Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (119595)	12/26/2000 5:07:48 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Lower class sizes? That's crap. Its a union excuse for featherbedding. I got a great education in classes routinely 40 + in size with ONE teacher. My kids don't get the same quality with a class size of 20-25, a teacher, an aide and another person just to watch the special needs student in the class who constantly disrupts the whole classroom. What it takes to give the kids a good education is a teacher who teaches and controls the classroom and parents who care about their kids enough to make sure homework gets done, reading is encouraged and who teach the little nippers that a kid's education is job one and only for the kid. JLA

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (119595)	12/26/2000 9:11:10 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 769667

This is more eduliberal BS. There were some FACTS in my posts; you have countered none of them. Class size? That's more BS. In Japan, class sizes are double those in the US and their output is MUCH better. Oh, and they spend less on education than we do. Class sizes do guarantee the jobs of teachers and create an artificial shortage though; maybe that's why that solution is so popular. I'm an engineer; if we got away with the same whines educators do, you'd still be counting on your fingers. a role for the federal government to play. Another tax-and-spend big government typical libobabble "solution". Back when the American education system worked- -a least better than it does now- -funding was ENTIRELY LOCAL. The problem began when federal aid to education started. And there is a reason for this connection: As you pour in more money, you get more bureaucracy and there are more people to interfere with actually getting the job done. The flight to suburbia (more economic than racial, really) has left inner cities without a strong, sustainable property-tax base. Ergo, pay now or pay much more later. You're ALRADY paying MUCH more than you did forty years ago and getting MUCH worse social results. Your solution is busted. Why can't you see that? I am not doubting what you say about Utah, but would point out that the example is probably apples vs. oranges because of Utah's being a highly theocentric society. Duh. You mean THINGS OTHER THAN MONEY can grossly affect educational outcome? THen why don't we look into THAT? Because the solutions you are proposing haven't worked and aren't working. And Utah is just one example of this lack-of-connection between spending and outcome. Ever wonder why the educational establishment just baldly makes the claim that money improves outcome? It's because they have not and cannot prove it. If they could, they'd be giving you facts rather than bald lonesome claims.