The Roanoke Times: RoundTable

Comments

# 1

[February 28, 2007 9:44 AM]

Lisa

Maybe there WAS a reasonable explanation for why the police and mystery man were in the home, but as time ticks on without the details being revealed, it is looking less and less supportable. Sprinkle needs to speak, now, not later, about what was going on.

Imagine waking to this scenario in your home. What would you do?

As for project Arriba, when you have to explain what the name means, might not that lessen the intended impact of the concept?

# 2

[February 28, 2007 11:39 AM]

Josh

40 years and several trillion dollars towards the Great Society. All that money wasted on failed 'education' programs. 40% of Virginians taxes devoted to 'education'. Yet Roanoke still can't graduate a third of its students.

When something has failed so dramatically for so long, WHY do you liberals insist we pour MORE taxpayer money into it?

# 3

[February 28, 2007 11:57 AM]

terry

I agree with Josh that money won’t solve the problem. If someone thinks pouring money into government schools is going to solve the overall problem I don’t necessarily think of them as liberals, but they are definitely in denial.

There should be virtually no government schools beyond the 6th grade and they should be the minority of K-6 schools. As soon as children are able to read, write and grasp basic mathematical concepts that’s where society’s investment should end and personal well-being should take over. If the schools were set up like everything else that is not controlled by the government, that being a free-market economy, the educational system would blossom.

The unions have destroyed work ethic and rewarded mediocrity. At least disband the teacher’s union. That won’t make nearly the impact as free-market schooling, but I’m willing to compromise for something.

The longer we let the government run the education system the harder it’s going to be to switch to the appropriate system. The more money you pour into the government system the farther that system will run into the ground.

Note: apologies for any grammatical errors.

# 4

[February 28, 2007 12:04 PM]

Dan Radmacher

How would a "free-market economy" for schools guarantee universal access?

Sounds like a recipe for furthering the already deep economic divide.

# 5

[February 28, 2007 12:22 PM]

Lisa

Unfortunately, reading, writing and 'rithmatic are no longer the only things needed to succeed in the world. With less and less parental involvement, more children are at risk for failure than ever before.

Can you expound on your theory on what "an appropriate" system would be?

# 6

[February 28, 2007 2:57 PM]

terry

You’re exactly right Dan, it would further the economic divide. Trying to create an equal divide has massive unintended consequences that are the mainstays in socialist and communist societies. Creating a universal access system (much like the current) holds back the gifted until the ‘non-gifted’ can catch up. What really happens is more degenerates are produced and fewer, if any, gifted children reach their full potential. If everyone reaches their full potential there will undoubtedly be a larger gap than today. However, the bottom of the barrel will be much more productive than today’s bottom.

Lisa, you are also correct, the R’s are not all you need to succeed. Your mistake is thinking that everyone is going to succeed by your definition of the word. Everyone will not. Trying to get everyone to succeed by your definition has massive unintended consequences resulting in more failures. Having different schools set up for different levels of intelligence or, possibly more the case, economic class and getting the children in their appropriate schools gets the full potential from every student. A child reaching his full potential as a janitor compared to another reaching his full potential as a rocket scientist is the same success, the best they can be.

Both of you make the mistake thinking that a large number of people are going to be subject to no education past 6th grade. Very few will. It’s the same number of people who can’t comprehend/retain the information given to them beyond that level. It’s the same number of people who could go to school everyday their entire lives and still end up with a 6th grade education. You are afraid that the poor won’t be able to afford school. There will still be government funded schools, just very few as a ratio representing the number of poor who can succeed to everyone else. That number decreases if you factor in the important point of scholarships handed out to the intelligent children from lower classes by the elite schools in order for the schools to promote their talents as educators as well as their acceptance of diversity. For the first time the intelligent children from low-income families will be able to get the best education possible. And it won’t be a government school.

As far as Lisa’s parental role statement, well, those parents went through the current government school system (another indicator that the schools are getting worse). Parents don’t realize the amount of personal tax dollars that go to education. Therefore, they think that our current system is more or less babysitting. Not all parents, mind you, just the ones that don’t pay attention. As soon as they don’t have to pay those tax dollars and, instead, have to pay for their children’s school out of their pocket they will quickly gain interest. Not all of them, but a much larger portion than the current.

Early age trade schools would be a great success. Construction, for example, is very important to society, much more important than the credit it is given by the same society. Instead of teaching children biology, abstract mathematics or any other post 6th grade curriculum that they aren’t going to retain we should be teaching them something of importance relative to their life instead of wasting away the years that they are most susceptible to education.

Lisa; I could ‘expound’ all day, but I’ll just put this out there so I don’t get sidetracked and off subject.

Note: apologies for any grammatical errors.

# 7

[February 28, 2007 3:02 PM]

Dan Radmacher

"Having different schools set up for different levels of intelligence or, possibly more the case, economic class and getting the children in their appropriate schools gets the full potential from every student. A child reaching his full potential as a janitor compared to another reaching his full potential as a rocket scientist is the same success, the best they can be."

That's all fine, Terry, if you accept the disturbing notion that those of lesser economic means are necessarily fit only to be janitors.

I reject that idea unequivocally. And so should our society.

# 8

[February 28, 2007 4:51 PM]

terry

I guess I should have typed “Having different schools set up for different levels of intelligence (or sometimes the case of economic class because some moron picked six numbers last week and has millions of dollars to send her half-witted child to the best school taking away the spot of a highly gifted child from a low-income family) and getting the children in their appropriate schools gets the full potential from every student. A child reaching his full potential as a janitor compared to another reaching his full potential as a rocket scientist is the same success, the best they can be.”

Even if you took my words literally they don’t mean that money is the basis of your occupation. They look to me like they read your ‘full potential’ is the basis of occupation. I am as proud of a janitor that reached his potential as I am a rocket scientist.

Very rarely do the children of the rich become janitors. On the opposite end, children from extremely low income households very rarely become janitors either…they become criminals (because they don’t reach their full potential of being a janitor or a rocket scientist). I would rather have a janitor, regardless where they started on the economic ladder. I want everyone to reach their full potential. Your current system does not do that.

The best teachers are going to be at the best schools. Those schools would be the most expensive schools. Rich people are going to send their children to the best schools regardless of their intellect, not the school that best fits them. Meanwhile, (you must have missed this point) the lower classes will have a much better opportunity to have their highly intellectual child go to one of the best schools than under your system. The comment was a joking reference to schools like Harvard. It’s set up to be the best educational facility, but it does not only consist of the brightest students.

Either I applaud your debating skills to rearrange/misinterpret/misuse my words for your defense/offense or I ponder how much of this concept you’re going to grasp. Hopefully it’s the former and it won’t happen again.

What else do you unequivocally reject?

Also, I got off a bit earlier. The argument could be made that instead of government schools at all we could just use the money as a financial aid. We would have more money to give low-income families that would be wasted on infrastructure.

Note: apologies for any grammatical errors.

# 9

[March 1, 2007 11:05 AM]

terry

Dan, I thought of a better way to put it…

You have 3 schools: 1. elite, 2. average, 3. bad.
You have 4 economic classes: 1. high, 2. middle, 3. poor, 4. uber-rich
Schools are competing for business. Ideally they want the student that fits their curriculum so that child will graduate. They don’t want half of the students failing or quitting, which would be bad for business. So, just because class 2 can afford school 2 doesn’t mean the child will go to that school. If he fails the admittance exam he’ll be going to school 3 (where he belongs in order to reach his potential). If someone from class 3 hands in a genius IQ then school 1 will cater to her every need in order to boost their yield. They are hoping she is not white. On the other hand, the uber-rich may have a snot-nosed punk of a son with the attention span of dead grass and a train of thought that consists of a locomotive and a caboose. He’s not passing any admittance exams. But daddy builds a new wing onto the library of school 1 and Corky gets in.

The underlying joke is that Corky never reaches his potential as a janitor and blows daddy’s money, giving it all back to a lower class.

Note: apologies for any grammatical errors.

# 10

[March 1, 2007 1:17 PM]

Lisa

Wow, Terry, you have really thought this out. (No sarcasm intended). But the legal, moral, ethical, economic, segregationist (etc.) implications are staggering.

I can't even begin to buy into this.

I homeschool some of my kids

# 11

[March 1, 2007 1:49 PM]

terry

Lisa, now maybe you can be the one to do the expounding.
I’m not sure I understand your statement of ‘staggering implications’.
I’m not quite sure what you’re not willing to buy into. If it is my presentation I can completely understand. If it’s the free market educational system I would be glad to hear why not.

You bring up another great tool of free market education…home schooling. Small towns don’t have the resources or customer base for a school to be profitable. The solution is home schooling via the internet. Companies can reach any student anywhere in the world practically. Trust me, if a free market school realized it could make money in Indonesia after setting up the area with internet service and computers, it will do it. Wouldn’t it be great if the children that grow up a hundred miles from the nearest ‘elite’ schools could attend them? That becomes a possibility.

Note: apologies for any grammatical errors.

# 12

[March 1, 2007 10:33 PM]

Lisa

Oops, I must have hit the send button before I even finished that last sentence. I will come back to this thought tomorrow.

Yes, homeschooling via the internet is a wonderful option. It just isn't a good option for kids whose parents can't or won't (or even who think they can but don't really) do it justice.

# 13

[March 2, 2007 9:31 AM]

terry

Lisa…

I don’t want to get off subject with the current home-schooling situation. I would rather hear why you think free market education is a bad idea or not the best idea. However, I do want to make one comment toward home schooling. As much as I like the idea and as good as the results are the one knock I have against home schooling is that most children don’t learn to socialize. They usually get stuck in the ‘family’ personality and don’t form a 'social' personality. Parents don’t see this because kids act differently when parents aren’t around. ‘Home school’ children act the same. Unfortunately we live in a world where personality can get you farther than intelligence in places where it shouldn’t (i.e. politics, members of a school board). I realize there are programs set up for the children to socialize with other ‘home schools’, and that’s great. There wasn’t much of that when I grew up, so I’m sure the children are much more social today. But it can get better.

On a side note, I guess I lost Dan. He must have found something more important. I thought he would have calmed down after taking pot shots (i think that's right) and told me his solution or at least point out the errors of my way. In his defense educational system discussion can be boring. Luckily it’s not very important.

Note: apologies for any grammatical errors.

# 14

[March 2, 2007 12:27 PM]

Lisa

Dan is playing "tag - you're it" with J.O.S.H. (I mean Josh) and is unavailable for comment.

To stay totally on topic for this thread, there are no comments on "what would you do?" when faced with 2 men in your 10 year olds bedroom? Anyone?

My point about Arriba also was evaded. It sounds like throwing a few grains of sand on the beach. But that's better than taking sand away.

Terry, you're so right that the educational system can be boring which is why it gets so little attention in states (like Florida) where the population is aging faster then ever. Is it also unimportant? Sad, but true too often.

I see many problems with your concept, as Dan said "Sounds like a recipe for furthering the already deep economic divide". Deeper than economics, you seem to be basing your idea on the theory that most parents actually care about their children's development, and/or care enough to invest financially in their future.

While this is true for those who would be most likely to support free market education, the rest of the kids would suffer.

I am reminded of the state run schools I saw in Germany 30 years ago (not sure if it is the same today), kids were tested and subsequently placed in 3 levels of schools (dumb, average, smart) In order for the state to continue to pay for the education at higher levels and qualify for the University (also free) students had to test out of the dumb and average and into the smart by age 14. (I am saying "dumb" and "average" just to make a point, not to be insensitive). I knew a girl who was pressured into becoming a doctor because of her intelligence. She tested, passed, tested and passed her way right into being an MD. Then she committed suicide. The pressure was too much (revealed by her diaries discovered after her death).

I don't believe you can fairly separate intelligence, personality and economic status AND offer quality, accessible education to the free world in a free market system.

Having said all of that, we can make choices based on what we perceive the needs of our own children to be, of which homeschooling is one.

The socialization piece is no longer arguable to me. My kids are so busy (and socialized) that it makes my head spin at times and we need to pull back. So I am putting this back on topic and if someone wants to open a homeschooling thread, I'm here, not to debate but to share and demystify.

# 15

[March 2, 2007 1:17 PM]

terry

The schools won’t be a mandatory segregation of intelligence, that’s just how it will naturally work. It will run a lot like modern colleges, which are free-market based with some of them having government subsidization. You have a choice which school you go to, to an extent. If you are admitted to an elite school and your friend is admitted to an average school you can join her at the average school. It’s just that your friend can’t join you at the elite school.

The Germany reference doesn’t really work because it was a government forcing her to make decisions (at least that's how I read it).

You typed…
I don't believe you can fairly separate intelligence, personality and economic status AND offer quality, accessible education to the free world in a free market system.
I respond with the question; can you prove it?
I can prove you are wrong, private schools and universities do it every day.

As the opposition I would say that it is impossible for a government to effectively educate its own society.
And I can prove it.

Note: apologies for any grammatical errors.

# 16

[March 2, 2007 5:52 PM]

Lisa

Private schools and universities do it because someone (parents) care and are motivated enough to pay.

The german girl was pressured more by her parents than the government because they didn't want to have to pay for her private education (which they would have if she hadn't tested so highly).

The difference between colleges being market based and 6th grade and up not, are the age and maturity of the student. An 18 year old is old enough to care what school they go to, AND might be able to pay for it. A 12 year old is not able to pay. They need fiscal sponsership

Alas, I can't prove anything. This is all conjecture on my part, backed up only by a desire to see educational fairness prevail.

# 17

[March 3, 2007 11:03 AM]

terry

Educational fairness?
You mean educational mediocrity.

If this editorial is right (and I doubt that it is) last years Roanoke graduation rate was 57%. The system has failed. Like I said in my first post, people are in denial. You have no solutions. You do not understand. You may think you do, but you don’t. I’m sorry you don’t get it. Don’t feel bad, most people don’t get it. That’s why we will continue to have government education. And as long as we have government education people will never get it.

I’m explaining such a great idea and you turn it into your German friend killing themselves. That wasn’t free-mar...I have no idea where that came from. Now you’re saying something about kids aren’t mature enough for college because I said the schools will run a lot like colleges. You are way off. If I were explaining to you how to build a house I’m pretty sure you would ask me why the basement isn’t on top of the house. Stop replying to me and take a couple of weeks to think about what I’m explaining. Or, think about the best way to make free-market school work…yeah, that’s a better idea. I want you to answer all of your own questions. As soon as you work your way through all of those questions you will look back on this with a big ‘duh’. Don’t look at it as ‘it won’t work’ look at it as ‘it will work but how’.

Note: apologies for any grammatical errors.

# 18

[March 13, 2007 1:38 PM]

Mark Wilson

Dan, no how much you wish it were so, socialism never has and never will work. I am sure you think it can "if the right people are in charge" but it is a fundamentally flawed system that has and will fail every time it is tried...period.