Almu- Im sure there are levels of schooling in the Dominican Republic too. Did she come from one of the better schools there? And did she go into one of the better schools here? Cause people from the good schools here sometimes also find it to be easy. ------------------ Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women!
Almu, The basic problem is there isn't enough money to have a great public school system without school levys and or other local efforts to put more money into schools. How would you allocate funds to schools? The problem is if you do it per student then small rural schools don't have enough money, if you do it by area covered then urban schools get shafted. The bottom line is affluent communities will be able to give additional monies for their schools while poorer districts don't have the luxury. Also I think it would be illegal, or unconstinutional, to say OJ poor school A is in a poor neighborhood but rich school B is in an affluent neighborhood. Each scholl has 1000 students and covers 10 square miles. How could you justify sending more taxpayer money to school A then B. Bottom line is life isn't fair, more affluent districts will have better schools and with better schools you get better teachers. ------------------
Dennis, thank you. JayZ: She came from an extremely poor area of the Dominican. I lived there for 2 years of my life and I can tell you that when I visited my family where she is, there was never any lights and barely any water to take showers. But, she did attend school and if I am not mistaken, she missed 2 years in her schooling because she had to work selling food on the street to help make ends meet. I think she graduated from high school here at 19. And she is not the only one. My aunt says the same thing about schooling here and so does my other cousins who were above average there become honor roll students here. Is it hard work? Is it the environment? I don't know. 4Chuckie: There isn't enough money? Are you serious? We are about to build somekind of defense system in space that will cost a bazillion dollars yet we can't find the funding or use the surplus to help nurture the very people who in the future will be going to other planets to discover and create? How is that possible? How do you allocate funds? On a school by school basis, thats how. You get a sort of "evaluator" for each school who makes an estimate of what each school needs. Then, you send someone like a "social school worker" who goes and checks what the evaluator says, confirms or rejects, and then in a couple of weeks, a person designated by the Education Department who is qualified to administer the funds for that school, goes during the SUMMER and fixes what needs to be fixed so that in September, the children come to school with the majority of the work done at the school. I mean, I just came up with that off the top of my head and you mean that these geniuses in Washington can't come together and discuss sh*t like this to solve something that is vital to the future of this country? Think about this. This country leads in almost everything the world has to offer. It leads in wealth, stature, respect, admiration, whatever you want...EXCEPT education. Despite the fact that we push kids through who don't deserve it, we have a country that is kicking major behind right now and is extremely prosperous. Yet, we have that 20 percent of the country that if you just try and reach with a little education, discipline and structure, can you imagine where this country can head? Think about that. Its amazing this country is where it is despite scoring so low in math and science. Just imagine how great this society could be, how much racism would be reduced, and crime, and all the ignorance if we just increase how much learning there is by a mere 20 percent? Scary. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan [This message has been edited by Almu (edited August 02, 2000).]
Almu -- If N. Korea or China develops missile technology within the next few years, it doesn't matter how much education you have!! But beyond that...I hate to sound like a stadium supporter (even though I am one) but the improvement of education and the establishment of a missile defense system aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. For the most part, the states are in the business of educating children..not the federal government. For my money, I think the first priority of the FEDERAL government is to defend the citizens of the United States at home and abroad. Certainly I believe the federal govt has other concerns...but I kind of respect the Constitution and the 10th Amendment in particular ------------------
Almu said: "How do you allocate funds? On a school by school basis, thats how. You get a sort of "evaluator" for each school who makes an estimate of what each school needs. Then, you send someone like a "social school worker" who goes and checks what the evaluator says, confirms or rejects, and then in a couple of weeks, a person designated by the Education Department who is qualified to administer the funds for that school, goes during the SUMMER and fixes what needs to be fixed so that in September, the children come to school with the majority of the work done at the school. I mean, I just came up with that off the top of my head and you mean that these geniuses in Washington can't come together and discuss sh*t like this to solve something that is vital to the future of this country?" So you don't think an evaluator can be flawed. Without some type of objective criteria their will be mistakes. Humans can't be totally objective. Hell, I say give all the state money to my high school. Also how would you feel if none of your tax dollars went to local schools. It has to be a fair system (like based on number of students or size of district, size of school, etc). You are esentially spending more money on evaluators to go observe than now. Also why punish schools which are effective with their resources (by an evaluator saying you did good with 1 million last year, but this year other schools need more so you only get 700K this year). It needs to be logical, not just giving to schools that can't take care of themselves effectively. ------------------
Like I said, 4Chuckie, I just did that off the top of my head. Its better to do SOMETHING instead of doing NOTHING like whats happening now. MadMax, I am all for defense. What I am trying to say is that people say there is no money for education. I say that there is. And N.Korea and China has been threatening to do something nuclear forever. And we have to worry about Iraq. And we have to worry about every damn country since alot of the world don't like us. But remember what worrying about the USSR got us? A huge deficit, a huge debt and a collapsed country. There was no nuclear war. Endless spending for what? To scare them too? You can build 1000 space defense systems. If a nuclear war breaks out, nothing is going to stop it. Not US. Not them. Not anyone. If those people overthere want to end civilization, what can be done? Eventually, one missle will get through and that is all you need. Want to end the threat? Get rid of all the damn missles. How about that for an idea? ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
One more thing, Max says he can say that all the money should go to his highschool, right? Well, if you high school sucked like mine did, then ok. But that is what the evaluator is for. He is not perfect. But neither is the guy that comes to your home and tells you how much he thinks your house is worth. Do you take his word for it, though? Or do you say that his way of evaluating can be flawed and get another evaluator. Then, if you don't agree with that one, you get another? No system is perfect. But A SYSTEM is needed. Overall, schools are ok. But they need to get better. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan
Jeff, Almu, et al. - more money for education, absolutely agree! As long as its for teachers, facilities, books, the necessary stuff, with accountability - not for more administrators and coaching staffs. The rub is in out to calculate who gets what, but if we could get a truly non-partisan effort going, I'm convinced there are smart people who can figure out the details. Couple of examples that tee me off: Coaching staffs: I understand that Texans love their high school football,but the amount of money spent for equipment and coaches is absurb. Went to a game last Fall Klein vs. somebody, don't remember who. There were nine coaches on the sidelines for each team! There's a suit going on in NYC where the administration is suing for more funds over the $10 biilion they currently receive to educate one million kids - that's $10,000 per student per year! I imagine there are thousands of school districts that would kill to have a third of that per student. Where's the money going and for what? Back to sports: ever b-ball season, I read about these tournaments in places like Las Vegas, LA, etc. that draw teams from all over the country. And there are a number of schools that regularly schedule games out of state, sometimes across the country. Is showcasing the b-ball team more important than hiring a couple more teaching assistants. Just my two cents worth. ------------------ "Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!
Dennis: Actually, we have voted. On four separate occassions over the past 15 years, we have had the opportunity to vote for or against bond elections that would've passed funds on to the schools locally that would raise teachers pay and provide infrastructure repairs. Guess how many passed? ONE. We scream and yell about how we want a better education system but we don't want to do what is necessary to make it happen. I don't care who pays for it. I don't care if it is the Fed, the state, the city, the county or a gopher named "Bronco". The point is that we spend more money every 15 seconds on the military in this country then we spend on an entire year's worth of education! That is pathetic. And, if education isn't a federal issue, why should Bush or Gore adopt ANY stance on it? Why not just say, "That is the job of the cities." and let it go? The fact is that, if we had the choice to increase federal spending on education and put as much work and technology and effort into it as we do into things like missle defense systems, I think it is an absolute no-brainer. How can anyone suggest that putting computers, better books, better school supplies, better paid teachers, more complete after-school activities (that, as studies have shown time and time again keep kids out of trouble), agressive early childhood development, agressive parental counseling to help kids, student counseling and more well-equipped faculties is a bad idea? You don't just get that from wishing for it or hoping it gets better. You pay for it and I think the vast majority of Americans would have NO problem diverting funds from military spending, for example, to education. I could be wrong, but since polls indicate that education is the NUMBER 1 issue to Americans in this election, I doubt it. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Almu -- first of all...I wasn't involved in that discussion with you about evaluators..that was someone else. Second..I agree that full-fledged nuclear war is unstoppable. What I'm concerned about is a smaller nation developing the technology to fire a few missiles to the US. It is conceivable we could stop one or more of them. And stopping one may save 4 million Houstonians. I say it's worth the effort. When it was just the Soviet Union, at least there was balance...it was really just us and them with nuclear arsenals. But missile technology in the hands of a leader hell-bent on making a stand or a statement against the US. On a personal note (and I don't want this to be too lovey-dovey)..though we tend to disagree a lot, Almu..I do appreciate the way you argue. You make your point, you make concessions when necessary, and you don't nit-pick others like you're finding some legal technicalities. There are others here who could take some lessons from that. I'd like to persuade you to see things my way...but you have a well-reasoned perspective. Ultimately my concern is the Constitution and the safeguards to protect us from an overreaching government. I think a "big" fedreral govt is a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson once said, "A government powerful enough to give you everything you ever want, is powerful enough to take away everything you ever had." The protection of individual liberty is extremely important to me, and when we allow the government to take care of us all, we eventually turn over our liberties. I believe strongly in federalism and the rights of the states to determine their own course. I think local school boards and officials know far more about what it takes to educate children in their particular area than those in Washington do. Federalism allows for a great laboratory..one state can experiment with vouchers and we can all learn from that experience without having to commit Texas resources to it just yet. Federalism creates a check on the federal government, and allows for the federal government to work as a check on oppressive state govts. I see no respect for federalism among the Democratic party. Every solution they offer to every problem is some grand federal program....the same type of programs that have consistently failed us (and others around the world) over and over again. Our rights stand juxtaposed to government power. As government grows, our rights necessarily are affected...as if on a balance sheet...debit the government, credit the individual. sorry for the rambling ------------------
MadMax, Jefferson also get disenfranchised with the whole constitutional process. He felt that many were being too elitest. Especially when John Adams said that the purpose of government was (and I paraphrase), "to protect the opulent minority from the views of the majority." He also gave a few warnings about the constitution, which I cannot remember. Basically, he felt really strongly about liberty and did not feel that the framers were really creating something for that. This is all going off of memory, so I cannot clarify and might have stumbled a bit. ------------------ Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit
MadMax, A few things: 1. You should not be afraid of me. 2. I was not suggesting you beleived anything, I was merely trying to add something about Jefferson. I thought you might be interested. Just because I am replying to your topic does not mean I am arguing with you. 3. I am not spending my whole day trying to catch you in "word slips", as you said. The incident to which you are referring was a legitimate response to a comment I thought you made in earnest. You seem to have taken it personally. ------------------ Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit
MadMax, Thanks. I agree with the principles you stated. You make valid points. I believe that if you want to control smaller countries from developing missles that reach us, then you have to know they are years away from that. You keep them from closing the gap by choking off their money supply. Little countries can't survive if they can't have money to buy goods. And if this doesn't work, the technology to develop something to reach Houston is so exclusive and rare that I think spending billions on missle defense is not proper right now. ------------------ I Want To Thank God For Making Me A Rocketfan [This message has been edited by Almu (edited August 03, 2000).]
can I jump in late here. this is the only issue fixable by legislature that i care to follow. the reason i say, "i care to follow", is because it is the most important one i feel like i can effect. i am for drastic reform of government whereby actual decisions on revenue appropriations is closer to my votes. I said in the Cheney thread to consider more where your votes are, and less for whom you vote. We only have 3 federal level votes. We have literally dozens of state and local votes. Thus, we as voters have more power of our vote closer to where we live. I contend that reform which moves actual decisions on spending closer to our votes will make the country more flexible, because it allows us voters to make change. <font size="1">(Before you say flexibility can lead to evil, I say that is what the federal government is for. Not spending and making federal mandates, but policing our state legislatures for evils like discriminatory spending.)</font> What would I do with my suggested change of voting power: I would vote for local and state politicians who have intentions on improving our school system. That is the best, most important thing I feel I can effect as a voter.
rimbaud -- I never said I adopt any one of the framer's views entirely...i tend to piecemeal a little of Hamilton and a little of Jefferson together. I do agree with Hamilton that you can't have a democracy such that it's mob rule. But I think it's clear that the framers were extremely concerned with the power of the government and the invididual's liberty. The entire Constitution is meant to set up LIMITS on the federal govt's power. This was a revolutionary idea and is still foreign in many ( I won't say all for fear of you trying to trip me up on words again) parts of the world today. ------------------
I'm all for taking money from the military and directing it toward education, especially if it is for underprivileged kids. The thing I'm still unclear on is Bush's tax plan. Is he going to help keep the rich from getting richer and start helping the poor and middle class get over the hump? If his plan is what Gore made it out to be where only those making over a million a year get the cut, screw him! Why not give it to people on the low end(under $40-50K/yr), the ones that really need the money? ------------------ Too often, we lose sight of life's simple pleasures. Remember, when someone annoys you it takes 42 muscles in your face to frown, but it only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and pimp-slap the mother****** upside the head!
It is my understanding that the Bush tax plan gives everyone a tax cut, but because people with higher incomes and in higher tax brackets pay more taxes, they will get a larger monetary break (not a larger percentage break) than those on the lower end of the income scale. Personally, I'd rather the debt be paid down before we start talking about expanding spending on even giving this small, across-the-board tax break. Given the size of the debt service on the outstanding debt, it seems to me that when given a chance to reduce that huge expense that doesn't help anyone, we should go for it. If the Congress and the President truly believe in reducing Government Spending, getting rid of as much of that annual interest payment as possible would go a long way toward reducing spending. But maybe that's just me. Going back to the original point. I hate to say it, but I agree with folks like Jessee Jackson on this one. Competition isn't going to fix the public school system, and vouchers seem to me to be a surrender. It's like saying, "We can't fix the public schools, so we'll save some kids with vouchers and the rest can fend for themselves." If a private school can really teach kids better, maybe we need to find out how they achieve those results and copy those methods for our public schools. Or find out what works and do that. ------------------ Houston Sports Board DFW Sports Board
Amen, mrpaige. I actually discussed this very issue with several African American people who are working on the arena campaign. One arm of the campaign is working specifically on the minority vote and we were discussing the widening gap between the rich and the poor because they talk to the poor inner-city citizens every day. Many of them there spoke about how you won't find a computer in an entire urban minority community let alone internet access but that is for another thread. When I mentioned vouchers, they all said that vouchers would not get poor people any closer to a private school because it isn't enough. What about transportation since private schools have no buses? What about the cost of books and uniforms? What about the amount per semester not covered by the voucher? One of them compared it to a coupon to an expensive restaurant. While it is a nice gesture, a buy-one-get-one-free card at a restaruant where the entrees are $30 won't do poor people any good because they can barely afford a three-dollar burger and fries. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Again it's a fine example about how Gore is promising a change (like Medicare, social security, etc) yet he ahd Willy haven't done squat in their first 8 years. Now I don't know for sure if vouchers ar ethe best way, but it definetely beats the Clinton-Gore way, or I should say campaign for something, get elected then pick fights with congress and get nothing done. Vouchers have worked in other areas so we may as well try it to see if it works. ------------------
I love how Republicans like to paint a picture of good 'ole GOP congressmen begging Clinton to work with them. Please, while Clinton was at fault, so were the Republicans. The guy was vilified before he ever took office. He should have just shrugged off the numerous personal attacks and worked with them, but he didn't. Just don't act like it was all Clinton's fault because it wasn't. ------------------ Cheerleaders are just dancers who've gone r****ded. visit www.swirve.com
