There was an interesting, and lengthy, debate on the Political Moms blog. It was in reference to Glenn Beck's 9 Principles, and his "We Surround Them" campaign. I will not go into it at length, or give my specific opinions on each. Instead, reading through the comments to her post, sparked some thoughts I wanted to share, which I'm not sure completely related to their discussion. So I will lay it out for you fine ladies (and gents, I know there are several of you out there!)
One principle in particular, brought on a heated discussion. It is #6 "I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results." I completely, undeniably, absolutely agree with this concept. To some, this may sound heartless, uncharitable, and arrogant. I have to admit, I was one of those arrogant college graduates who truly believed that those who were poor were just lazy. I would never be one of those, because my husband and I worked too hard, studied too long, put in our dues, and would because of that, be guaranteed the rich results. The reality of my arrogance and ignorance was harsh and excruciatingly humbling. We struggled finding any job upon graduation, struggled making ends meet while working two to three jobs each, had zero luxuries, experienced several lay-offs and months of unemployment. And it took almost four years of near-poverty for me to learn several invaluable lessons.
One, hard work does not guarantee monetary wealth. The founders did not guarantee monetary stability. Instead, they believed the government should ensure the opportunity to pursue happiness. Why does this often translate to money? I know more miserable rich people than I do unhappy poor people. We have the inalienable right to pursue happiness. I had to find happiness in poverty. And it took a very long time for this to sink in. My bank account or size of my home does not define me. I am proud of what little we have, because we have worked extremely hard for everything. Which leads me to my next lesson.
Pride of Ownership. We live in an older, smaller home, in a neighborhood someone unaware of where we lived, pointed out to my husband that neighborhood was in the "ghetto". Which might be true in our relatively wealthy community, anywhere else it is average. We worked extremely hard to buy this home, and worked twice as hard to keep it while unemployed. Through this refining process, I learned to take pride in what I own. I love our home, in all it's imperfections and simpleness. We consider ourselves truly happy. Which makes it all the more difficult knowing those who live in Section 8 housing, and desperately want a home, yet take no pride in what they already have. Or even our neighbors who trash their homes and yards, yet would love to live in a new home. Or even worse, those who live in extremely nice homes and neighborhoods, but are eternally looking for something bigger and better. If you took pride in what you already have, kept it clean and made it the best it could be, you would find your happiness.
What you don't work for, holds no value. We have experienced almost all that the government has to offer. Health care, food, student grants, unemployment benefits, etc. We figured, might as well take advantage of it, if it is available. Life was a whole lot easier, yet less gratifying. All of our needs were met, yet we didn't fully appreciate them. This is when I realized that they held little value, because we did not earn them. When we were laid off this last time, and all of those same hand-outs were made available, we decided not to apply. They were no longer appealing. I found more value in having less and working hard for it, than being comfortable in what was freely given to me.
This is an extremely edited and compiled list of years of emotions and struggles and hard lessons finally learned. I am not sure what sparked this post from the other discussion, but I have found it cathartic to put into words. All too often, those of us who espouse conservative values, who believe in capitalism, are painted as greedy, Rush-ites, who want to push others down only to lift ourselves up. I can only speak for myself and family, when I say, it is unequivocally not true. And one painful lesson I have learned is, there are no guarantees in life.
19 comments:
You HIT the nail on the head! Why is money the definition of success and happiness?!?! I grew up RICH and POOR we had money coming out of our ears, a beach condo, new cars, a new house, and the we lost everything, my mom did daycare, my dad delivered kitchen sinks on the roof of his car. He is a strong conservative and can't stand the idea of the government WASTING his hard earned money on people who aren't willing to find happiness on their own. My sister is living in an 11 thousand square foot house. She was suppose to be aborted as a baby, she worked the graveyard shift as a mother of 4 so her husband could take a risk on a company to make a better life for them. She was in learning disabled classes and is legally blind, yet she is a successful nurse now, she has lost 2 children and has also struggled with depression. Yes, she lives in a mansion, but she is sooooo generous. She has had up to 16 people living in that house at a time because they were trying to make ends meet on their own. She does wedding receptions for free for people who can't afford it, she gives thousands and thousands of dollars to people and has paid for the missions of people who can't afford it. How is she somehow not deserving of her success and looked at as EVIL because she is rich? She does SOOO much more good with her money then our government could do. On top of it all, she is on the verge of losing everything because of the current economic situation and SHE DOESN'T CARE, it's all just money to her, she said she did her part and she needs to rely on the Lord. She is at the temple today because she knows that's what counts and that's what matters. She serves in her callings, she supports her children and loves her husband. I am NOT bragging about my sister, although I am very proud of her. The point is, everyone has a story to tell, everyone has their reasons. I think it is sooooo wrong for people to pigeon hole her and define her as something she isn't just because she is RICH. She is just as much the backbone of our country as Christina's father who worked 3 jobs or my father who owned his own company and struggled to make deliveries. The monetary value isn't what defines a person, yet the rich are painted as evil and selfish and the poor are painted as victims of the rich. I know selfish rich people and I know selfish poor people. I know happy rich people and unhappy rich people and the same for poor people, and everything in the middle. In all that I have witness (my ripe old age of 31), IN MOST CASES, NOT ALL, we make our own circumstances and we make our own happiness. The Lord sends us trials and he puts us in certain homes and he gives us certain circumstances and we have our own AGENCY to do with it what we will, he doesn't force us to do anything. He encourages us and reminds us of the consequences, he helps us but he doesn't do it for us. We have skills, talents and abilities that we are suppose to develop, use and share. I refuse to continue to be railroaded by my government and it's regulations and unnecessary laws. I want the government off my back and I want to get back to the founding principles this country was built upon.
***NOTE the words republican, democrat, conservative or liberal were NOT used in this comment nor had anything to do with my opinions. The government, in general, without political affiliation, is guilty!
I looked over at the other blog today and I will be honest, they will hate me over there for this, but I didn't comment over there just because they all seem so mad....mad at life, mad at injustice, mad at talk radio, mad at Republicans and mad at Glenn Beck this awful greedy, money hungry man that they all piled on and know very little about. I just found it all so ugly. Thanks Sarah for a positive hopeful post that is so true.
My father worked everyday my entire life from 5:30 am to 11pm. I saw him on weekends and we were poor. 1400 sq foot house filled with 8 children and 1 bathroom but he was not a victim of anyone and I would never denigrate his dignity by saying he was. We were happy, loved and centered in what life is truly about, our relationships. Money in no way defined our pursuit. There were hard times but it never even entered our heads to wonder who was going to come and make sure the rich got less so we could get more. It is just such an odd way of thinking to me.
I also have a very hard time listening to or respecting people who make their point calling people morons and buffoons. When someone employes such a low form of communication, I really don't hear the rest of the argument.
I would much rather discuss ideas or principles, than the people behind them. I find it infuriating when Hannity does it to Obama and when Olberman did it to Bush. Leaving names and parties aside, where do we agree and where can we compromise? To attack Glenn Beck's intelligence or character, like you said Gale, only weakens an argument.
Returning back to the whole discussion of "pursuit of happiness", I'm wondering when it was in our society when the concept of work shifted from something to take pride in and enjoy spending your day doing, to a means to an end of receiving a paycheck. My grandpa was a mechanic, had a very modest home, yet loved what he did. Loved getting his hands dirty. Looked forward to feeling useful. It seems the attitude of the majority of the country has turned into making a "quick buck", making your millions so you can retire young. Both my grandparents and my dad resist retirement, because they enjoy working. There is nothing more rewarding than having a husband come home from a job he enjoys and feels useful. It took a lot of hard work to get this kind of job, but it is beyond worth it.
Do you see that change? And why did it happen and how can we teach our kids differently?
Yes, Sarah I do see that change. I feel that my father took pride in his work and would be ashamed if I were to whine that he had to work so hard and didn't make enough money. He worked hard because he was a good man and loved to work. If he were still alive he would be working now. When we always look at work as a means to financial gain it devalues the greatest part of the effort. That is why I will never pay my children for work around the house, we are a family and I want them to know that work is what we do and not just to receive money, we work to fulfill our purpose and feel pride in our accomplishment. Great post.
Sarah, really, great post. More of these please :)
The air is some much different here than on the other site. You will never get the same banter because the tone is different. I think that both of you ladies make good points without being angry--maybe heated at times, but more for worry, concern and doing what is right rather than spewing hate and anger and engaging in the blame game. I'm working on it ;)
I watched Glenn Beck tonight and paused it for a minute. I turned and asked my husband, who you both know I think is so smart and well read and really could clean all our clocks with historical knowledge and political knowledge, if he thought that Glenn Beck was crazy. He though for a minute and said, no he didn't think he was crazy, but he understood why people though he was. No one talks the way that he does so that's why people think he is crazy or out of touch. We discussed how we both felt like he has so much knowledge and understanding of the principles, theories, ideas and the historical steps that were taken to lead certain nations down the path that the ended up on. He understands the fundamentals and because of that he is able to clearly recognize where and how those things are happening in our country. My husband is very good at correctly pointing them out also. Just because we have some of the same things going on in our country that lead great countries in the past to fail, doesn't mean that they are necessarily going to happen to us. It just means that we need to recognize them and be prepared for them if they happen. I really think that is all that Glenn Beck is trying to do. I respect him for being able to recognize them and explain them. I also respect him for risking it all to do what he honestly believes is the right thing. I appreciate the fact that he is on a crusade to encourage the citizens of the US to understand the principles of the founding fathers and to respect and care for our constitution. We all know that, through prophecy, the Constitution will hang by a thread and that it is up to us to sustain it. I see Glenn Beck as a man who is on the front lines of that fight. In my eyes, that is why he is so controversial.
A different note--Gale I think it's GREAT that you don't pay your kids. Travis and I have talked about that and we totally have the same idea. I didn't get an allowance growing up. If I needed money, then my parents would give me what I needed for what I was doing--no more, no less. But I was expected to do my chores and contribute to the home. My parents did pay for my college education. They said that if I kept my grades up and proved that I was taking school seriously then they would pay my tuition. I still had a job that paid my rent and my food and entertainment. But, their gift to me was that I would graduate debt free. But, it was a gift that I had to work for through had work and grades. Trust me, I had to retake one class and it was a CLOSE call....really, statistics isn't my thing at all :)
I have been vascillating back and forth about whether or not to respond. Now it's turning almost into a "I hate the other site" comment space, so I decided not to respond, but then I thought that none of you probably hate the site, my guess is you are mostly upset with one contributor and that is what is frustrating, and I understand that. Maybe I'm wrong, if that's the case I'll stop commentating.
Jen- if your sister loses her house, is it because she is selfish and greedy? When your dad lost his job, was it because he was unskilled and incompetent?
OKB-When you had to resort to government help, was it because you wanted to and your husband was lazy and simply didn't want to work?
Of course, the answer to all of these questions is no. But, it demonstrates what right now is frustrating me and what I was attempting to say on the other site. There are all kinds of labels going around- if you are poor, you are lazy. If you lose your house, it's because you are selfish and greedy. If you are on welfare, it's because you want to be and you refuse to work. If you lose your job, it's because you are unskilled. If you don't agree with me you are ignorant. And, I will also throw in there, if you like Glen Beck you are a baffoon.
In my mind, none of this debate has anything to do with money, and has everything to do with labels. We forget about people's humanity when we make blanket statements such as if you have medical debt it's your own fault. But, OKB, if your daughter got leukemia when you were uninsured and there was a cure but it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, would you do it? Of course you would- and you would incur that hundreds of thousands of dollars that would take you decades to repay- but, we all would do it, we are all mothers- and that doesn't make you a bad person or irresponsible- it makes you a mother who cares about her baby.
NOBODY wants to see the government giving away mansions to the homeless. That's rediculous. Everybody agrees there is intrinsic value in hard work- nobody disagrees with that. Cleaning toilets paid for my college career, and despite having poor parents, I graduated without a penny of debt- not because of my father's 529 but because of scrubbing toilets. Of course hard work is essential in our society.
I don't ever want to rely on govt help. I don't think very many people do- in fact, I bet most people don't. People pride themselves on their work ethic, and I imagine that asking the govt for help involves a lot of shame.
Am I frustrated that some people spent well beyond their means and now my tax dollars have to pay for some of that? Of course. BUT- I do not believe that every person who is being foreclosed on is selfish and greedy. I don't believe that the people being laid off right now are simply unskilled and just need to go back to college to get an education. I don't believe everybody receiving unemployment right now or has to obtain food stamps is doing that because they want to. I believe they are doing it because they have to based on the circumstances, and I am grateful that when people are desperate and unable to feed their children, there are avenues to get short term help. This is a time truly unlike any other, and I do get frustrated at the labels being put out there, basically separating people as good or bad based on what kind of luck they have. Do people abuse the system? Of course, and we have had that discussion many times, and I agree there should be some kind of welfare reform. But, I belive most people view this as a very short term solution- just like OKB did.
When I say level the playing field, I don't mean we stop working. I mean people shouldn't have their entire lives destroyed because their daughter gets sick. I have two very close friends who are quite literally losing everything due to medical expenses-and they HAVE insurance. You can't recover from that, and I think the government needs to step in to help those people unlucky enough to get sick.
The other area is providing adequate public education for every American student. It is then the students responsibility to take advantage of it, but the opportunity must be there. Without an education, it is almost impossible to have a decent shot at life.
Other then those two things, in my opinion, the rest comes down to hard work, sacrifice, and a little luck to be honest. But at least then everybody would have a chance.
I know this is long winded, but I at least wanted to explain myself.
Christina, I think your point is very well though out and very fair. This is why I say and you even said it when you were at my house for the BBQ, we both want the same things it's just the method to get there. The labels really aren't fair. Why does there have to be so much conflict between parties? It's baffling. My general problem with certain platform issues on the left, isn't because they are horrible, it's because they are abused. I think that we are making rules for the exceptions. Does that make sense? We have abortion laws because of rape or "mistakes" yet it seems it has gone too far and now is a form of birth control. We have welfare and I have said so many times, I believe that people really do need it, but the abuse is far greater than the need. If Travis lost his job I would have NO problem getting help from the church or even the government, but only for a period of time. My thoughts are that we have worked hard and done our part, we have contributed and if something happened I can feel good about temporary help. We have people abusing the system and sit on it and live on it and I believe that people have somehow lost their self-respect because it was too easy to take advantage of. Yes, people need help, but when the exception becomes the rule that's when I have issues. That's why I have a hard time with the liberal platform issues, not because they are bad or evil, but because they are abused and now the solution is to throw more money at it. Money hasn't helped yet so why would more of it be better? Talk about squeezing more money out of the American people and future generations. I think that government accepts abuse at our expense not just in dollars and cents, but in morals, self-respect and general breakdowns in society. Are we helping or are we enabling?
I am going to try and find the info, but I was listening to my FAVORITE radio guy, Dennis Prager, and he was talking about the education system and how there has been a direct effect and decline in our public education system since we starting throwing more and more money at it. He referenced a book and some other info, when I track it down I will give it to you. Having said that, I think we all want our education system to be better and improved, yet is throwing more and more money at it the answer or is reform the answer? You obviously know more about this than I do, but I can honestly tell you that I have looked at facts from all different angles and it doesn't seem that more money or raising taxes to get the money is the answer. There was actually a caller that called in and was talking about how the school his kids go to had to come up with a way to save the jobs of 54 teachers in the school. This is tragic to me, the teachers and the students are really getting the raw end of the deal in our messed up system. He said that they came up with the idea of a parcel tax. He was really frusterated because here they are spending $20 million on the preservation of a rat (I'm sure there is more to it than this) but that they can't seem to save the jobs of 54 teachers and instead have to find another place to raise taxes. Again, the answer in my opinion isn't more money, it's reform and a closer look at where our money is going and re-prioritizing the funds.
I really wish you would listen to other conservatives because you tend to quote Rush a lot. He's one person and to define your opinions because of what you heard from one man doesn't give you a fair picture of what we really believe and what our methods and goals or conservatives are. I know you know this because you are obviously from a good conservative family and are a good person yourself and surround yourself with good conservatives (not that you have much choice, being Mormon. HA!) Prager is on from 11am-1pm on 710. You have to switch the station as soon as his show is over, otherwise you're going to get stuck with Hannity!
Christina, you are in a safe space! And if I truly "hated" the other blog, it would not be on my "Other Website's" list. I have always appreciated when you post on PoliticalMoms and comment on ours. You are very well thought out, and fair. And I honestly can't find something you said that I disagree with. And Jen, what you wrote about abusing the system is right on.
Our first apt after college was 60% Section 8 housing, 40% market rate renters. We paid market rate, but were neighbors with many living with govt assistance. I hate to say it, but out of about the 10 families we shared the building with, 6 of them bragged about how much food stamp money they received, one was on "disability" and enjoyed not working and still getting a paycheck. I overheard many conversations at the playground of how they don't care how many kids they have because it doesn't cost them a dime, and they get more in welfare. Yes, my husband and I saw the govt aid as a stepping stone, a temporary relief. But I knew a lady who discouraged her husband from taking a promotion because they would no longer qualify for govt aid. And he didn't, because they were more comfortable in what was guaranteed them.
Now of course I know this does not represent everyone on govt assistance, and there are good people struggling and facing horrible odds. Especially now more than ever. And I would hate to eliminate great programs for those good people. But, like I have said before, there needs to expiration dates. There needs to be more regulation of those, like Jen said, who are abusing the system.
I think a lot of this goes back to an earlier post, where I talked about just because you have the right, doesn't make it right. And how "Our country has run away with their liberties, to the point that our strengths are becoming our downfalls".
Maybe I'll check out that one radio host:) But, I guarantee you- I will NEVER agree with the rep. party on education! For as educated and passionate as you are about abortion, I am just as educated and passionate about public education! I can go off for hours, which is why I usually don't bring it up too much. Very long story short, I HATE HATE HATE HATE charter schools/vouchers and I think public schools do an awesome job, considering 95% of our kids attend them. But, that's enough of that soap box for today!
Christina I would be really interested in your view on education? Why do you hate charter schools and vouchers? I sincerly want to know because I don't know much about it and charter schools and vouchers have always seemed like a good option to me. I am happy with the public school and my children all attend but for those in schools that are failing why not? I would love to hear the cons of it.
I'm not asking you to convert, just offering a different perspective, one that might be a bit tolerable than Rush or Hannity :) ENJOY!
Since my oldest is not even in Kindergarten yet, I am completely uneducated about our educational system. I don't know pro's/con's of either.
Christina, let me know if I am completely off the mark, but I think one reason our kids are doing so poorly in schools, is not entirely because of the schools. I think much has to do with uninvolved or uninterested parents, or parents who both have to work. Or parents over-scheduling their kids and not focusing on school work. I feel like the schools can only go so far, and we can only blame the teachers or funding or politicians for so much. But like I said, I haven't studied this much, so I'd love your opinion.
You are opening a pandora's box here:) I promise I am going to respond, but I know it will take me a long time to get it all out (I know, you thought I was long winded before!) so it might not be until later today or this weekend. But, I promise I will answer your questions about education!!!
OK, here we go. I apologize in advance for the length, but if I don't fully explain it you will only have many unanswered questions.
Let me start by saying that I know this is a very heated debate, and I know that I am coming at this from a public schoolteacher's perspective. Obviously, a teacher at a charter school will have a different perspective. Rather then listening to the media (who tradionally try to discredit and talk horribly about public schools) or political analyists who have never been in the classroom and therefore have no true understanding of what really goes on in the trenches, I would encourage you to talk to professionals in the field to get a variety of opinions. There are a number of people who will completely disagree with me, and I respect that- I just totally disagree with them.
I also want to say that I am going to try to focus specifically on charter schools- not on NCLB or other areas of public education that are often hotly debated as well. Otherwise, we will have a book by the end of this (of course, we might anyway).
The basic idea of charter schools seems to revolve around 2 main themes in my mind (there are several others that could be discussed, but in order to keep this somewhat concise, I will suggest the two that I have seen most readily used):
1. Public schools are failing
2. Parents should have the choice to decide where their child goes to school
Based on these assumptions, it is easy to see why charter schools seem like a nice solution. However, there are many inherent flaws in the plan.
First and foremost, there is ample evidence to completely quelch the myth that public schools are failing. One of my favorite studies in this regard is one done by MIT and published in Tau Beta Pi- an engineering magazine my husband subscribes to- about 3 years ago. Not surprisingly, this study did not hit the mainstream media- they seem to not like positive education stories because they don't sell papers- unless it has to do with local sports. Anyway, this study talked about the fact that our country is ranked about 18th depending on the year for education in the world. However, MIT showed that when urban and minority students were removed from the equation, we actually ranked 3rd or 4th. This is very telling, because it shows that- yes- our urban schools are suffering with high drop out rates, drugs, teenage pregnancy, hispanic-only speakers, etc. This is no surprise. But, our suburbs are doing excellent in providing quality education- and, roughly 85%of parents would give their school an "A" for how well they feel their students are learning. So the moral of this study is that if you do not live in the urban corridors, chances are you are sending your kids to an excellent school and they are receiving an excellent education. Much of this, I belive, has to do with OKB's comment- parents who are uninvolved in their children's education are doing their children a disservice. Parents should be actively involved- reading to their kids at night, helping them with homework, hiring tutors if needed, attending parent/teacher conferences, etc. Studies show (and do we really need studies to prove the obvious?) that students with uninvolved parents suffer terribly- higher drug use, drop-out, etc. Parents in the suburbs are typically (but not always) more involved. I volunteered at an elementary school in Charleston, SC and there were 4th graders who couldn't spell their name. To me, that's the parents fault- not the teachers. A teacher can only do so much, but parents need to help their kids as well.
Because the urban schools are having such trouble, it makes sense to offer them vouchers and set up charter schools. Right? In theory, yes- in practice, no. When you choose to go to a charter school, you need to provide your own transportation. Obviously a school can't bus people from town to town on the whim of the parent. Urban kids- lacking money- can not afford to get themselves to these schools. Also, even though charter schools use public school dollars, they are private schools and they get to pick and choose who they want to attend their school. If you have any form of learning disability, they won't take you because you would require more resources. If you misbehave at all, they will kick you out. A public school has to take everyone in their district because they take public dollars. A charter school does not, and that once again hurts the kids who need the most help. In Kansas City, where charter schools and vouchers were heavily used, they had to go back into the city and re-desegragrate the schools because all of the white kids left to go to charter schools, and all the minorities were left at the public schools. While some will say that is better for the white kids, how is that better for the minorities? There should be a system in place that is more equitable, and doesn't simply help the already advantaged. Also, in CO, charter schools consistently rank lower then their public school counter parts in the same area- just an interesting sidenote.
In Colorado, school funding is based on a 10-day count. In October, for 10 days, they track your attendance and your average amount of kids for the 10 days is how much money you will receive. Every kid gets roughly 5,000 dollars, so if 100 kids come, you get 500,000. Charter schools here are notorious for accepting everybody for the first two months of school, and then as soon as the 10 day count is over, kicking half the kids back out to public schools- so they get all of the money, diverting all of those precious dollars from the public school system, but the public schools have to really pay for them. It is a very corrupt system, that hopefully will be changed soon.
I totally understand school choice-I agree with that system wholeheartedly. I would like to suggest two ideas that would truly help our public schools, but still allow for competition and choice.
1. Open schools- in CO, we have what's called "open schools." This means, students can attend any school they want on two conditions: 1. They obtain their own transportation- which is still a problem in the urban areas, but at least you could choose between various schools in your immediate area and 2. There is still room available at the school. Obviously, once a school is full they can't take more students. Apparently, not every state has an "open school" policy, and that really surprises me. This simple policy allows for school choice.
2. Magnet schools- this is where schools specialize in various areas. Here, we have public schools that specialize in fine arts, college prep classes, theatre, football- whatever your interests might be. These schools will attract those students who want to be involved in those areas, thus creating competition. However, those schools still must accept any kids who lives in their district so it is not an exclusive club like so many charter schools.
Most of us will find that the schools in our area are wonderful, especially if we are involved as parents. I admit the urban corridors need help, but charter schools truly do only hurt them because it takes money away from them and helps the affluent. It is constantly said that vouchers help the poor- but it really is not the case, it hurts them so much.
Charter schools are basically private schools using public school dollars. Some people love that idea- except that it hurts the disadvantaged and minorities. And, because our public schools in the burbs are not nearly as bad as the grim media likes to distort, I believe if we have an open school system the same mission of what the pro-charter crowd wants can be accomplished without creating greater inequality.
There is much more that I can say- as you can tell, I can go on forever about this topic. I know there are people out there who disagree with me, and I agree our urban schools still need a lot of work. I just don't think charter schools are the answer. I believe in public education. I love public education. I taught for 5 years in the public school system, and I was constantly amazed at the quality of teachers, the engaging of student learning, and the ability of the school system to push the kids to their greatest. Many of my students went on to Ivy League schools. 95% of our children will attend and have attended public schools- certainly 95% of our population is not completely uneducated and worthless. Is public education perfect? Of course not. But charter schools are not the solution.
Wow, that was really great! I had heard the same thing about the charter schools, that their test scores were lower. I wanted to look into charter schools for Daniel, but that's only because the school next to my house is a k-8 and the principle is a lesbian and let's 8th grade girls kiss in the halls. That is certainly not what I want my soon-to-be kindergartner exposed to. I have actually LOVED the idea of open schools. I have heard a lot about that and like the idea, unless of course my kids doesn't get in and is stuck with a school that has a crappy reputation ;) my luck. We also have some magnet schools that some of my YW girls go to that seems to be great for music. I personally had a great experience in the public schools I went to. But, Fairfax county, at the time, was ranked 1 or 2 in the nation when I went. I didn't know any different until I heard about how horrible Travis' education was.
So I have 2 questions. This is my biggest problem with the public school system and where I have said that they need reform, not to go away, but reform (Same with welfare).
1. Money, do they really need more money or do we need to be funneling the money differently? I totally think that teachers need a larger salary, they are being robbed. I think that the assistants need more money, the are working for pennies on the dollar. I think that there generally needs to be more money in the classroom. My sister was making what one considered A LOT for a new teacher but that was for 2 reasons, she was working with the severely disabled (can't talk, need their diapers changed, etc) and she had her master's degree. But, she was living in DC, huge cost of living, and making $42,000 per year. Her assistants were making about $20,000. I think the problem is that the education money is being wasted before it even gets to the schools. This is also what Prager was talking about, not that the schools suck, it just seems that we increase money but that isn't solving the issues because the money is getting to where it needs to go. What are your thoughts on that?
2. What about sex-ed. This is obviously huge for conservatives and where you start to get a lot of complaints. Do you think that the schools are teaching things that shouldn't be taught there? For me, there is a difference between teaching anatomy as opposed to how to put a condom on a banana or field trips to lesbian weddings.
All-in-all I agree with you. My feelings are that the conflict between parties comes with the 2 questions I asked above, and also Unions--which is a completely different topic.
I won't get into unions today:)
Good questions, and certainly very valid. Remember, these are just my opionions from what I have seen, I don't claim to be all-knowing in these areas and cetainly there are other opinions out there!
1. Money. I agree with you in many ways. I absolutely LOVE the German school system- I think it is absolutely brilliant for a million reasons. But, without getting into everything, one thing they do is pay their teachers incredibly well and their teachers are very respected. They don't have the latest textbooks or the latest technology, the school I went to was over a hundred years old (but, it was still quite functional- I do agree with Obama that if a school doesn't have running water, it needs to be replaced), but because the teachers were paid well you were able to truly get the best and brightest. Right now, we have a huge shortage of math teachers in this country. One reason is because major corporations like Apple and Yahoo specifically recruit math teachers-doubling or tripling their salary and offering better benefits. Why would one stay in the teaching field with those offers coming in? I know people always complain that teachers don't need to get paid more because they get so much time off, but in reality- during the school year teachers are easily working 60-80 hours a week, and rarely get a weekend off. In fact, one study I read said teachers work more in 9 months then CEO's work in 12. And, as my husband said, "teachers should be paid well! They have the most important job in the world!"
Anyway, my point is that I agree that there is too much money spent on textbooks and things that, in my opionion, don't affect student learning as much as it should. However, I do believe money should be spent on reducing class sizes, a very well proven cause for higher student achievement (in UT, they cram up to FIFTY kids in one class! How on earth is the teacher even supposed to know their names by the end of a semester if she has 250 kids a day???), and alternative tech programs for kids who aren't going to college, better teacher pay, and things like that. Does that make sense? So, yes, money does matter- but I agree that too much is being spent on unproven programs (Denver has spent millions upon millions for a brand new math program called "Everyday Math" that teaches math in a completely different way, but isn't proven to be effective) and administration.
2. Sex ed. This is a very difficult issue- and is one that I take issue with as well. I don't want Audra to know what anal sex is when she is 8 years old. I don't think she needs to know that. The problem really stems from parents not teaching sex ed at all at home. Parents are very reluctant to talk about sex at home, and so the schools feel they need to step in and teach about condoms, etc. In reality, it is important that teenagers know about safe sex, because so many of them have it. Also, and I am sad to say this but my brother was 17 when he got his 16 year old girlfriend pregnant so I have been there, many parents assume their child will never have sex because they are raised in the church, have high values, etc. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the case, and as parents we need to teach them correct principles, but understand that they do still have free agency, and if they are going to have sex, they do need to know how to be protected so they gon't get pregnant. Sometimes schools are the only place that teach about that, unfortunately. I also think abstinence should be taught along with it, but that safe sex does, unfortunatley, need to be taught as well. As parents, you can excuse your kids from the sex ed talks. I would highly encourage parents to look at the curriculum to see if it is something they want their student to learn. For example, some schools in CA teach elementary kids not just that masturbation is good and healthy, but they show you diagrams of how to masturbate. I don't want my kid to learn that! That is horrible. You can, of course, get a group of parents together to complain to the principal and attend school board meetings. You wouldn't believe how much power parents have! We try not to let that secret out because there are the very power hungry parents whose children can do no wrong, but if there is a group of parents in the classroom who agree with you, you have the power to change what happens in the classroom. And, if you are loud enough, you alone can change it!
In my very humble opionion on this subject, because I know everybody has different thoughts on this, I would say parents should:
a. Read the curriculum before the students. The teachers have to give it to you- it isn't a secret. Perhaps you are OK with most of the curriculum, but on Thursday they are throwing out the lesbian/gay talk, so you purposely plan your child's dentist appointment that day.
b. I think what you teach at home in this regard is much more important then what the teachers say. This is an issue that should be discussed at home, but it isn't, which leaves them with what the school says, or worse- what the kids on the playground say.
There was a study in BYU magazine a couple years ago that analyzed LDS teen pregnancy cases. Almost all of the boys said they had sex because of curiosity and because of peer pressure, and the girls said they had sex because they wanted to feel loved. I found that interesting, and perhaps a starting point for understanding how we need to talk to our kids about sex. I don't know- I don't have the answers, but I do understand why schools need to teach protection. But, I agree- they don't need to teach more then that!
Really, so much power goes back to the parents. For example, some schools are requiring 30-60 minutes of homework for kindergartners. HELLO! How about we force them to hate school at an early age?? If that is the case at Audra's school, I will definitely be fighting and not making her do her homework. Definitely know what is going on in the classroom, and your kids will be fine. It's when a parent isn't involved that problems arise. Oh, and check the schools in the area to see which one fits your kids best- every school has different things to offer. You will have to drive them if they are outside your immediate school, but for most of us it is worth that small inconvenience to find the perfect fit for our child!
One more long-winded thought about school funding.
Right now, schools are very much underfunded- that is why across the nation you hear reports of music and art programs being slashed, kids needing fewer credits to graduate, and one district in AZ has even cut out all social studies classes altogether. One major problem, and one of the many reasons virtually all teachers are opposed to NCLB (don't worry- I won't get into it much) is because schools are required to give these rediculous tests which take 2 weeks and millions upon millions of dollars to administer. However, even though the federal govt is forcing schools to administer them, they did not give any additional money to pay for them, leaving individual school districts the burden of these millions of dollars. Because of that, special ed kids inparticular, but also several tech programs or things not directly tested on these state tests, have been hit hard as their already underfunded programs have been slashed greater.
I will admit that I find it quite interesting that there are always cuts in special ed, but very few cuts in football. Hmm...
I know the big arguement is that we have added more school funding under the Bush administration then ever before. Which is techinically true- the money was alotted, but it just hasn't been given out. Also, because most funding (federal government pays for very little of public education) comes form property taxes, where you live is important- that is why urban districts struggle to keep up- they don't get any money from homeowners, because there aren't very many homeowners. Typically, the richer area you live in is going to be a better school district- there is a reason Cherry Creek schools are some of the best in the nation. Everytime they ask for a mill or bond, it is passed pretty easily.
So yes, money is needed- but it does need to be used properly!
Okay, let me first start by saying I'm in Canada so perhaps we have a differen or better system up here. If all that you were saying was true I would perhaps feel similar - I don't know?!
That said, I have to say not all Charter Academy’s are created equally. I'm sure if that is true up here it is true down there as well. Perhaps some schools are doing all the things you claim but there are many that ARE NOT doing what you claim.
Our school is a charter school and it is primarily minority and very diversified in income and race. Actually that is one of the reasons I chose our school.
Second, the education is not substandard; my daughter is 2-3 grades above her actual grade level in reading, math etc. something that my public school friends are not experiencing with their children. I might also add that the students are taught a new value (ex. integrity, self discipline, honesty) each month and it is re-enforced in and through their educational experience that month.
Also, parents are heavily involved with the school and required to give 20 volunteer hours (I got that my first month) per year. This can be done in many ways such as play ground maintenance, teacher aids, and various other capacities.
AND as for cost...We pay for everything, and we still pay less than the public school system students do. We have transportation at our school for all the kids who need it (busing that we pay for not our government).
That said, I do know other schools that do exactly what you claim.
Personally, like with anything out there, if the schools are researched you will find that not all things can be given a blanket reputation. Not all things are created equally. NOT ALL CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE RUN THE SAME.
There is my two cents...
Post a Comment