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.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Grant who wrote (3552)	11/16/2001 3:08:45 PM
From: Ahda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

And so a second feature of the current reform effort is a separate program rewarding schools that achieve improved performance. They will receive . . . more money. This I believe causes corrupt education. The incentive factor for performance contradicts education. Primary education means create a base that will allow the extended accumulation of knowledge. You can’t measure at what point in younger children you have succeeded. This reform amounts to extensive paper work and a total waste of money in administration costs. Real reform requires competition--full parental choice among public and private schools--so that parents can choose the schools best suited for their children. I will never believe a private system that lays the cost burden on families that don't have sufficient income or education to delve into the school's ability to educate is the answer. As a child my education took place in an area where English was not the first language. Many of my friend's parents could not communicate with the public school or English-speaking people. The children were the translators and check writers for the parents. ESL classes amounted to one English-speaking teacher, dealing with twenty-five children who spoke at least four different languages. As adults most of these children were very successful. The teachers taught to comprehension level of the local children they had in the class. This did not mean achieve academic statistic performance but performance period. Children were failed or shifted to a lower grade due to ability level. Somehow the end result of this limited funding method created outstanding pupils in upper levels. The voucher system to a degree allows freedom of choice but the ability to choose what is best is the problem,. My fear of a voucher system in CA is that it will become a political ploy that plays to emotion and not foremost to education. In younger children literacy has a great deal to do with parents being literate. You could end up with an overload of parents applying to Bel Air schools due to perceived grades and Bel Air hasn’t the slightest idea what Compton needs. ( Bel Air is a very affluent area of CA. Compton is less affluent.) If the voucher bill is written in a manner that states funds must be dispersed within local areas it will create competition within the schools of the local community. Comparing performance to the whole is impossible in my opinion due to variance. Using a broad approach to the whole is rather like Ah and I getting into a debate on Physics I have lost before I start. That does not mean at a later date Ah would not lose it just means at present my ability is not there. Standardized testing cannot be done in the lower levels where standard is only applicable to the academic performance of the local. Administrators know what works best for their area so the directive then becomes local and how X amount of dollars be allocated most effectively to benefit most. Local self-directed order is what has been the biggest omission in elementary education; this makes the commission appear impossible due to extent red tape OT do you know who the Blue Bombers are?