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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quehubo who wrote (82624)	9/7/2008 7:55:28 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541756

So when they look at what they have to give up say a Saturday, and whats left after taxes, they are not always so motivated. Even with the higher tax bite on the OT dollars, they're still making nearly time and a half, which is a terrific deal if you need the money. When people turn down overtime at that price, they're living comfortable so they don't need the extra money and prefer their days off. When I was working, I always tried to steer awards and bonuses into time off rather than cash. But I never blamed it on higher taxes. That's a bogus argument. Whether the people who make it are really that stupid or whether they just don't admit that they're living fat and happy with the luxury to prefer more leisure to more money is unknown.

To: quehubo who wrote (82624)	9/7/2008 10:01:50 AM
From: bluezuu	Respond to of 541756

I can only hope the feds do nothing more with K-12 education. If congress and the pres would just focus on their own substandard performance I would be pleased. I would rather have the feds focus on grading banks than students.

To: quehubo who wrote (82624)	9/7/2008 11:17:35 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541756

On the subject of education, I suspect most of K-12 programs are suffering not from a lack of money and adequate teachers. What they lack are disciplined and motivated students and an environment where they can learn. This is just your "suspicion." Money needs to be used (a) the fix buildings, school infrastructure--they are fine for the most part in upper and upper middle class neighborhoods, while they are frequently in poor shape in poor and lower middle class neighborhoods. (b) It isn't a matter of "adequate teachers" so much as adequate teaching environments. Not just in terms of infrastructure and materials, as above, but in terms of class and school sizes. Plenty of research has been done that shows that, after economic level of the familes attending the school, class and school size are best predictors of success. Unhappily, real class size information is hard to come by, because it gets mixed in with special needs classes, which are very small. Mix in a special needs class of 5 with a regular class of 35 and you get a nice average of 20. Of course it gets more complicated than that (there aren't as many special needs classes as regular classes in most schools, but there are enough to skew the averages). (c) A kid who lives in a dangerous neighborhood or who doesn't get enough nutrition or who doesn't have books in his home with parents who read or whose parents are both working and are too tired or too anxious about financial matters to give them individual time is going to be as prepared or motivated as a kid who has those things in his home. Also if increased money was made available it should be set aside for programs directed at gifted students and not the below average ones. From what I read the total output of the system is being dragged down with so much focus spent on trying to bring up the slow learners. We are in partial agreement here. It is true that the amount of money going to students with "special needs" dwarfs the amount of money given to gifted students. And it is true that the amount set aside for gifted students is way too small. We occasionally get Dylan Klebards and more often underachieving, alienated gifted students as a result. But it doesn't need to be an "either/or" question. It shouldn't be an either/or question. The truth is that all students are individuals with their own needs that need to be addressed. Small schools and small class sizes are necessary condition for achieving this. But the critical thing is not going to come from the government but from the family. Make the students motivated and make sure they are prepared for class and behave. We are also in agreement on this to an extent. But what Obama recognizes is the importance not only of individual families for this, but the context of the overall community in which individual families live. Dysfunctional neighborhoods produce produce dysfunctional families. Of course, this can be a chicken and egg problem. But government must do what it can do, and that is to support organizations that are trying to address dysfunctional communities. That is what the Harlem Children's Zone is doing, and why he points to that as one model. It isn't the only model, but it is one good one that could work in densely populated urban contexts.