# School Fundraising



## Monocle (Oct 24, 2012)

I had not thought much about the subject, until my very own child entered the public school system this year. But here, only a couple of weeks in, my child has been handed a packet for selling sweets and candies, etc to fund-raise for certain technologies to be provided for students several grades above. It catches me off-guard, and I did not anticipate I would feel so negatively about this. I understand the view of some that fundraising teaches children to give. I know it is a long-standing tradition for many. But I guess I was not expecting this to happen so soon, right off the bat, in kindergarten, with my child barely yet getting a grasp of the whole school environment and routine. Am I missing something?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Fundraising seems to be a certainly, weather in public schools or private.
The government, (or whoever runs the schools in your area), gives so much, that pays the teachers salaries, school maintenance and books etc...
Anything else seems to be considered an extra, for which the school itself has to raise the money.

Here it is the parent's rather than the children who do the work for extra funding. 
In my children's school, a publicly funded local school, the PTFA, (parent, teacher & friends association) stages several events throughout the year to raise money for playground equipment, audio visual equipment etc.
I'm not sure that children selling candy is the best idea though. Surely bad for the children's teeth in the long run.

At our school, my wife organises the annual summer fair which usually brings in about £5000, and there is another event called "the Auction of Promises" in which parents and children bid of various activities or other things which other parents have donated. Sealed bids, and the items are things like a trip to the zoo for your child, or taking a family on a boat for an afternoon. Even a helicopter ride this year. This brings in about £8000.

It's all a lot of work for what in the end are not huge amounts of money.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

There is something weird about that; using children to achieve some type of end. 

I'm childless myself; a choice. However, I think I would feel much the same way. As a parent, I would want to have better control of where and how the school system uses the funds it does have before turning children into little fundraisers. They are there to learn, not serve as the ground army for another governmental special interest.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

While I would probably just pay a donation to my daughter's school (or buy it all myself), it was a rather normal fundraising tecnique back in the days of my childhood (Chicago suburbs 1970s-80s).

A few examples I remember...

The park district little league used to have players sell candy in order to help buy new gear. 

The archery club at the local YMCA did the same. 

The high school band was invited to a competition in London. Obviously the tax payers didn't want to foot the (whole) bill and it came down to the student's families paying a fair amount. While I don't remember the exact détails from 23 years ago, they offered something like a $500 credit for anyone that sold x amount of candy in order to help offset the costs to the individual families

Oh. How could we forget the most famous candy pushers of all time.. Girl Scouts & their blasted cookies.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> There is something weird about that; using children to achieve some type of end.


Not so weird, depending on what precinct one is from. 

We sold oranges and grapefruit in the Fall to fund our band trips.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not so weird, depending on what precinct one is from.
> 
> We sold oranges and grapefruit in the Fall to fund our band trips.


Ha. I forgot that one. Although we (the students) never used oranges and grapefruits as a door to door fundraiser versus the school selling them to the student's families.

The popular thing here is for the older kids to hold bake sales outside the grocery store entrance. This is usually to help fund some type of international trip but I can't see how it's overly successful in doing so


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

We had a bake sale in elementary school.

I pondered with my classmates how much we invested in the brownies in relation to our return, and if just donating the operating costs were more efficient.

I got blank stares then, and I still get blank stares today. 

The orange and grapefruit sales however, were very successful.

We canvassed the Hell out of our subdivision!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not so weird, depending on what precinct one is from.
> 
> We sold oranges and grapefruit in the Fall to fund our band trips.


And we did similar things when I was in school. The difference is that with your, and I suppose my, example this was done for an extracurricular purpose; band, sports, etc.

The OP referred to technology and not even for those kids, but for kids who are older. This is basically using kids to raise funds for the school district.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Sheesh!!

Why not just set them back to work in the mines??


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This is easy for me to say because I don't have kids, but if I did, I would encourage my child to not participate. Kids have always been used as pitchmen for candy bars and cookies and magazines and Christmas trees and a whole bunch of other things. That doesn't make it right. Kids should be in school to learn academic things, not how to lean on neighbors and relatives for money.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Their small hands can reach into crevices that adult hands would not be able to reach into.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I thought the word "bandcandy" had already made it into the dictionary. 

Monocle, it sounds like your daughter is far too young to be involved in something like this.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Their small hands can reach into crevices that adult hands would not be able to reach into.


Precisely.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Monocle said:


> I had not thought much about the subject, until my very own child entered the public school system this year. But here, only a couple of weeks in, my child has been handed a packet for selling sweets and candies, etc to fund-raise for certain technologies to be provided for students several grades above. It catches me off-guard, and I did not anticipate I would feel so negatively about this. I understand the view of some that fundraising teaches children to give. I know it is a long-standing tradition for many. But I guess I was not expecting this to happen so soon, right off the bat, in kindergarten, with my child barely yet getting a grasp of the whole school environment and routine. Am I missing something?


Best try to get used to it, Mr. Monocle. It will not stop and as you child goes through school, the amount of "fees" piles on and piles on.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

As he grows into adulthood, the word "tax" replaces "fees".


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Monocle said:


> ... my child has been handed a packet for selling sweets and candies, etc to fund-raise for certain technologies to be provided for students several grades above. ... *Am I missing something?*


Yes. About 125 points of millage on your property tax relative to what you'd pay without the fundraising.

There's always a price.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Some of the posters here are amazing. They have no problems sending $trillions in welfare checks to countries such as Israel and then cry as to school funding. What is especially funny is that Israel is rated #2 in education whereas the U.S. ranks in the low 30s. Education funding problems? Problem solved. Simple economics folks. Money is a limited resource. The $trillions spent yearly on the military (and all it's overseas adventures) and the $trillions sent out yearly in welfare checks to foreign countries could be going to a top notch education for the country's children. I guess long term investment (educated society) is nothing compared to the short term profit of a few high end arms dealers and oïl companies?





As to selling candy in gerneral.....I wonder what happened to teaching/learning all those conservative christian American values. You know..... Hard work..... Honest day's work for an honest day's pay....Service to the community. ....Jumping in and being part of the team....Playing your part in order to assure the community has what it needs... Tis better to give than to receive....Taking one for the team...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

For the OP...

I agree that it's a bit young to have 4-5 year olds selling candy door to door. I don't know what the school is thinking, but I'd guess that they assume good ole mom and dad will pick up the slack with friends and coworkers versus sending Suzy out into the neighborhood.

As to doing it for a different class? Well it's more likely doing it for the school right? When your child gets older, those computers (or their replacements) will most likely be available to her for use. 

SG brought up an interesting idea. Why not ask the school as to why current funding doesn't cover standard educational tools such as computers. Perhaps other items were deemed a priority? i.e. books over computers? operational costs(maintenance, electricity)? Food programs? Maybe they needed to fund a project and hoped that the community would help out with the computers? Of course it could be from complete waste (such as a $million scoreboard).


I guess it's always possible that the head teacher has an addiction to high end shoes.....

My apologies. I assumed this was for computers but you mentioned only "technologies". What exactly is it that they want to buy?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

From selling candy to Israel! 

That didn't take long.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> From selling candy to Israel!
> 
> That didn't take long.


From u.s. lack of educational funding (which is cause of the stated candy selling) to reasons for the lack of u.s. educational funding (i.e. American money to wealthy foreign countries). I am claiming American money for the benefits of Americans. If your car was old & broken down but you couldn't afford a new one, would you be giving money to richer folks to buy a better car than yours was brand new? We could give each and every U.S. student a new computer and texts with a single Israeli welfare check but instead ignore the welfare of American children in favour to pour money into a system that is better run than our own. American money for Americans and American infrastructure before American money for outsider interests..

This guy's daughter, an American student, is expected to sell candy for classroom basics while the U.S. hands out money to the country with the second best education globally? And there's no connection there in your mind? None at all???

Funny that you focused only about Israel when I happened to mention stopping welfare checks to "countries" (as in plural). I also mentioned that U.S. defense funding was a reason for lack of educational funding. Although I only used Israel as an example, it seems to be your main focus point compared to the topic at hand.... Why are schools not getting the needed funding and are therefore "turning children into little fundraisers"? To use a line from someone else...."They are there to learn, not serve as the ground army for another governmental special interest". What is the root cause? LAck of resources. Where are U.S. resources going? What is in the best interest for U.S. society? An educated populace or sending welfare checks to 3rd party outsider governments? While I'm sure Israel would state that Israeli security is of primary interest to the U.S. I don't believe harming our own populace (our children at that) to be a worthwhile price.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> From selling candy to Israel!
> 
> That didn't take long.


Imagine - candy selling, Israeli canines! It's the nightmare scenario. :crazy:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ as long as the candy and the dog food are kosher, why not?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> As he grows into adulthood, the word "tax" replaces "fees".


We call spending and taxes "investments" now.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

For those who bark loudest; please read your own posts first before barking again.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I guess this means that it isn't possible to argue the point?? Too hard to admit that American money given away elsewhere harms Americans & their domestic interests?

The math is there. Anything beyond is bias & prejudice


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Press!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> For those who bark loudest; please read your own posts first before barking again.


What happened between posts 4,7 and 17??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Why the usual nonsense, of course!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

No, I mean, does one go about their business throughout the morning and then suddenly their Jew light pops on??


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

^^^^ I don't see any mention of jews on this thread (can you give the post # that does?) versus welfare grabbers (from whatever country) using American funds that should be going to American students.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No, I mean, does one go about their business throughout the morning and then suddenly their Jew light pops on??


Mine was disconnected because I never paid the bill.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Mine was disconnected because I never paid the bill.


That wouldn't happen, had the Zionists not stolen it from you!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That wouldn't happen, had the Zionists not stolen it from you!!


Novus Ordo Seclorum up to their usual hi-jinks.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No, I mean, does one go about their business throughout the morning and then suddenly their Jew light pops on??


For some, the "Jew light" never goes off. It's just on an energy saving dimmer.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Some of the posters here are amazing. They have no problems sending $trillions in *welfare checks to countries such as Israel* and then cry as to school funding....


Press!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> This is easy for me to say because I don't have kids, but if I did, I would encourage my child to not participate. Kids have always been used as pitchmen for candy bars and cookies and magazines and Christmas trees and a whole bunch of other things. That doesn't make it right. Kids should be in school to learn academic things, not how to lean on neighbors and relatives for money.


Ideals are great but the purpose of today's school district is *to lean on neighbors and relatives for money*


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Not sure the problem is as much an issue of insufficient numbers of dollars being spent on our schools, as it is a question of how well the dollars that are available are being spent. Would it be wrong to hope for a better return on our investment. You live in a 'nanny state' and you will reap what you sow! We make things so much more complicated than they have to be. Bottom line...everyone wants a free ride, including many of the students, whose parents have abdicated much of their responsibility as parents!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I think part of the problem is also most school districts are incredibly bloated bureaucracies. They have such an incredible amount of overhead and they are so lawyered up that by the time the funding trickles down to the students, it's a mere fraction of the revenue taken in. 

Here in Illinois, the teachers pensions are out of control and CPS contributions to the pension continues to outpace other expenditures. At some point things break down and students suffer.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

^^^^^What is "out of control" when it comes to someone who has spent 30-40-50 years serving the community as a teacher?


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

How naive of me to think I could read through two pages of a thread about schools selling chocolate bars without seeing accusations of another Jewish-Western conspiracy. 

At least it's entertaining here!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

universitystripe said:


> How naive of me to think I could read through two pages of a thread about schools selling chocolate bars without seeing accusations of another Jewish-Western conspiracy.
> 
> At least it's entertaining here!


Your post reminds me of Don Quixote. Can you actually point out what post # mentions "another jewish-western conspiracy"? Or are you crying the anti-semite wolf because someone suggested that American taxes should go to fund American programs versus sending welfare checks to countries such as Israel, etc? The word " jew" first appeared in post #29 & has only been used twice since then (once in your post #40 & one in my post #30). 3 mentions is hardly the conspiracy cry you seem to translate it as. Before that, the country of Israel was mentioned a few times but it had nothing to do with "jews" versus a welfare state (israel) taking food out of the mouths of american children.

Simple math. If you have $10 & give away $5, only $5 remains for your use. If we have problems funding our own programs then why should the u.s. taxpayer be shelling out welfare checks to foreign countries? This guy's kid (an american student) is supposed to sell candy because of lack of funding for computers (a basic educational tool these days). For 1/5 of what the american taxpayer doles out to Israel each and every year, American students could be issued a private computer and books K-12 (given a birthrate of 5 million per year). Can you imagine the opportunities U.S. students would have with the other 4/5 of that annual welfare check? To me it's incredible that someone would suggest not honoring pension funding for U.S. teachers yet advocates shipping $trillions overseas (to whatever countries).

Just curious. But wouldn't U.S. students of the jewish faith not benefit from further school funding just as much as U.S. students from other faiths? I'm sticking up for Americans and American students of all faiths/ethnic backgrounds. You're the one playing the race card (oops..Anti-semite card).


----------



## Monocle (Oct 24, 2012)

justonemore said:


> For the OP...
> 
> I agree that it's a bit young to have 4-5 year olds selling candy door to door. I don't know what the school is thinking, but I'd guess that they assume good ole mom and dad will pick up the slack with friends and coworkers versus sending Suzy out into the neighborhood.
> 
> ...


Chiming back in here folks. The fundraiser is for Chromebooks, which to me, seem to have become popular utilities in most of the schools around here. My "objection" if I may refer to it as such, has mainly to do with timing. - That we fret and are anxious as parents just to get a child adjusted to going from the security of home-life with mommy, to an entirely strange new world, socially, with all of the small and innocent challenges that now face mostly happy-go-lucky 5 year olds. The whole thing just seemed to add a "dark" and commercial tone to the fledgeling school year. I realize that may sound melodramatic, and it does seem so even as I type it. But that was my visceral response to the news that the wife and I would be hitting up our friends, family and co-workers for chocolates, cheesecakes and nut assortments only 2-3 weeks into the school year. (I still have yet to do it, I'm going to totally flop at this) Perhaps they could reserve this for First grade parents and on? I don't know. I most definitely understand that this "rite" (if you will) of selling something to raise money in school is a dynamic that raises a lot of far-reaching questions. Thanks all for your adds and comments.

Sent from the Underground.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I think part of the problem is also most school districts are incredibly bloated bureaucracies. They have such an incredible amount of overhead and they are so lawyered up that by the time the funding trickles down to the students, it's a mere fraction of the revenue taken in.
> 
> Here in Illinois, the teachers pensions are out of control and CPS contributions to the pension continues to outpace other expenditures. At some point things break down and students suffer.


Just out of interest, what do you mean by *"the teachers pensions are out of control"*? Are they being paid more than they were contracted for? For example? In the UK the accusation is usually based on the fact that the group of people whose pensions are "out of control" simply have pensions that are better than other peoples' pensions.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Just out of interest, what do you mean by *"the teachers pensions are out of control"*? Are they being paid more than they were contracted for? For example? In the UK the accusation is usually based on the fact that the group of people whose pensions are "out of control" simply have pensions that are better than other peoples' pensions.


There are people with the political mindset that education is too expensive. That teachers salaries are too high. That retirement benefits are too high. This same group likes to complain that teachers have summers off and longer vacation periods. All educational problems are the fault of the teacher. All the teachers should be fired(because NONE of the current teachers are any good of course) and new ones brought in (for cheaper contracts and benefits of course). They often quote salaries of teachers with masters/doctorates degrees and 20-30 experience as an example of exactly how "outrageous" the average teacher's salary happens to be. That there needs to be an admin system (and the cost that goes with it) in cities such as Chicago shocks these people. There are about 700 schools and 50'000 employees serving half a million students in Chicago. It seems that for some reason or another, certain folks think that paying $20'000 to joe blow off the streets would be sufficient to handle such a large team & such a large entity. Let's not forget the anti-union viewpoint. The fact that certain "government paid" jobs are unionized (Police, Fire, Post, Air Traffic,Teaching, etc) is quite a hot point. In their eyes, as it's the "taxpayer" paying the salaries, any right to collective bargaining has been negated upon agreeing to work for the government. That having benefits such as health and retirement is too costly for the taxpayer and that these programs should be eliminated or scaled waaaayy back. Promised retirement funds become overblown and "out of control". This same group of people are often fully in favour of increasing military spending and increasing the welfare checks to foreign countries.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Just out of interest, what do you mean by *"the teachers pensions are out of control"*? Are they being paid more than they were contracted for? For example? In the UK the accusation is usually based on the fact that the group of people whose pensions are "out of control" simply have pensions that are better than other peoples' pensions.


Teachers pensions in Illinois gobble up a large part of the states expenditures, as do other pensions. The state basically over promised and now we are in a fiscal hole. I won't go into the details of the quagmire that is the Illinois public pension system but those living here are familiar with it.

I'm not suggesting that teachers don't deserve a pension. The problem is that the program is unsustainable and pension and Heath benefits for retirees outstrips salaries being currently paid.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm not suggesting that teachers don't deserve a pension. The problem is that the program is unsustainable and pension and Heath benefits for retirees outstrips salaries being currently paid.


As well as revenues.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Monocle said:


> The fundraiser is for Chromebooks, which to me, seem to have become popular utilities in most of the schools around here.


Completely unnecessary.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Completely unnecessary.


oh? Are you familiar with the use of technolgy in the classroom? The benefits? The detractors? Have you spoken to educators as to the issue? Do you know anything about teaching? Do you know anything about learning styles? Can you support your statement at all or is it just an unfounded opinion?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Teachers pensions in Illinois gobble up a large part of the states expenditures, as do other pensions. The state basically over promised and now we are in a fiscal hole. I won't go into the details of the quagmire that is the Illinois public pension system but those living here are familiar with it.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that teachers don't deserve a pension. The problem is that the program is unsustainable and pension and Heath benefits for retirees outstrips salaries being currently paid.


I'll ignore the use of emotive language for now, which reveals much, and just look at your arguments. What you've said suggests, not that Teachers' pensions are out of control, but that their contracted pensions are more than the State wants to pay. Saying that Teachers' Pensions are "Out of control" creates an impression that they're getting more than they're entitled to, or more than their contracts would provide. If their contracts state that they are entitled to $xxx p.a. as a pension, then that is what the State of Illinois should budget for. It is a legally binding entitlement. You can't employ a person with a contract that you've both signed saying that they're entitled to $10 an hour, then after they've worked for you for a week tell them that $10 ph isn't sustainable and that you're only going to pay then $8 ph for the work that they've already done! The Teachers' Pensions are the same. Their contracts say what their entitlement is and that's what the state should pay. If the State is in a fiscal mess then the State should sort it out, not blame the the situation that their incompetence has led to on Teachers' or any other public employees' pensions.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> There are people with the political mindset that education is too expensive. That teachers salaries are too high. That retirement benefits are too high. This same group likes to complain that teachers have summers off and longer vacation periods. All educational problems are the fault of the teacher. All the teachers should be fired(because NONE of the current teachers are any good of course) and new ones brought in (for cheaper contracts and benefits of course). They often quote salaries of teachers with masters/doctorates degrees and 20-30 experience as an example of exactly how "outrageous" the average teacher's salary happens to be. That there needs to be an admin system (and the cost that goes with it) in cities such as Chicago shocks these people. There are about 700 schools and 50'000 employees serving half a million students in Chicago. It seems that for some reason or another, certain folks think that paying $20'000 to joe blow off the streets would be sufficient to handle such a large team & such a large entity. Let's not forget the anti-union viewpoint. The fact that certain "government paid" jobs are unionized (Police, Fire, Post, Air Traffic,Teaching, etc) is quite a hot point. In their eyes, as it's the "taxpayer" paying the salaries, any right to collective bargaining has been negated upon agreeing to work for the government. That having benefits such as health and retirement is too costly for the taxpayer and that these programs should be eliminated or scaled waaaayy back. Promised retirement funds become overblown and "out of control". This same group of people are often fully in favour of increasing military spending and increasing the welfare checks to foreign countries.


Quite. In the UK we constantly get told that public employees' pensions are unsustainable, usually described as "generous" or "gold plated" pensions by politicians and "business leaders". A few years ago the Post Office was in serious financial straits because of the "generous" pensions that were having to be paid to Postmen. It turned out that, during the boom time, the people who ran the Post Office hadn't been paying the required money into the pension fund, because the ongoing boom meant that the pension fund was doing so well. Once the bust came it turned out that there wasn't enough money in the pension fund, so "generous" and "gold plated" pensions were blamed for causing the problem.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> oh? Are you familiar with the use of technolgy in the classroom? The benefits? The detractors? Have you spoken to educators as to the issue? Do you know anything about teaching? Do you know anything about learning styles? Can you support your statement at all or is it just an unfounded opinion?


Justonemore, I think that you've mistaken Woulda Shoulda for somebody whose posts make some kind of rational sense, rather than a poster of smartar$e one liners.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Anyone who states or implies that US schools do not receive enough funding is woefully disconnected from reality.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> If their contracts state that they are entitled to $xxx p.a. as a pension, then that is what the State of Illinois should budget for. It is a legally binding entitlement. You can't employ a person with a contract that you've both signed saying that they're entitled to $10 an hour, then after they've worked for you for a week tell them that $10 ph isn't sustainable and that you're only going to pay then $8 ph for the work that they've already done!


Sure, we common people can't.

One has to be a connected corporate crony or the Government itself to get away with that!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Illinois spending per pupil:










Source: https://www.isbe.state.il.us/reports/annual08/resources.pdf

The question is not that teachers don't deserve a pension. The question comes down to a few points (at least the way I see it):

1) Should states even have pensions? Moving from a defined benefits plan to a defined contribution plan will make employees take more ownership of their investments

2) Is the current retirement age feasible? Here is something interesting:










3) Should teachers be made to contribute more to their retirement.

Some of the critique put forth has been, quite frankly, childish. It's the expression of people who are truly uninformed of what it happening or just too lazy to critically think about the subject and instead fall back on pre-pubescent arguments regarding pensions.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Is less than $12'000 per student a lot of money?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

If adjusted for inflation, it's 3X more money than twenty years ago.

But that's OK because I'm confident test scores and graduation rates are also 3X as high.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Is less than $12'000 per student a lot of money?


Compared to everywhere except where you live, yes.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The question is not that teachers don't deserve a pension. The question comes down to a few points (at least the way I see it):
> 
> 1) Should states even have pensions? Moving from a defined benefits plan to a defined contribution plan will make employees take more ownership of their investments
> 
> ...


Would you mind pointing out the childish critique please. I seem to have missed it. I also seem to have missed the lazy and uncritical thinking, and the pre-pubescent arguments. Could you point them out to me as well please.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Compared to everywhere except where you live, yes.


Indeed. We average 15'000 per student in Switzerland while the average OECD country spends 10'000(several of them over the 12'000 mark). As such, less than 12'000 in the u.s. doesn't seem too outrageous versus slightly above average (& hardly "everywhere except where I live).

Keep in mind that only 70% comes from u.s government funds (down from 74% a few years ago) compared to 82% average in OECD countries therefore taxpayer cost is actually less (8'200 average OECD, 8'400 u.s leaving OECD parents to foot 1'800 & U.S. parents 3'600). A 200 yearly difference in goverment cost is outrageous? That's less than $4 more a week. Is that a lot?

Now keep in mind the extra costs that go with huge U.S. systems such as Chicago, New York, L.A. etc. It's the nature of the beast. Add into that that there's no centralization in u.s. education and the additional costs in having everything set up as an individual unit. It seems as if less than $12'000 isn't really a lot afterall.

Teacher salaries in the u.s. are actually not much higher than the average OECD country either (about $500 a month).

Now if you want budget minded... Mexico only spends 3'000 per student. Perhaps you'd like the u.s. education system to be modeled after that of its southern neighbors?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Would you mind pointing out the childish critique please. I seem to have missed it. I also seem to have missed the lazy and uncritical thinking, and the pre-pubescent arguments. Could you point them out to me as well please.


That wasn't in reference to anything you wrote so please don't get yourself into a twist.

There's well reasoned critique and then there's knee jerk and shallow pseudo-sophistry.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Would you mind pointing out the childish critique please. I seem to have missed it. I also seem to have missed the lazy and uncritical thinking, and the pre-pubescent arguments. Could you point them out to me as well please.


Obviously not. While he didn't actually answer any of your questions and come up with examples as asked, he at least stated it wasn't you. I guess we can now forget about his earlier statement containing obvious inflammatory content and focus on the "knee jerk and shallow pseudo-sophistry". Lol.

Shall we make a running list of SG 67's insults & inflammatory comments? On page 3 alone we have (so far)...

childish 
truly uninformed 
just too lazy to critically think 
pre-pubescent arguments 
knee jerk
shallow pseudo-sophistry


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Indeed. We average 15'000 per student in Switzerland while the average OECD country spends 10'000(several of them over the 12'000 mark). As such, less than 12'000 in the u.s. doesn't seem too outrageous versus slightly above average (& hardly "everywhere except where I live).
> 
> Keep in mind that only 70% comes from u.s government funds compared to 82% average in OECD countries therefore taxpayer cost is actually less (8'200 average OECD, 8'400 u.s). A 200 yearly difference is outrageous? Now keep in mind the extra costs that go with huge U.S. systems such as Chicago, New York, L.A. etc. It's the nature of the beast. Add into that that there's no centralization in u.s. education and the additional costs in having everything set up as an individual unit. It seems as if less than 12'000 isn't really a lot.
> 
> ...


There is an awful lot to respond to in that so if I miss something, my apologies.

- We all need to get it out of our heads that spending more money equates to a better product (see, Spacex)
- If the goal was to truly provide top notch education to every student, the government would allow the voucher system and set up metrics that allowed for open, fair competition (e.g., a school could not exclude troubled students, so that public schools become a warehouse for the unwanted)
- As a country, we need to be honest about what we want from education. It is patently obvious that there is a social engineering component - and that may not be a bad thing if done well - but we need to start being honest about these things
- I am not sure that the larger cities spend more per child, because rural schools have to serve a wider land mass, and that carries costs
- We need to set an expectation on language used in education. Kids will easily adjust to whatever is decided. Switzerland has 4 national languages, correct (German, French, Italian, and they Swiss local language). I might be missing one. And the kids all learn English as well. Holland is the same way. Belgium too. We need to set expectations and live up to it.
- In some ways these comparisons are worthless because the US is so vastly different than most any other OECD country. Geographically ethnically, linguistically, even legality. We are just a more difficult case
- There is only so much that the schools can be expected to do when parents don't give a crap
- No one in America has the balls to stand up and say these things because they don't want to be branded as some sort of -ist

Sorry for the rant - but I feel much better.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

^^^ thanks for the respectful response (rant ��). You certainly mentioned a few good points that deserve going over


Spending more doesn't equate to a better product but spending enough does. I don't argue that the u.s. system needs streamlining (it does) but... I would still argue that funding is less than optimal for the system that exists in the u.s (especially with all the unique issues you mentioned i.e. legal). While the U.S. has constantly Mainained and increased such things as welfare checks to foreign countries and military spending, it has actually decreased the governmental share of eductional funding (74% to the current 70%).


Your points as to extra costs in rural systems are valid but don't equate to the costs needed in a larger system. As a simple example...$50'000 more in transport costs for a system with 1-2 admin people for a few schools is nothing compared to the costs of needing 2-3 (or more) admin people per school.

Yes. Teachers & schools can't do much if parents refuse to take an interest. Work outside the classroom is vital. I suppose underperforming students could be forced into after school study programs but again this would cost more money. You could also start fining/jailing parents that allow their children to not do their homework (I mean for weeks/months, etc. not an assignment here and there) or go to class. I do believe most areas in the U.S.have truancy laws. don't they?

Switzerland does indeed have 4 national languages. Romansch however is not taught on a national level versus being a local thing. Italian isn't overly popular countrywide either. English on the other hand is spoken by a great percentage of people (especially the younger générations in the city areas).


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

First off, I do not think that you think these things - just a large number of people - although I don't think it would be a majority.

I am more than happy for the US to spend more money on things that work. As long as they can be measured for results. This does not just apply to education.

I am not sure why a larger city would require extra administrators. If we assume that everyone has the same model of x students per teacher, y teachers per administrator, etc. then those costs would be baked in and would not change based on a larger population. In fact, they may be less for larger districts.

We do have truancy laws, but now things start to get a bit tricky. I am not for punishing or perceiving to punish students for their parents failures as that will not address the root cause and in fact may perpetuate it. Additionally, many of the parents that fit this description come from groups that anyone who points out issue will be considered an -ist of some sort. And before anyone tries to make this like I said everyone, I said many, not all.

Personally, having known some teachers and been involved in my kids' education, I know that the teachers hate this system worse than just about anyone. Teachers love what they do in the classroom - it is all of the crap they have to deal with outside of it that they despise. Much of that crap comes from administrators and politicians who really don't add value, imo.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Please have possession of the facts before defaulting to old MID-Israeli-All is Wonderful and Better outside the US argument. Schools are funded by local taxpayers and not much, if at all, by the Feds. Hence, the argument by bomb throwers on the right that US Dept of Education is unnecessary. So the contention that MID money is better spent on schools - with which I agree with because I so would like to see sideline sitting countries get off their behinds and do something helpful to the globe - is unfortunately uninformed and misplaced.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> First off, I do not think that you think these things - just a large number of people - although I don't think it would be a majority.
> 
> I am more than happy for the US to spend more money on things that work. As long as they can be measured for results. This does not just apply to education.
> 
> ...


Ok...A small system can get away with having 1 boss for the whole system. In a system with 700 schools you need not only a boss, you also need regional managers and area managers as well. Same issues with accounting and finance issues within the 2 systems. These extra folks cost money and they tend to be quite a bit pricier compared to teachers. In a system with 100 students k-12 in three schools, you can have one admin building with a few secretaries that can handle the paperwork and phone calls of all three schools. Can you imagine the organization needed to handle 700 schools? You mentioned legal issues earlier. How often does a school system with 100 students need a lawyer compared to a big city system? Chicago public schools probably has a team of full time lawyers that are busy all the time. Rural systems might have a lawyer on retainer in order to handle the every now and then situation that might come about. I'm not sure but rural school systems probably don't have much in the way of security expenses ( metal detectors, security guards, police officers, video cameras, etc). Rural systems tend to have lower pay scales as cost of living is usually lower.

I don't see having a child stay and do his homework as punishment. Any concerned family would be sitiing down and assuring that the homework is done and done correctly. If the student is not doing his homework at home, then he/she would still be expected to do it outside of class time. Doing homework is not "punishment". 1 hour work in class =one hour work out of class. Set the standard for all students. They can do it at home or they can do it at school after class.

Again. I agree that the whole system needs fine tuning. Money lost to waste is obviously something to avoid but I find the complaining as to education funding a bit funny when we compare the waste and funding going into the military. Heck, everyone is so eager to fund pet military projects that the pentagon is forced into continuing multi-$billion programs it doesn't even want. It's as if we're staring right at a black hole sucking everything up in its way and then complaining about the noise of vacuum.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Don't get me started on the military. That crap drives me crazy. I mean like batshit want to punch somebody crazy. The only thing that drives me crazier is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. 

And the honest point is that if we just fixed those 3 items just a little bit, we will have addressed roughly 70-80% of the overall budget spend, so that is where we should start.

I agree with you on much of what you posted above and will expand on that in a bit.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Lots of discussion here about the cost of public education. Let me clarify something very important: the major reason for the out-of-control cost of public education in the US is the massive cost of "mainstreaming" handicapped students in the futile attempt to make everyone "the same."

Unfunded federal mandates regarding the handicapped mean that students cost my (outstanding) public school district on average $13,100 each; without "mainstreaming" of handicapped students, that cost would reduce to about $8,000. Those handicapped students constitute perhaps 5% of the student body, yet cost almost 45% of the budget. It's outrageous, but if one complains one is shouted down as a Nazi who wishes to exterminate the unfortunate. It would be nice if we could accept that certain students cannot function in the integrated environment and allow separate, quality education that better suits their abilities and limitations. But such an approach is sadly illegal here.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> That wasn't in reference to anything you wrote so please don't get yourself into a twist.
> 
> There's well reasoned critique and then there's knee jerk and shallow pseudo-sophistry.


I'd like to think that I'm not so much of an egoist to imagine that all posts are aimed at me. It was a fair question, I thought. I still can't find any posts that could be described as you described them, disregarding the smartar$e one-liners from the resident clowns, of course.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ perhaps I'm referring to the resident clowns with whom you share a similar opinion in this matter.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Lots of discussion here about the cost of public education. Let me clarify something very important: the major reason for the out-of-control cost of public education in the US is the massive cost of "mainstreaming" handicapped students in the futile attempt to make everyone "the same."
> 
> Unfunded federal mandates regarding the handicapped mean that students cost my (outstanding) public school district on average $13,100 each; without "mainstreaming" of handicapped students, that cost would reduce to about $8,000. Those handicapped students constitute perhaps 5% of the student body, yet cost almost 45% of the budget. It's outrageous, but if one complains one is shouted down as a Nazi who wishes to exterminate the unfortunate. It would be nice if we could accept that certain students cannot function in the integrated environment and allow separate, quality education that better suits their abilities and limitations. But such an approach is sadly illegal here.


We have something similar to this in the UK (although I imagine my associate Chouan is much more aware of the fine details) but essentially if a child is granted a 'statement' then the stubborn and deluded parents may insist that any school which takes their fancy has to accept their offspring.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> We have something similar to this in the UK (although I imagine my associate Chouan is much more aware of the fine details) but essentially if a child is granted a 'statement' then the stubborn and deluded parents may insist that any school which takes their fancy has to accept their offspring.


Except that our current political masters have decided that statements aren't appropriate any more, and that where kids were classed as having "Special Needs" the scale has moved up a bit. So, where a kid had special educational needs because they are very weak academically, could barely read at age 11, for example. They are no longer classed as special needs so attract no assistance of any kind and are to be in main stream classes along with everybody else. The teacher has to offer "differentiated" work to match their ability....... Now for kids to be recognised as having special needs they have to be assessed as having a specific learning or behavioural difficulty, even then they won't attract any help in school. Only if their special needs are regarded as severe will they now be helped. Severe Aspergers, for example. 
I have a Y8 class, for example with three kids who can't speak English very well (1 Lithuanian, 1 Thai and 1 Bangladeshi {I think}), and one with cerebral palsy who can barely speak at all. She does have a TA (Teaching Assistant) with her though, to help her move and write. The "EAL" (English as Additional Language) kids have extra uncontracted lessons with me after school to try and help them. There is no provision for them available at all beyond this school. No alternative place for them to be taught. No special unit, no special needs school, nothing. The illustrious Gove did away with all of that "Special School" nonsense.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Except that our current political masters have decided that statements aren't appropriate any more, and that where kids were classed as having "Special Needs" the scale has moved up a bit. So, where a kid had special educational needs because they are very weak academically, could barely read at age 11, for example. They are no longer classed as special needs so attract no assistance of any kind and are to be in main stream classes along with everybody else. The teacher has to offer "differentiated" work to match their ability....... Now for kids to be recognised as having special needs they have to be assessed as having a specific learning or behavioural difficulty, even then they won't attract any help in school. Only if their special needs are regarded as severe will they now be helped. Severe Aspergers, for example.
> I have a Y8 class, for example with three kids who can't speak English very well, and one with cerebral palsy who can barely speak at all. There is no provision for them available at all beyond this school. No alternative place for them to be taught. No special unit, no special needs school, nothing. The illustrious Gove did away with all of that "Special School" nonsense.....


Can barely read at 11!!!! That's not academic weakness that's pure bone idleness. I'll wager that the kid is a whizz on play-stations and the whatnot. :mad2:

The systematic removal of support systems for the alternately abled, in the UK, has been an atrociously corrosive force this last thirty years though, no doubt.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Lots of discussion here about the cost of public education. Let me clarify something very important: the major reason for the out-of-control cost of public education in the US is the massive cost of "mainstreaming" handicapped students in the futile attempt to make everyone "the same."
> 
> Unfunded federal mandates regarding the handicapped mean that students cost my (outstanding) public school district on average $13,100 each; without "mainstreaming" of handicapped students, that cost would reduce to about $8,000. Those handicapped students constitute perhaps 5% of the student body, yet cost almost 45% of the budget. It's outrageous, but if one complains one is shouted down as a Nazi who wishes to exterminate the unfortunate. It would be nice if we could accept that certain students cannot function in the integrated environment and allow separate, quality education that better suits their abilities and limitations. But such an approach is sadly illegal here.


I do not mean to be harsh, but those numbers just do not line up. For 5% of the population to account for 45% of the spending, the amount spent on those 5% would have to be astronomical. Based on the numbers you provided, it would mean that something like 10 times the amount of a "normal" student is spent on each special needs child - so $80,000/per child in your example. Do you have some actual numbers you could post?

And as the uncle of a special needs child, this is one of the cases where I feel that the government should be spending money. In the vast majority of cases, no one is responsible for a special needs child being that way and in 100% of the cases, the child is definitely not responsible.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Except that our current political masters have decided that statements aren't appropriate any more, and that where kids were classed as having "Special Needs" the scale has moved up a bit. So, where a kid had special educational needs because they are very weak academically, could barely read at age 11, for example. They are no longer classed as special needs so attract no assistance of any kind and are to be in main stream classes along with everybody else. The teacher has to offer "differentiated" work to match their ability....... Now for kids to be recognised as having special needs they have to be assessed as having a specific learning or behavioural difficulty, even then they won't attract any help in school. Only if their special needs are regarded as severe will they now be helped. Severe Aspergers, for example.
> I have a Y8 class, for example with three kids who can't speak English very well (1 Lithuanian, 1 Thai and 1 Bangladeshi {I think}), and one with cerebral palsy who can barely speak at all. She does have a TA (Teaching Assistant) with her though, to help her move and write. The "EAL" (English as Additional Language) kids have extra uncontracted lessons with me after school to try and help them. There is no provision for them available at all beyond this school. No alternative place for them to be taught. No special unit, no special needs school, nothing. The illustrious Gove did away with all of that "Special School" nonsense.....


Do you really see those two situations as similar? Really?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

There is much ink spilled annually bemoaning the state of public education in this country. It comes down to a few fundamental factors, chief among them is the involvement of the community and in particular individual parents. 

Wealthier, more affluent communities typically have a more educated citizenry. Those citizens value education more, are more involved and will typically provide a more stable home for the student (both financial as well as psychological). No one really seems to be complaining that it's these schools that are failing. 

Schools only fail or succeed based on the achievement of the students. There is something to be said of the quality of the teachers, but that aside, the bulk of the burden and onus for the success of the student falls on the parents, or rather in the case of communities with failing schools, the parent. Families that are not involved in the school, the community or the child's life will the school to fail. Regardless of funding, after school programs or any other feel good program that ends up gobbling up money, the schools will ultimately fail. There will of course be the occasional bright spot; the kid who beats the odds and moves onto college, but for the most part there will be a high drop out rate. 

I'm not really sure as to the correct answer. I'm always amused, however, at those that insist that greater funding is the key. It's far more complicated than that. I'm not in anyway involved in the public education system. I do know that there seems to be a common denominator to many of these failing schools and he has to do in large part with the communities they serve.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Do you really see those two situations as similar? Really?


I think the problem is "special needs creep" if you will.

The spectrum of Autism alone has gone from the obviously and severely afflicted to those that can not complete a test in the specified time, and when everyone's needs are special, no one's needs are.

Special district schools had been set up in the past (just 30 years ago when I was in school) for the severely afflicted or schools for the deaf or blind. Many have been dismantled in the seemingly short sighted attempt to mainstream nearly every student.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> Do you really see those two situations as similar? Really?


A child who can't speak English in a mainstream lesson isn't going to access learning.
A child with Cerebral Palsy who can't speak such that the other kids can understand her is also going to find mainstream education hard to access.
Neither situation suggests lack of ability to reason or lack of intelligence.
I can't see what the *dis*similarity is.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> A child who can't speak English in a mainstream lesson isn't going to access learning.
> A child with Cerebral Palsy who can't speak such that the other kids can understand her is also going to find mainstream education hard to access.
> Neither situation suggests lack of ability to reason or lack of intelligence.
> I can't see what the *dis*similarity is.


As long as the person is physically or mentally able to speak, then they can learn any language. It is not possible for someone who is not physically or mentally able to speak to learn any language.

After that, it is all effort.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Monocle said:


> I had not thought much about the subject, until my very own child entered the public school system this year. But here, only a couple of weeks in, my child has been handed a packet for selling sweets and candies, etc to fund-raise for certain technologies to be provided for students several grades above. It catches me off-guard, and I did not anticipate I would feel so negatively about this. I understand the view of some that fundraising teaches children to give. I know it is a long-standing tradition for many. But I guess I was not expecting this to happen so soon, right off the bat, in kindergarten, with my child barely yet getting a grasp of the whole school environment and routine. Am I missing something?


It's an unfortunate necessity, especially with school funding being scaled back. More funding may not be the answer but adequate funding should suffice. We occasionally get elementary school kids coming through our neighborhood selling calendars so they can raise money for summer camp. I happily oblige because I think it teaches them a valuable lesson about working and money management. I see this as being similar in a lot of ways to what the Girl Scouts do when selling cookies or the kid setting up a lemonade stand in front of his house. Furthermore, without school funding kids are missing out on essential services/equipment that could help them with the education. I grew up in a military household so all of the schools I attended were through the DoD (Department of Defense). We didn't have computers and we learned the old fashioned way like the many generations before us. If kids today can have some advantage in the classroom, whether it be with ipads or use of computers, then I say this is a good thing.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

A question for the OP,

I'm just curious, what is the intended purpose of this technology? Has someone put forth due diligence as to how it will substantially benefit students? 

It seems often school districts clamor for technology and don't really seem to have a plan or able to justify how it will substantially improve education. I'm wondering in this case what the purpose is.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I can't speak to the OP's school, but my boys' elementary school raises lots of money for smart boards - starting with the older kids, because they simply got more use from them. The boards are an extremely good learning tool, so they are definitely worth it, imo. The younger kids do use them sometimes, but they are generally located in the older kids' classrooms at our school. Our PTA tries to buy 2 per year and they are working their way down to the younger kids each year.


----------



## Monocle (Oct 24, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> A question for the OP,
> 
> I'm just curious, what is the intended purpose of this technology? Has someone put forth due diligence as to how it will substantially benefit students?
> 
> It seems often school districts clamor for technology and don't really seem to have a plan or able to justify how it will substantially improve education. I'm wondering in this case what the purpose is.


Ostensibly as a teaching tool for older elementary children. I have not yet been apprised of the strategy. They each receive one entering the 5th grade. My child will receive a similar device, or one with equivalent capabilities at the time she reaches 5th grade, or at a grade level deemed appropriate by the district as things may change going forward. I understand many students in many places have "enhanced" training even earlier on. Right now, in her ISD, this is the standard. For her, it is still very much pencil and paper, or "crayon" and paper, thank goodness. And my daughter does not get overly excited with educational type activities on the computer. She gets quite bored sometimes actually. But yet she is very intelligent and has a fantastic reasoning mind, for which I am grateful. Regardless, I am preparing myself for the possibility that it will become all device-based at some point. I am not naive to think that this could be just a passing infatuation. I believe that this the way children will learn, or be driven to learn, whether or not I am really prepared for it.

When I was in elementary school, I think we were among the first students to acquire Commodore PETs in our school library. And what did we do with them? -- Spent all the time playing Space Invaders and Lunar Lander while the librarian wasn't looking. Subsequently; computer science was barely just being introduced to the curriculum in middle school. Programming BASIC on a TRS-80 was borrrrring. As I got older, only the math-gifted students or gamers really tended to stick with it. I was neither of those things. I was more attuned to arts and literature, reading, science and history. Computers were dispensable to me, and I only relented to the pressure to get one when a gamer friend kept challenging me to play F-16 Strike Fighter over modem. Needless to say my 386 DX was just for sad hopeless 1990's gaming, and had a word processor. Where am I going with this? I mean to say that although I may be a tad bit behind the curve today, I do yet have an appreciation, and I do use a computer personally and in business regularly, and I will encourage my children to use whatever methods seem to do the best job of giving them the best possible education. I don't think a device is, in itself, necessarily the answer, or a reliable facilitator of a better or superior mind. And I think regardless of the school's ideologies, and how they apply them to their overall strategy, I take my own involvement in my child's education very seriously, and intend on maintaining at least some sense of balance. It's hard to say how each one will do with or without a device of some sort plopped in front of them. I have to think that there will be at least some, maybe a small handful, or even just one, for whom it's a real drag.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> As long as the person is physically or mentally able to speak, then they can learn any language. It is not possible for someone who is not physically or mentally able to speak to learn any language.
> 
> After that, it is all effort.


But if a child with virtually no English is in a mainstream History lesson they will not be able to learn. They will, in due course, be able to learn English and thus begin to be able to access mainstream education. But at the initial stage how could their History teacher be expected to be able to be responsible for the learning of children who can't speak English? At this stage of their development their level of understanding will be the same as that of a child with severe learning difficulties. It would be like trying to teach a nearly blind child to draw.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Monocle said:


> Regardless, I am preparing myself for the possibility that it will become all device-based at some point. I am not naive to think that this could be just a passing infatuation. I believe that this the way children will learn, or be driven to learn, whether or not I am really prepared for it.





Monocle said:


> I will encourage my children to use whatever methods seem to do the best job of giving them the best possible education. I don't think a device is, in itself, necessarily the answer, or a reliable facilitator of a better or superior mind. And I think regardless of the school's ideologies, and how they apply them to their overall strategy, I take my own involvement in my child's education very seriously, and intend on maintaining at least some sense of balance. It's hard to say how each one will do with or without a device of some sort plopped in front of them. I have to think that there will be at least some, maybe a small handful, or even just one, for whom it's a real drag.


Think you've got the nail on the head there Monocle.
Too much use of electronic devices is detrimental to children, and the continued push to get schools to use them more is suspicious. Cui bono? Rupert Murdoch for one.


> _And as a parent of middle schoolers, I would strenuously oppose any plan by their school to add so much screen time to my children's days. The tablets, paid for in part by a $30 million grant from the federal Department of Education's Race to the Top program, were created and sold by a company called Amplify, *a New York-based division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation*_


And here's a long, but very informative article on that.
*No Child Left Untableted*



> _There are reasons to be skeptical about the invisible hand's mystic touch. Educational technology opens new avenues for marketers to reach students in a school setting, and links between screen time and childhood obesity raise public health concerns. Despite all the research showing that the educational benefits of new technology depend on good teaching, it can be easier to find money for cool new gadgets than for teachers. *The Los Angeles school district, for instance, cut costs in recent years by laying off thousands of teachers yet is now using bonds to finance the spending of $500 million on iPads*. And privacy issues can arise because school systems lack the experience to negotiate data agreements that anticipate all the ways technology companies could put student information to use.
> "When you're talking about Rupert Murdoch and his empire," says Josh Golin, the associate director at the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, "there are a number of ways that data could be valuable to his companies beyond instruction."_


It ends up being all button pushing, instant gratification with dancing graphics etc..
Just like a trip to the museum these days. 
Children are just there to push buttons on interactive displays, and you have to ask how much real appreciation for the subject there is. A lot of it is just more dumbing down, and lowering standards, and expectations.

Interestingly, there's been some talk lately how many "hi-tech" silicon valley parents are reducing screen time for their children.
*Steve Jobs Was a Low-Tech Parent*



> _"So, your kids must love the iPad?" I asked Mr. Jobs, trying to change the subject. The company's first tablet was just hitting the shelves. "They haven't used it," he told me. "We limit how much technology our kids use at home."_


And besides all that, there is plenty of evidence that over-exposure to television and computers is harmful to young children.

*NZ pupils struggling to speak




Fewer children starting school can speak in sentences, prompting an investigation by education chiefs.
Primary schools around the country have noted a decline in the spoken-language abilities of new entrants and the Ministry of Education will look into the reports.
School leaders and a specialist in linguistics suspect the problem could be caused by factors including children using gadgets too often and parents not talking to them enough.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Odradek said:


> Think you've got the nail on the head there Monocle.
> Too much use of electronic devices is detrimental to children, and the continued push to get schools to use them more is suspicious. Cui bono? Rupert Murdoch for one.
> 
> And here's a long, but very informative article on that.
> ...


Could one not argue that learning technological skills in today's world is more important than say learning handwriting? I honestly could get away with only signing my name and wouldn't "need" to do anything handwrittten. While I still prefer to take notes by hand and send out handwritten Christmas cards, I am also not of any of the current high tech générations.

How many teaching mediums do you know of that incorporate all learning styles ( visual, auditory, kinethetic). The class as a whole is much more apt to learn if everyone's Learning preference is incorporated versus say a kinesthetic learner reading a math problem off the board or a visual learner listening to a history lecture(or a storybook being read) .

Reducing entertainment screen time at home is not equal to educational screen time at schools. There is a difference between a math game and an interactive slash the fruit game (or sim city, or tetris, or any other game). Overexposure is one thing but can we not admit that a computer is as useful and standard as an educational tool as books, pencils, rulers, etc?

I too worry whenever I see the names of ruthless profiteering billionaires attached to any project but I fail to see how Murdoch's association in this case is bad news for students versus the end buyer (parents, governement, etc).

As interesting as it seems, Job's aversion to his children using tech is not really based on on parenting fact versus parenting opinion. I myself like a mixture. I would bring a book for bedtime and not a tablet but I would bring a tablet for math/word games before a book.

Technology also empowers teachers... Have you ever handwritten a lesson plan? They are hard to change and take up quite a bit of space to store. Teaching materials are available right online. Instead of the chalk board lesssons, powerpoint can provide dynamisim to the lesson. If all students are working on an in class assignment on the computer, the teacher can get instant updates as to mistakes made by the individual student and provide immediate corrective action (if deemed appropriate). Assignments are stored for the student in their personal file and the "I forgot" escuse is pretty much gone.

I would think it quite advantageous for both parents and students to have the capability of doing research at home/school versus having to make a trip to the Library in hopes that they will have enough of the material needed (if any at all).

Kids have always been distracted by something. Is pushing a button on a computer dumbing it down anymore than say looking out the window while the teacher is writing on the board? Is putting a star or poney picture on a computer page much different than putting a poney sticker on a notebook. What about all the little doodles that kids do on paper?

I'm not sure what you have against interactive Learning. If a museum exhibit has a recording that states the facts about a dinosaur and then makes a roaring sound, have the facts somehow become useless and dumbed down compared to a plaque giving generla information (especially to kids that can't read/read well yet). Children tend to have imaginations that most adaults can't imagine. Pretending that they're food and walking through a large makeup of the digestive system while enetrtaining is also educational. Learning is taking place.

As stated, I am not a big techno geek and prefer reading paper books over the electronic version but books can't be changed easily and cheaply. Let's say I'm teaching current events. While a book might be updated every year, the school district most likely won't want to replace the text yearly. This means that my lessons will be out of date the moment the book goes to publishing. Computers allow for instant updates that cost little to nothing. A new scientific discovery wouldn't require the search and printing of materials in order to teach the students, it could all be brought up in real time.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Where I work mobile phones are banned in the classroom, of course. They're a distraction and a barrier to learning. However, the commercial organisation that runs the school, and others, has an "arrangement" with Apple, and Murdoch, of course, by which the kids in Y10 and above are given iPads for use in school. I have forbidden their use in my classroom unless I have given them a task that needs their use, research or something, or preparing a presentation, otherwise the kids just sit playing games, communicating with their friends or generally distracting themselves. Another aspect of this, is how does one mark their written work if it is on an iPad? If they do all of their written work on an iPad, how well will they write when it comes to exams where they have to hand write their work?
One good thing is that unwanted teenage pregnancies are declining; virtual relationships are increasingly dominating kids' minds.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Where I work mobile phones are banned in the classroom, of course. They're a distraction and a barrier to learning. However, the commercial organisation that runs the school, and others, has an "arrangement" with Apple, and Murdoch, of course, by which the kids in Y10 and above are given iPads for use in school. I have forbidden their use in my classroom unless I have given them a task that needs their use, research or something, or preparing a presentation, otherwise the kids just sit playing games, communicating with their friends or generally distracting themselves. Another aspect of this, is how does one mark their written work if it is on an iPad? If they do all of their written work on an iPad, how well will they write when it comes to exams where they have to hand write their work?
> One good thing is that unwanted teenage pregnancies are declining; virtual relationships are increasingly dominating kids' minds.


And mobile phones/tablets with unlimited options aren't a good idea in the classroom versus locked programs and folders that help keep the students concentrated on the task at hand. You wouldn't give a student an unlimited stack of books/magazines and then expect him to ignore the playboy and stay focused on the chemistry would you? Just as studying with books, you need to remove the material you don't want/they don't need and help focus the student.

In addition, instead of having a whole book to distract the student, the teacher can unlock chapters as needed. No more students studying the prussian war of 1870 on page 220 when you want them to be looking at the war of 1812 on page 320.

Are e-notes any more distracting than the old fashion handwritten kind that would be thrown over the heads of other students when the teacher's back was turned? Or better yet, passed student to student under the desks?

Again. Staring out of the windows and drawing in notebooks was/is an undesired distraction in the classroom...but of a different time. As to games? How about the old spitball fights? Talk about distracting. Even if you weren't actually actively involved, you still needed to duck for cover. Tic tac toe with your neighbor was easy enough to get away with on paper (as were a few other games).

Isn't e-communication between students less distracting to the class as a whole? If I'm talking to my neighbor (either for class purposes or social reasons), does it not distract everyone around us? If 2 people want to email/text each other through while everyone is using their computers for a computer lesson, who else knows? who else is disturbed?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm just curious, what is the intended purpose of this technology? Has someone put forth due diligence as to how it will substantially benefit students?
> 
> It seems often school districts clamor for technology and don't really seem to have a plan or able to justify how it will substantially improve education. I'm wondering in this case what the purpose is.


It's obvious to everyone but to Luddites like you!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> One good thing is that unwanted teenage pregnancies are declining; virtual relationships are increasingly dominating kids' minds.


I wish they had free porno in HD when I was younger!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I wish they had free porno in HD when I was younger!!


Ah. For the good ole days when one of a boy's right's of passage was to go to the corner convenience store and buy his first playboy. Think of all the missed lessons from technology. No more saving money to buy a magazine. No more working up the courage to go into the store and order one from the guy behind the counter (even ballsier was to order from a woman behind the counter). Teamwork is gone. You no longer need a Buddy to look out for the inevitable (imagined) arrival of a priest, parent, or police officer. You learned patience (ok the store is finally empty). You learned how to make quick décisions (playboy? penthouse? hustler? big uns?) You l learned to accept what you had (if miss May's rear was too big for your liking you'd have to wait until June for a new issue). You learned stealth and how to think on your feet (no mom, this is a boyscout manual).


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's obvious to everyone but to Luddites like you!!


It's probably most obvious to current classroom teachers, current students, and parents of current students. There are also several educational organizations that would probably have more experience with the issue compared to say.... a person off the street that has "chosen" not to have children or someone whose children were done with school 10-60 years ago.

Is it not a bit sad that the same people that were just complaining about bureucratic school systems are now advocating a stronger bureucratic system in order to vet each and every new piece of equipment that the school needs/desires?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Lookie.

I know why parents put play stations in the back seat of their car.

I know why the babysitter plays videos on TV.

And I know why (some) teachers and administrators want laptops and tablets in classrooms.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Ah. For the good ole days when one of a boy's right's of passage was to go to the corner convenience store and buy his first playboy.


I never paid for it.

We found ours in trash bins and abandoned houses!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's obvious to everyone but to Luddites like you!!


These kids now days.....!!!


----------

