Hat tip: The Corner at National Review Online
Why is anyone surprised about Obama’s cancellation of the DC Voucher program? This will continue to happen as long as the Democrats feel free to take minority votes for granted. As the advice columnists remind us, people take advantage of you as long as you let them!
So let’s apply Janeane Garofalo’s logic to this situation. Remember how she said that those of us who opposed President Obama’s election did so because we “hate that a black guy is in the White House?” Well, I guess those people who are against vouchers just don’t want black children to succeed!
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
School Daze II
I wrote a while back about problems we had in getting my son’s teacher to return tests and in class assignments. We were going around in circles, getting promises from the teacher that turned out to be at best half-hearted attempts to comply with our wishes.
We have some good news to report now. Finally, my wife did go to the principal. She figured that she does so much for other people, so she should at least stand up for her own son. We received a whole lot more tests back from the teacher that afternoon. Soon thereafter, other students started getting their old tests and classroom assignments returned.
Initially, we had been concerned about reprisals. However, we just got a report card for our son, and it shows vast improvement in his grades. So our fears were misplaced. It’s probably just as well that my wife went to the principal before I did. ;)
We have some good news to report now. Finally, my wife did go to the principal. She figured that she does so much for other people, so she should at least stand up for her own son. We received a whole lot more tests back from the teacher that afternoon. Soon thereafter, other students started getting their old tests and classroom assignments returned.
Initially, we had been concerned about reprisals. However, we just got a report card for our son, and it shows vast improvement in his grades. So our fears were misplaced. It’s probably just as well that my wife went to the principal before I did. ;)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
School Daze
Lack of Feedback
Let’s take a break from politics for a second.
Has this happened to any of you? My older son is in second grade, and generally enjoys school and likes the teacher. However, when we see the report cards, we do not know on what these grades are based because the teacher does not hand back tests or in-class assignments. As we have found out, all the other parents are complaining about the same thing and have not gotten any response from the teacher. This has been going on since September, so by my calculations, the teacher must have several hundred, if not a thousand, pieces of paper she has not returned.
My wife met with the teacher recently to discuss our son’s progress. Per our (advance) request, the teacher did hand back all the tests and promised to do a better job in returning assignments. She blamed her poor responsiveness on the disproportionate time she had to devote to a particularly unruly child who had been in the class (and has since left the school). However, over the past three weeks, she has backslid. I note that another second grade teacher also has not handed back tests to her students.
My wife has talked with other parents, and they want to send a letter to the principal. We found out via the grapevine that this teacher did not hand back tests in previous years, either. The teacher is a nice, pleasant, devoted teacher otherwise. The problem is, that without the immediate feedback we get from graded tests and other assignments, we do not know if our son needs immediate attention with his school work or behavior.
Have any of you been in this situation? What would you do?
Let’s take a break from politics for a second.
Has this happened to any of you? My older son is in second grade, and generally enjoys school and likes the teacher. However, when we see the report cards, we do not know on what these grades are based because the teacher does not hand back tests or in-class assignments. As we have found out, all the other parents are complaining about the same thing and have not gotten any response from the teacher. This has been going on since September, so by my calculations, the teacher must have several hundred, if not a thousand, pieces of paper she has not returned.
My wife met with the teacher recently to discuss our son’s progress. Per our (advance) request, the teacher did hand back all the tests and promised to do a better job in returning assignments. She blamed her poor responsiveness on the disproportionate time she had to devote to a particularly unruly child who had been in the class (and has since left the school). However, over the past three weeks, she has backslid. I note that another second grade teacher also has not handed back tests to her students.
My wife has talked with other parents, and they want to send a letter to the principal. We found out via the grapevine that this teacher did not hand back tests in previous years, either. The teacher is a nice, pleasant, devoted teacher otherwise. The problem is, that without the immediate feedback we get from graded tests and other assignments, we do not know if our son needs immediate attention with his school work or behavior.
Have any of you been in this situation? What would you do?
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Another School Year
With More Fees as Well
We have now passed our first week of the new school year, and so far, so good. Our younger one just started preschool. At the orientation session, he threw quite a few tantrums and even tried to rip his clothes off. When school actually started, however, he was pretty well-behaved. I shouldn’t tempt fate, but so far, so good.
Our older son is enjoying second grade and seems to have a nice teacher. A girl in his class must like him because she keeps bugging him with all kinds of concerns every time there is work to do.
The school where our older son goes also has a chess club. We started him on chess this summer since there our local library had drop in sessions in the evening. He has also tried his luck online. The game of chess involves more skill and less luck than “Sorry.” Here’s what gets us: They are charging a $50 fee for chess!
Friday, August 22, 2008
Interesting Death Notice in the New York Times
Richard III.
For those of you who think this is obscure history, well, you aren't altogether wrong. Richard III was King of England from 1483 to 1485. He may be best known (and even that's a stretch) to modern audiences through the Shakespeare tragedy in which Richard is the title character. He is one of Shakespeare's best villains. Interestingly enough, the play is one of those closest to Shakespeare's own time and contains a higher amount of factual basis than most of the others. Of course, William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616) worked for Elizabeth I (who ruled from 1558 - 1603), the granddaughter of the King who defeated Richard III in battle.
Historically speaking, Richard III was the youngest brother of King Edward IV, who died in 1483. Edward IV's oldest son, Edward V (who was a child at the time), was supposed to be crowned King of England, but then the younger Edward and his siblings were declared illegitimate on their uncle Richard's orders. Edward V and his younger brother (also named Richard) mysteriously disappeared in the Tower of London, and Richard III was crowned King of England. The bodies of Edward V and his brother were found almost 200 years later during a 17th century Tower renovation project.
Richard III is best known for establishing bail for criminals during his brief reign. Also, during that time, Richard's wife, as well as his son and heir, died. In 1485, forces allied with Welshman Henry Tudor (who had a tenuous claim to the British throne) invaded England, and these forces met with Richard's at Bosworth field. On August 22, 1485, Richard was killed in that battle, and Henry Tudor was crowned Henry VII. This battle also marked the last major conflict of the "Wars of the Roses" (though fighting continued for some years thereafter). According to Shakespeare, Richard III uttered the famous words, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" before being killed in battle. Henry VII married Elizabeth, the sister of the two boys who disappeared in the Tower, and ruled until his death in 1509. (Elizabeth I, Shakespeare’s patron, was granddaughter of Henry VII. Her successor, James I, was great-grandson of Henry VII.)
Given how long the "Princes in the Tower" (as Edward V and his brother Richard are known) were dead before they were discovered, it is impossible to tell how old they were when they were murdered. A difference of two years in age would make a huge difference as to who was responsible for ordering their deaths. Circumstantial evidence points to Richard III; however, Henry VII would have had no interest in having them alive, either. The Richard III Society, who places the In Memoriam notices in the New York Times every year, believes Richard III was framed by history (and alas, history is often written by the victor). Author and historian Allison Weir sifts through historical evidence and places the blame squarely on Richard III. In any case, it is a real murder mystery, one of the few actual ones in a Shakespeare play.
Shakespeare blames a lot of deaths (probably more than historically accurate) on Richard III. He also implied that Richard had an unhealthy interest in his niece Elizabeth (the sister of the Princes in the Tower, who was about 14 at the time). The main gist of the play, besides the historical debate, concerns a man who is so power-hungry that he murders most of his enemies, and then turns on his friends as they become disgusted with him. Finally, with few friends left and a whole host of enemies, he himself falls and justice is served.
I have often compared the Clintons with Richard III. Bill and Hillary Clinton are people who are a bit mad for power and turn on their political enemies rather viciously (though I am not blaming the Clintons for anyone’s death). It is apparent that even Democrats have become disgusted with the antics of Bill and Hillary and have mostly abandoned the formerly President and First Lady. Perhaps the early primaries did turn into the Clintons’ “winter of discontent” (to paraphrase Shakespeare). Imagine what would happen if Hillary did try to wrest the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama!
Several stage productions of Richard III have been filmed. In addition, Al Pacino starred in a film called “Looking for Richard” about making a production of Richard III. I recommend this film as Pacino does a good job of portraying a villainous character.
So you can commemorate this day however you want, if at all. I always put a message on my office voice mail about the Battle of Bosworth whether or not I am in. (Please don’t tell my boss.) This is an interesting topic of study with or without all of Shakespeare’s embellishment.
For those of you who think this is obscure history, well, you aren't altogether wrong. Richard III was King of England from 1483 to 1485. He may be best known (and even that's a stretch) to modern audiences through the Shakespeare tragedy in which Richard is the title character. He is one of Shakespeare's best villains. Interestingly enough, the play is one of those closest to Shakespeare's own time and contains a higher amount of factual basis than most of the others. Of course, William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616) worked for Elizabeth I (who ruled from 1558 - 1603), the granddaughter of the King who defeated Richard III in battle.
Historically speaking, Richard III was the youngest brother of King Edward IV, who died in 1483. Edward IV's oldest son, Edward V (who was a child at the time), was supposed to be crowned King of England, but then the younger Edward and his siblings were declared illegitimate on their uncle Richard's orders. Edward V and his younger brother (also named Richard) mysteriously disappeared in the Tower of London, and Richard III was crowned King of England. The bodies of Edward V and his brother were found almost 200 years later during a 17th century Tower renovation project.
Richard III is best known for establishing bail for criminals during his brief reign. Also, during that time, Richard's wife, as well as his son and heir, died. In 1485, forces allied with Welshman Henry Tudor (who had a tenuous claim to the British throne) invaded England, and these forces met with Richard's at Bosworth field. On August 22, 1485, Richard was killed in that battle, and Henry Tudor was crowned Henry VII. This battle also marked the last major conflict of the "Wars of the Roses" (though fighting continued for some years thereafter). According to Shakespeare, Richard III uttered the famous words, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" before being killed in battle. Henry VII married Elizabeth, the sister of the two boys who disappeared in the Tower, and ruled until his death in 1509. (Elizabeth I, Shakespeare’s patron, was granddaughter of Henry VII. Her successor, James I, was great-grandson of Henry VII.)
Given how long the "Princes in the Tower" (as Edward V and his brother Richard are known) were dead before they were discovered, it is impossible to tell how old they were when they were murdered. A difference of two years in age would make a huge difference as to who was responsible for ordering their deaths. Circumstantial evidence points to Richard III; however, Henry VII would have had no interest in having them alive, either. The Richard III Society, who places the In Memoriam notices in the New York Times every year, believes Richard III was framed by history (and alas, history is often written by the victor). Author and historian Allison Weir sifts through historical evidence and places the blame squarely on Richard III. In any case, it is a real murder mystery, one of the few actual ones in a Shakespeare play.
Shakespeare blames a lot of deaths (probably more than historically accurate) on Richard III. He also implied that Richard had an unhealthy interest in his niece Elizabeth (the sister of the Princes in the Tower, who was about 14 at the time). The main gist of the play, besides the historical debate, concerns a man who is so power-hungry that he murders most of his enemies, and then turns on his friends as they become disgusted with him. Finally, with few friends left and a whole host of enemies, he himself falls and justice is served.
I have often compared the Clintons with Richard III. Bill and Hillary Clinton are people who are a bit mad for power and turn on their political enemies rather viciously (though I am not blaming the Clintons for anyone’s death). It is apparent that even Democrats have become disgusted with the antics of Bill and Hillary and have mostly abandoned the formerly President and First Lady. Perhaps the early primaries did turn into the Clintons’ “winter of discontent” (to paraphrase Shakespeare). Imagine what would happen if Hillary did try to wrest the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama!
Several stage productions of Richard III have been filmed. In addition, Al Pacino starred in a film called “Looking for Richard” about making a production of Richard III. I recommend this film as Pacino does a good job of portraying a villainous character.
So you can commemorate this day however you want, if at all. I always put a message on my office voice mail about the Battle of Bosworth whether or not I am in. (Please don’t tell my boss.) This is an interesting topic of study with or without all of Shakespeare’s embellishment.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Top Five in Demand Majors
I saw this Yahoo new item that listed the top five majors currently in demand:
1. Mechanical Engineering
2. Accounting
3. Finance
4. Business Administration
5. Civil Engineering
Starting salaries for mechanical engineers average $57,821. Actually, I am surprised the chemical and/or petroleum engineers are not on that list.
Some interesting patterns emerge about that list. Most importantly, each one requires quite a bit of mathematical aptitude. From what I have observed, graduating from engineering, accounting, or business school is rather difficult for those who cannot do the math. (The good news for those without math skills is that they can always land a job at the New York Times.)
The other big point that I get is that all these fields require quite a bit of multidisciplinary cooperation. For example, mechanical engineers often work with chemical, electrical, automotive, and other kinds of engineers. They often perform cost estimates as well. Accountants and business administrators usually work with people of many different backgrounds to understand where the money goes and why. Civil engineers often work with architects. The examples are endless.
The most successful people in any major, of course, have good communications skills, people skills, and acquire a variety of talents. However, basic grounding in things like math skills gives us abilities that last a lifetime. We hear a lot these days, for example, about an employee in a home improvement store who needs a calculator to be able to multiply by ten. How do people like that get out of high school? I become more and more convinced that drilling the basics into students is more cost-effective than allowing use of expensive or even inexpensive electronic “toys” (like calculators or computers).
When I was in high school I had this chemistry teacher, Mr. Perlmutter, who was one of those guys who didn’t allow use of calculators during the first quarter of the year. We had to use slide rules or be able to calculate things by hand (as well as learn significant figures and scientific notation). He was tough, but let me tell you, everyone learned! After getting an education from a guy like that, you certainly understand what numbers are supposed to mean.
Then again, maybe I am getting to be a crusty curmudgeon in my old age . . .
1. Mechanical Engineering
2. Accounting
3. Finance
4. Business Administration
5. Civil Engineering
Starting salaries for mechanical engineers average $57,821. Actually, I am surprised the chemical and/or petroleum engineers are not on that list.
Some interesting patterns emerge about that list. Most importantly, each one requires quite a bit of mathematical aptitude. From what I have observed, graduating from engineering, accounting, or business school is rather difficult for those who cannot do the math. (The good news for those without math skills is that they can always land a job at the New York Times.)
The other big point that I get is that all these fields require quite a bit of multidisciplinary cooperation. For example, mechanical engineers often work with chemical, electrical, automotive, and other kinds of engineers. They often perform cost estimates as well. Accountants and business administrators usually work with people of many different backgrounds to understand where the money goes and why. Civil engineers often work with architects. The examples are endless.
The most successful people in any major, of course, have good communications skills, people skills, and acquire a variety of talents. However, basic grounding in things like math skills gives us abilities that last a lifetime. We hear a lot these days, for example, about an employee in a home improvement store who needs a calculator to be able to multiply by ten. How do people like that get out of high school? I become more and more convinced that drilling the basics into students is more cost-effective than allowing use of expensive or even inexpensive electronic “toys” (like calculators or computers).
When I was in high school I had this chemistry teacher, Mr. Perlmutter, who was one of those guys who didn’t allow use of calculators during the first quarter of the year. We had to use slide rules or be able to calculate things by hand (as well as learn significant figures and scientific notation). He was tough, but let me tell you, everyone learned! After getting an education from a guy like that, you certainly understand what numbers are supposed to mean.
Then again, maybe I am getting to be a crusty curmudgeon in my old age . . .
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Elementary Pranks
My wife and I were watching TV last night. I decided to get a glass of water and put some ice cubes in it. As I was drinking the water, I noticed it tasted funny. Then I saw something floating in the water. What was the stuff? Onion!
My seven-year-old had put onion in the ice tray (Monday, when my wife was making dinner and needed onion as an ingredient for something), filled it with water, and put it in the freezer. So when I got the ice, it slowly melted and released onion. He did admit to having pulled this as an April Fool's prank yesterday. I told him that it could have backfired if he got a glass of juice and put ice in it. He could have had "onion grape juice" or something like that. We can only just imagine the funny story he gets to tell his friends in school today!
As that Annals of Improbable Research always tells us, "Children are naturally good scientists. Help them stay that way."
You all can stop laughing now!
My seven-year-old had put onion in the ice tray (Monday, when my wife was making dinner and needed onion as an ingredient for something), filled it with water, and put it in the freezer. So when I got the ice, it slowly melted and released onion. He did admit to having pulled this as an April Fool's prank yesterday. I told him that it could have backfired if he got a glass of juice and put ice in it. He could have had "onion grape juice" or something like that. We can only just imagine the funny story he gets to tell his friends in school today!
As that Annals of Improbable Research always tells us, "Children are naturally good scientists. Help them stay that way."
You all can stop laughing now!
Sunday, February 03, 2008
More Pre-K Silliness
Overpriced and Oversold
Tennessee blogger Bill Hobbs has an excellent summary of a report concerning the effectiveness of pre-kindergarten programs being pushed by Phil Bredesen, the Democrat Governor there. Gov. Bredesen wants to add $25 million to the program, and, as Bill Hobbs has helpfully pointed out, this is on top of the $55 million the State of Tennessee has already spent on some 17,000 students. (See the comments section.) In other words, that’s over $3,200 per student, more than the average in affluent areas of Nashville or, for that matter, Fairfax County, Virginia.
Here is Bill’s money quote:
Tell you what: How about establishing a voucher program so parents can decide what is best for their children? Heck, let’s do that for all school-aged kids!
Now various bloggers (particularly Jerry) have pointed to the large amounts of money Virginia’s own Gov. Tim Kaine wants to spent on pre-K programs, on the order of $75 million (and more than $5,000 per child). Maybe he should take heed of what already hasn’t worked effectively next door!
Excessive spending for ineffective (or even harmful) government social programs. No wonder these clowns get mentioned as potential running mates for Senators Clinton and Obama!
Tennessee blogger Bill Hobbs has an excellent summary of a report concerning the effectiveness of pre-kindergarten programs being pushed by Phil Bredesen, the Democrat Governor there. Gov. Bredesen wants to add $25 million to the program, and, as Bill Hobbs has helpfully pointed out, this is on top of the $55 million the State of Tennessee has already spent on some 17,000 students. (See the comments section.) In other words, that’s over $3,200 per student, more than the average in affluent areas of Nashville or, for that matter, Fairfax County, Virginia.
Here is Bill’s money quote:
The study, funded by the Tennessee Department of Education and the Tennessee State Comptroller's Office of Education Accountability, shows that pre-K education does not help white girls and actually hurts white and minority boys. It helps only minority girls.
Tell you what: How about establishing a voucher program so parents can decide what is best for their children? Heck, let’s do that for all school-aged kids!
Now various bloggers (particularly Jerry) have pointed to the large amounts of money Virginia’s own Gov. Tim Kaine wants to spent on pre-K programs, on the order of $75 million (and more than $5,000 per child). Maybe he should take heed of what already hasn’t worked effectively next door!
Excessive spending for ineffective (or even harmful) government social programs. No wonder these clowns get mentioned as potential running mates for Senators Clinton and Obama!
Subscribe to:
