumably to teach them how to be good little WalMart clerks), and only the fact that *I* made them memorize the tables has given them that basic skill (My son is in AP Calc. His friends are in "math studies", which used to mean that you were ahead of everyone, but now means that they're trying desperately to ensure that you can pass college algebra). If you did a word problem when I was a kid, and the math was right, but there was a problem with the English in your response, the problem was marked incorrect (if you can't communicate your ideas, your skills are meaningless). Of course, I had the benefit of a Canadian education.
When I was in grade school, lo those many decades ago, if you couldn't pass a class, you were held back a year. The school was not penalized for this occurring.
Lastly, and this is outside of the purview of the schools, my parents and grandparents were involved in my education, just as my folks and myself are involved in my kid's education. Many parents work 2 jobs just to make ends meet, and others either don't care, or view school as a "turn key" operation in which their support isn't required. And some just don't give a shit. Little Billy doesn't understand his homework? Well, dig the shit out of your eyes and try harder, mom and dad are watching NCIS.
Quote from: Cain on August 19, 2010, 05:17:36 PM
If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.
This.
Here, the majority of funding is gained from property tax. Poor neighborhoods therefore get shit for schools, and the posh kids get the equivalent of a small university.
QuoteDo away with "skipping grades" by creating effective "advanced" classes where students do not move ahead in the material, but rather go deeper and learn more background material, history, and theory. Measure performance as it relates to funding by national, universal standardized tests that are graded by humans and contain at least 50% essay questions as opposed to simple multiple choice (scoring for grammar throughout), but do not use these tests to determine students' grades. Determine grades with traditional classwork under a curriculum approved and standardized nationally.
I like this idea.. it's the first new approach I've heard in some time that sounds workable.
off subject:
For the record, I never intended to hijack this thread.. but I can't say I'm disappointed with the results..
who knew there was a place on the internets to have reasoned discourse? Admittedly I've usually been too busy to look for one and BBS don't usually keep my interest for very long, but I'm seeing more and more said here that makes me really like this place.
I think I'll stick around for awhile.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 19, 2010, 05:17:36 PM
If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.
This.
Here, the majority of funding is gained from property tax. Poor neighborhoods therefore get shit for schools, and the posh kids get the equivalent of a small university.
They removed property tax from our ability to fund schools. Prop 13 actually ended up causing Prop 98, which set up a mandate of 66% of every General Fund budget must go to education. And then this has been set aside as unfundable by Schwarzenegger since the get-go. 98 had built into it failsafes galore like population and standards of living increases. Those have been halted pretty much since 2005. And we've been dealing with larger populations with smaller amounts of money every year.
We can pass parcel taxes, though, but we need supermajority vote to do that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 19, 2010, 05:17:36 PM
If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.
This.
Here, the majority of funding is gained from property tax. Poor neighborhoods therefore get shit for schools, and the posh kids get the equivalent of a small university.
I remember when I was still teaching music (what 3 years ago) the private school was basically a dream job. Classes where small, the kids well behaved and the teachers were given so much leeway in teaching. Like if the biology teacher wanted to go outside for a class they just did it. And did it without any board breathing down their neck.
Also had this brilliant way of keeping any government off their back (there's a cap on tuition in Canada). They kept tuition low but only excepted students from a specific neighborhood.
I was talking to one of the main administers one day and she was telling me in the long run smaller class sizes end up being cheaper. The larger the class size the more you pay per student. The main problem the public board faced was real estate and upkeep.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 19, 2010, 05:44:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 19, 2010, 05:17:36 PM
If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.
This.
Here, the majority of funding is gained from property tax. Poor neighborhoods therefore get shit for schools, and the posh kids get the equivalent of a small university.
I remember when I was still teaching music (what 3 years ago) the private school was basically a dream job. Classes where small, the kids well behaved and the teachers were given so much leeway in teaching. Like if the biology teacher wanted to go outside for a class they just did it. And did it without any board breathing down their neck.
Also had this brilliant way of keeping any government off their back (there's a cap on tuition in Canada). They kept tuition low but only excepted students from a specific neighborhood.
I was talking to one of the main administers one day and she was telling me in the long run smaller class sizes end up being cheaper. The larger the class size the more you pay per student. The main problem the public board faced was real estate and upkeep.
I went to a working class public school in Hamilton, Ontario, and we had small classes, well behaved (God fucking help you if you stir up a ruckus) kids, and - for the most part - good facilities (old, but more than adequate).
I have precisely zero complaints.
Of course, that was in the 1970s. Things have probably gone downhill since then.
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 05:36:55 PM
For the record, I never intended to hijack this thread.. but I can't say I'm disappointed with the results..
Threads just evolve, or devolve, or just fall into complete nonsense around here. We don't care either way. It's not pretty at times and it sometimes becomes complete chaos, but it's how we like it.
The only thing if the OP wants, or if it's evolving completely into something else and someone wants the mods can split the threads into two separate threads.
Quote from: vexati0n on August 19, 2010, 05:24:54 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 05:10:37 PM
What determines what the performance is? What keeps schools from inflating grades and shoving kids into grade levels they aren't prepared for, in order to get the funding? (This is already happening where such things are required, and the audit system required for this becomes another sticky wicket, but I'm sure it could be done if it's tailored to a specific standard that's held across the board.)
Do away with "skipping grades" by creating effective "advanced" classes where students do not move ahead in the material, but rather go deeper and learn more background material, history, and theory. Measure performance as it relates to funding by national, universal standardized tests that are graded by humans and contain at least 50% essay questions as opposed to simple multiple choice (scoring for grammar throughout), but do not use these tests to determine students' grades. Determine grades with traditional classwork under a curriculum approved and standardized nationally.
The tests are rarely used, in my experience to assign grades, though they do assist teachers in analyzing, along with the schoolwork and performance on classroom tests, whether a student's ready to move forward.
The money it takes to score these tests you are talking about will need to come from somewhere--I get paid $18/hour to do the spoken TEOFL test. That's without an office environment, I supply the internet and my own machine to do it on. I have a Master's degree, and I taught at UCLA. You get my point? If you required this level of expertise on every child's test, it would cost--A LOT. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just take it into consideration.
I think, personally, teachers should grade them, in a pool, double-blinded. At the school site or district where they were administered. Or a round robin within districts, or something. I have all sorts of best practices ideas on this shit, but I need to go take my lunch break, so I'll stop there.
As for skipping grades, I don't see that happening in my area. Instead, kids are moved ahead in a subject area (by the way, I skipped from 2nd to 3rd, and it was fucking HARD to deal with as a kid), or put in heterogeneous GATE environments from jr. high-on so that the students are challenged by each other in their peer group. But ymmv.
I have proposed in my newsletter articles that high schools invite jr. college course material and some sort of adjunct program so that kids can begin to get college ready earlier. I like the idea that you can take your courses off campus and into a jr. college setting. It makes the college freshman more prepared, it gives the college profs a chance to see what high schools are churning out and have a chance to put in some feedback before it's too late, and it just seems to benefit everyone.
Unfortunately, 3rd/4th grade is really where it's at. That's where the challenge seems to be, and where you can predict 1) truancy rates and 2) how many prisons to build.
@Rog: I was just talking to the United Way rep that was designated for San Diego PTAs. In my capacity as VP of Education & Parent Involvement, it was incumbent upon me to sit in a 2-hour meeting with United Way with my president and community concerns VP. The UW rep said that in the data she'd looked at, there wasn't ONE consistent factor amongst everything that showed what could make a difference for any given student's education.
I told her that's a fallacy, and that there is: PARENT INVOLVEMENT.
You can have the crappiest schools, the lowest attendance, the shittiest teachers, but if the parents are involved and instill a sense of purpose and more-than-survival for a kid's education, then none of that will matter.
Yeah, I mentioned parental involvement earlier, but it got buried.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 05:47:47 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 19, 2010, 05:44:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 19, 2010, 05:17:36 PM
If anything, funding should be based on the number of pupils.
This.
Here, the majority of funding is gained from property tax. Poor neighborhoods therefore get shit for schools, and the posh kids get the equivalent of a small university.
I remember when I was still teaching music (what 3 years ago) the private school was basically a dream job. Classes where small, the kids well behaved and the teachers were given so much leeway in teaching. Like if the biology teacher wanted to go outside for a class they just did it. And did it without any board breathing down their neck.
Also had this brilliant way of keeping any government off their back (there's a cap on tuition in Canada). They kept tuition low but only excepted students from a specific neighborhood.
I was talking to one of the main administers one day and she was telling me in the long run smaller class sizes end up being cheaper. The larger the class size the more you pay per student. The main problem the public board faced was real estate and upkeep.
I went to a working class public school in Hamilton, Ontario, and we had small classes, well behaved (God fucking help you if you stir up a ruckus) kids, and - for the most part - good facilities (old, but more than adequate).
I have precisely zero complaints.
Of course, that was in the 1970s. Things have probably gone downhill since then.
Same problem I suspect you guys are having. A huge short term influx of money is needed into the system for long term savings. There's just not the money to do so.
Also needs a philosophical change in that we gotta stop treating children like their made of weak plaster and are going to break if they scrape their knees outside or have to endure the slightest bit of discipline.
This also applies to the material. If you treat the mind like it's weak it will turn out weak. For example if I'm teaching someone about Robert Schumann rather then setting an exploration of the subject, where the child can explore the music and be allowed (an almost expected) to get things wrong, it is expected by everyone involved that I need to baby them. I need to flat out lecture them in everything and then ask their uninformed opinion on the music, like their opinion mattered or something. If you treat the mind like it's weak it will turn out weak.
That and now we're letting parents have say in pretty much anything, and like any former teacher I have a very low opinion of most parents.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 19, 2010, 06:02:54 PM
Same problem I suspect you guys are having. A huge short term influx of money is needed into the system for long term savings. There's just not the money to do so.
Yes, there fucking is.
We don't need to be "saving" Afghanistan, Iraq, or anyone else.
We don't need 12 fucking carrier groups. We need about 4.
And so on.
There's plenty of fucking money...We just need to stop behaving like college kids with daddy's American Express.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 06:00:21 PM
Yeah, I mentioned parental involvement earlier, but it got buried.
I saw the comment but forgot to voice my support. Parent involvement is absolutely necessary. But how do we address that? For one thing, many parents are not only uninterested, but uneducated themselves. It's hard to help your kid with algebra when you barely survive long division. It's also hard to devote time to it when both parents work, often in alternating schedules, and that's something about American life that isn't going to change any time soon (besides the economics of it, there's the fact that few people are interested in being "homemakers").
That said, probably more than half of the time when you have parents who don't care about their kids' education, every reason they give for being uninvolved is an indefensible cop-out to defend their selfishness and lack of responsibility. But that is also something you can't legislate or enforce. The fundamental culture of this country is one in which it is not only possible but
expected of you to get by with doing as little work as possible, and be as irresponsible and short-sighted as you can manage without killing yourself.
Education is the key to changing that about America, but given that we can't rely on the government to do anything right, and we can't rely on parents to give a shit about it, I don't see any way out. Looks like we're all stuck riding the short bus to the Remedial School of Third World Experience.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 06:00:21 PM
Yeah, I mentioned parental involvement earlier, but it got buried.
It took me awhile to get to it, my bad.
Quote from: vexati0n on August 19, 2010, 06:18:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 06:00:21 PM
Yeah, I mentioned parental involvement earlier, but it got buried.
I saw the comment but forgot to voice my support. Parent involvement is absolutely necessary. But how do we address that? For one thing, many parents are not only uninterested, but uneducated themselves. It's hard to help your kid with algebra when you barely survive long division. It's also hard to devote time to it when both parents work, often in alternating schedules, and that's something about American life that isn't going to change any time soon (besides the economics of it, there's the fact that few people are interested in being "homemakers").
That said, probably more than half of the time when you have parents who don't care about their kids' education, every reason they give for being uninvolved is an indefensible cop-out to defend their selfishness and lack of responsibility. But that is also something you can't legislate or enforce. The fundamental culture of this country is one in which it is not only possible but expected of you to get by with doing as little work as possible, and be as irresponsible and short-sighted as you can manage without killing yourself.
Education is the key to changing that about America, but given that we can't rely on the government to do anything right, and we can't rely on parents to give a shit about it, I don't see any way out. Looks like we're all stuck riding the short bus to the Remedial School of Third World Experience.
Actually, the Harvard School of Education recently did a parent involvement survey, and most parents of low-achieving sectors DO care, they just don't know how to make that caring WORK. The parents from a lot of minority populations are unaware of how they can make a difference. They think sending their kids to school is enough. Or that they'd be disrespecting the teacher if they gave opinions contrary to what their child is coming home with. It's a socialization issue, and it's up to 1) the school districts to identify them 2) the home schools to seek them out and rectify this, stating plainly what the common goals should be and open themselves up to suggestions on how to work together to reach them and 3) the parent organizations (da da ta daaah!) like PTA's to give parent education on how to accomplish this.
Parents can BOTH work and BOTH give a shit about their kids' education. The fallacy that two working parents can't, won't or are otherwise unable to give a shit is marked by more data than anyone cares to know. There are plenty of variables that work out there other than a one-income family.
Strangely enough, there is ONE entity in the US that DOES legislate and enforce Parent Involvement: the military. They lose income, prestige and advancement if they do not actively participate in their kids' classrooms. There was a spot done on this that can be found on YouTube back in the early 2000's or the late 90's. I'll do a quick check to find it. But these were all undereducated parents, minorities, poor families, and their children were among the cream of the crop in their age group. This was attributed to the (albeit enforced) parent involvement in these schools.
By the way, we can change fundamental culture. We no longer have slavery or segregation in schools. That was fundamental not that long ago. But we have to make the difference ourselves, talk it up, and actively urge others to be like us in order to affect that change.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
Fear of the draft?
As didn't only college students get to stay home?
Also Is it cheaper to send seniors to take classes there? Vs say highschool
what about Japan's model were at junior high a test decides if you move on or goto vocational school
Quote from: Pēleus on August 19, 2010, 06:39:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
Fear of the draft? As didn't only college students get to stay home?
Is it cheaper to send seniors to take classes at there? Vs say highschool
Also what about Japan's model were at junior high a test decides if you move on or goto vocational school
Not sure how that pertains to grade schools.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 19, 2010, 06:02:54 PM
That and now we're letting parents have say in pretty much anything, and like any former teacher I have a very low opinion of most parents.
:lol: Though I know what you mean, I think your mind may change on that variably when you're a parent as well.
Quote from: Pēleus on August 19, 2010, 06:39:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
Fear of the draft?
As didn't only college students get to stay home?
Also Is it cheaper to send seniors to take classes there? Vs say highschool
what about Japan's model were at junior high a test decides if you move on or goto vocational school
That's actually Europe's model, borrowed by Japan.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 19, 2010, 06:39:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
Fear of the draft? As didn't only college students get to stay home?
Not sure how that pertains to grade schools.
If one is focus on going to college, one studies harder?
Quote from: Pēleus on August 19, 2010, 06:45:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 19, 2010, 06:39:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
Fear of the draft? As didn't only college students get to stay home?
Not sure how that pertains to grade schools.
If one is focus on going to college, one studies harder?
Yes, because 3rd graders are concentrating on college.
Peleus, stop trying to kill the thread.
Oh, and while looking up that stupid news spot on the military primary school, I found the CA ed code that legislates parent involvement:
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/edc/11500-11506.html
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 06:45:58 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 19, 2010, 06:45:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 19, 2010, 06:39:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
Fear of the draft? As didn't only college students get to stay home?
Not sure how that pertains to grade schools.
If one is focus on going to college, one studies harder?
Yes, because 3rd graders are concentrating on college.
Well, actually, there's a "No Excuses" campaign for college readiness. In this campaign, school districts require elementary schools to have college rhetoric, college advertisements, college campus media and college banners and other paraphernalia that herald there's a college presence on the elementary campus. This is to encourage kids that anyone can be a college grad.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 19, 2010, 05:29:17 AM
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 19, 2010, 05:10:10 AM
I'm not worried about math and science.. the evidence put forth in those fields will be a driving force for all but the most heavily indoctrinated.. I firmly believe the children of the 70's and 80's are moving away from religious indoctrination at a steady enough pace to have it moved from the group think mind within the next 15-20 years..
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/99153999.html?showAll=y&c=y
It's going to heat up down south... we're already losing ground in Texas and according to some right wing blog Tennessee is next. Be prepared for a brutal war of attrition. Every time someone pronounced them dead they just keep coming back.
I'm not meaning to join the debate Vrtig0 here though. I'm not American and much of your concerns deal with American federal politics and every country has a different bureaucracy and therefore different challenges.
Though I will say if I was by some act of divine providence you guys made me American presidente (refuse to to be president) your military spending would be cut in half and lot, and I mean lot, more would be delegated to education, including post secondary. There would be also a lot more prostitutes around the white house.
The only thing that has ever had me leaning toward Creationism rather than Evolution was being taught evolution in high school. The arguements sounded really silly. If we can get some critical thinking classes working properly I think teaching the kids creationism might be the death blow for it.
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 07:08:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 06:45:58 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 19, 2010, 06:45:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on August 19, 2010, 06:39:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
HEY, HOW THE FUCK DID WE DO THIS SHIT IN THE 60s?
Fear of the draft? As didn't only college students get to stay home?
Not sure how that pertains to grade schools.
If one is focus on going to college, one studies harder?
Yes, because 3rd graders are concentrating on college.
Well, actually, there's a "No Excuses" campaign for college readiness. In this campaign, school districts require elementary schools to have college rhetoric, college advertisements, college campus media and college banners and other paraphernalia that herald there's a college presence on the elementary campus. This is to encourage kids that anyone can be a college grad.
Yeah. Shit.
Kids can't be kids, you know. It might inhibit their faux-competitiveness.
:lol: I think it's meant to encourage kids whose parents don't ever TALK about college to already have it in their lexicon.
The kids whose parents want them to go to college are telling them that from birth, just saying.
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 07:32:21 PM
:lol: I think it's meant to encourage kids whose parents don't ever TALK about college to already have it in their lexicon.
The kids whose parents want them to go to college are telling them that from birth, just saying.
I didn't. My kids made up their own minds. When they were about 14 and 12, I told them that life is easier with a college degree, but that it wasn't absolutely necessary (I don't have one, and I'm doing fine).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 07:32:21 PM
:lol: I think it's meant to encourage kids whose parents don't ever TALK about college to already have it in their lexicon.
The kids whose parents want them to go to college are telling them that from birth, just saying.
I didn't. My kids made up their own minds. When they were about 14 and 12, I told them that life is easier with a college degree, but that it wasn't absolutely necessary (I don't have one, and I'm doing fine).
...my parents did the same thing. And my brothers aren't doing so well--hit a glass ceiling by 30. I'm sorta immovable on this. Life experience has shown people like my dad were right that you can still CHOOSE to not go to college, but it's going to be a somewhat uphill ride if you do so.
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 07:38:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 07:32:21 PM
:lol: I think it's meant to encourage kids whose parents don't ever TALK about college to already have it in their lexicon.
The kids whose parents want them to go to college are telling them that from birth, just saying.
I didn't. My kids made up their own minds. When they were about 14 and 12, I told them that life is easier with a college degree, but that it wasn't absolutely necessary (I don't have one, and I'm doing fine).
...my parents did the same thing. And my brothers aren't doing so well--hit a glass ceiling by 30. I'm sorta immovable on this. Life experience has shown people like my dad were right that you can still CHOOSE to not go to college, but it's going to be a somewhat uphill ride if you do so.
Your brothers need to lie on their resumes. Just saying.
Dok,
Didn't get this job via the merit system.
:lulz: Mom and Dad taught us school wasn't necessary, but damn did they hate for us to lie.
I think my brothers just obey Mom and Dad too much!
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 08:52:10 PM
:lulz: Mom and Dad taught us school wasn't necessary, but damn did they hate for us to lie.
I think my brothers just obey Mom and Dad too much!
Because employers are so honest. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 19, 2010, 08:53:19 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 19, 2010, 08:52:10 PM
:lulz: Mom and Dad taught us school wasn't necessary, but damn did they hate for us to lie.
I think my brothers just obey Mom and Dad too much!
Because employers are so honest. :lulz:
Shh...there's some tr00fs M&D don't like to hear.