Year Round School

[06wildcat]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

Wealth and poverty are generational, especially in attitudes.

Rich and successful people pass on the work ethic, attitude etc. that make them rich an successful, for the most part.

Dumb poor people pass on their work ethic (which varies between none at all to very good), attitude etc.

Probably the biggest difference in attitude comes from rich/successful people hoping their kids have it better than they did. People from poor/dumb background are most often the ones saying "Well the eighth grade was enough for me.'

It's that attitude that makes for shitty students.

[Panjandrum]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

Wealth and poverty are generational, especially in attitudes.

Rich and successful people pass on the work ethic, attitude etc. that make them rich an successful, for the most part.

Dumb poor people pass on their work ethic (which varies between none at all to very good), attitude etc.

Probably the biggest difference in attitude comes from rich/successful people hoping their kids have it better than they did. People from poor/dumb background are most often the ones saying "Well the eighth grade was enough for me.'

It's that attitude that makes for crapty students.

People don't really know how common this really is.

We're moving from a generation where a high school diploma can earn you a middle class life to a high school diploma keeping you barely above the poverty line (in most cases...depends on whether or not you acquired a trade).

There is most definitely a correlation between people who value education and have wealth vs. those who don't value education and do not.  Those that do value education will pass it along to their children (most likely), and those that do not will pass that attitude to theirs. 

[Panjandrum]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall.  Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids.  I'm going with averages here.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall.  Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids.  I'm going with averages here.

the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.

[Panjandrum]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall.  Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids.  I'm going with averages here.

the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.

It does.

I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone.  I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.

The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false.  Not everyone can be a doctor.  Not everyone can be an executive.  Not everyone can start a business and make money on it.  Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.

It's just life, man.  It sucks, but it is what it is.

[CHONGS]

but everyone should get the opportunity to try

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

but everyone should get the opportunity to try

I believe they do. If you are being held back by some form of discrimination, I would presume a law is being broken. If you're simply incapable by virtue of your own mental limitations, there is nothing anyone can, or should, do about that. Everyone in America is given 13 years to attain an education, and a very large percentage waste it by their own choice.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall.  Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids.  I'm going with averages here.

the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.

It does.

I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone.  I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.

The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false.  Not everyone can be a doctor.  Not everyone can be an executive.  Not everyone can start a business and make money on it.  Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.

It's just life, man.  It sucks, but it is what it is.

I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic.  The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall.  Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids.  I'm going with averages here.

the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.

It does.

I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone.  I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.

The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false.  Not everyone can be a doctor.  Not everyone can be an executive.  Not everyone can start a business and make money on it.  Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.

It's just life, man.  It sucks, but it is what it is.

I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic.  The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.

That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall.  Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids.  I'm going with averages here.

the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.

It does.

I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone.  I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.

The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false.  Not everyone can be a doctor.  Not everyone can be an executive.  Not everyone can start a business and make money on it.  Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.

It's just life, man.  It sucks, but it is what it is.

I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic.  The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.

That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.

Sorry, I meant that the "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is the liberal mindset. I think conservatives, in general, are of the mindset "you need to work hard and compete for success".

[CNS]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall.  Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids.  I'm going with averages here.

the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.

It does.

I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone.  I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.

The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false.  Not everyone can be a doctor.  Not everyone can be an executive.  Not everyone can start a business and make money on it.  Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.

It's just life, man.  It sucks, but it is what it is.

I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic.  The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.

That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.

Sorry, I meant that the "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is the liberal mindset. I think conservatives, in general, are of the mindset "you need to work hard and compete for success".

Middle class conservatives, maybe. 

[CHONGS]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall.  Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids.  I'm going with averages here.

the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.

It does.

I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone.  I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.

The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false.  Not everyone can be a doctor.  Not everyone can be an executive.  Not everyone can start a business and make money on it.  Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.

It's just life, man.  It sucks, but it is what it is.

I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic.  The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.

That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.

Sorry, I meant that the "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is the liberal mindset. I think conservatives, in general, are of the mindset "you need to work hard and compete for success".

unless you fail, in which case you can just blame the government

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

If you want both high pay and a quality teacher, you need to pay for a private school without a union.

Actually, private schools don't have better teachers than public schools, and they pay much worse than public schools. Students at private schools score much better on standardized tests, obviously, but that has much more to do with parents who care and the school's ability to easily expel any problem students than it does with the quality of the teachers themselves. This is why the voucher program is doomed to fail. If you give vouchers to the problem students at failing public schools, the private schools will either have to kick them out or become failing schools themselves.

Anyone who has interest in this subject needs to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell.

The fact that there's a strong correlation of successful students coming from wealthy, educated families is more of a byproduct of the fact that wealthy, educated parents are more willing to talk, read, and work with their children (and genes play a factor as well) as opposed to less wealthy, educated families.  Basically, the biggest influence on a child's education is set before they're even born.  If they're born to wealthy, smart parents, the kids are more likely to do well in school, and if you're born to poor, uneducated parents, your odds of succeeding are much lower.

The educational system can have an impact, and studies have shown that a combination of year-round schooling and challenging curriculum can greatly increases a child's chances of doing well in school and going to college, but at the end of the day, you basically have to move a mountain or be fortunate enough to be a statistical minority to actually succeed in school if you were born to the wrong family.

We can throw billions of dollars at under-performing schools and teachers, disband unions, change mandatory curricula, etc. but really, the increases you'll see won't be as dramatic as people will ultimately want for that investment.  We're simply going to have to find the right balance because there is going to be a point where your ROI won't be worth it because the home lives for a lot of children aren't conducive to success.

The easiest solution to create the most rapid success would be year-round school.  That has to happen at some point.

I think we need to boil this down to the lowest common denominator and put the blame on the parents attitude rather than how much the money the parent makes. I realize class warfare is very important to many people, and perhaps the amount of money you have will affect your attitude, but it shouldn't. It always boils down to being a responsible parent, but it is usually easier to be a victim of society.

I don't think it has much to do with a 'victim' attitude, overall.  Maybe in some cases, but overall, stupid people tend to make less money, and stupid people tend to have stupid kids.  I'm going with averages here.

the world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny.

It does.

I don't believe in the "American Dream" being accessible for everyone.  I think propagating that notion is dangerous because it gives some people a reason to base their lives on some reality that's never going to happen for them unless they win the lottery.

The whole, "You can grow up to be anything you want to be," attitude is simply false.  Not everyone can be a doctor.  Not everyone can be an executive.  Not everyone can start a business and make money on it.  Some people need to learn a trade, and if you can't learn a trade, dig a ditch.

It's just life, man.  It sucks, but it is what it is.

I think it is this is still true, but everyone has their limitations and their goals just need to be realistic.  The liberal mindset in our schools that "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is a double edged sword. It instills a feeling of false entitlement, therefore setting up a huge disappointment and permanent mental scar. Kids need to be able to experience and deal with failure and well as achievement.

That's not really a liberal mindset at all. In fact, most parents I know who instill that mindset in their kids are wealthy and very conservative.

Sorry, I meant that the "everyone is a winner and their are no losers" is the liberal mindset. I think conservatives, in general, are of the mindset "you need to work hard and compete for success".

unless you fail, in which case you can just blame the government

Yes, the government has set a very dangerous precedent to support this attitude in recent years. 

[CHONGS]

no it hasn't

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

no it hasn't

TARP?

GM, Chrysler?

[CHONGS]

no it hasn't

TARP?

GM, Chrysler?

these don't support your point at all

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

no it hasn't

TARP?

GM, Chrysler?

these don't support your point at all

Probably right, weak effort there.

[CHONGS]

no it hasn't

TARP?

GM, Chrysler?

these don't support your point at all

Probably right, weak effort there.

That's all right, your liberal indoctrination at school made you a lazy thinker.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

no it hasn't

TARP?

GM, Chrysler?

these don't support your point at all

Probably right, weak effort there.

That's all right, your liberal indoctrination at school made you a lazy thinker.

I blame beems. Don't really need to think when sparring with him.