Standardized Testing/NCLB

#26
#26
I do not object to technical, trade, and college prep tracks. I object to the government (the public school system) making the determination of which track a kid chooses. If a kid is not college material, chooses the college prep track and ends up never getting into college...so be it.
 
#27
#27
Relatives of mine in the UK have told me about their education system, and while it might have a socialist feel, it does seem to be a somewhat worthwhile talking point.

Between the ages of 12 and 15 (please don't quote me, as I am not absolutely sure) students are given an aptitude test to determine whether they go to university, or go to trade school.

What would you think about that? There are obviously some questions to be asked there, but we seperated the "high quality" student from the rest of the pack early on, would we be ahead of the game?

and yet so many of them come to undergraduate schools in America. The day we determine what a child is going to do 10 years into the future is the day our University system starts sucking like the ones in England and we start feeling the 'brain drain' like they do.
 
#28
#28
I do not object to technical, trade, and college prep tracks. I object to the government (the public school system) making the determination of which track a kid chooses. If a kid is not college material, chooses the college prep track and ends up never getting into college...so be it.

Agreed. Accountability is never a bad thing
 
#29
#29
we need to limit administration budgets to private school levels. they are currently running twice what they are at private schools. ridiculous. all these administrators are taking money directly out of the students hands.
 
#31
#31
we need to limit administration budgets to private school levels. they are currently running twice what they are at private schools. ridiculous. all these administrators are taking money directly out of the students hands.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I agree completely.
 
#32
#32
I don't know the exact numbers, but I agree completely.

yah, the crazy thing about it is that its all public record, yet when you look into seeing where funding goes its not clear at all, or just happened to be looked over in the books...
:dunno:
 
#34
#34
the federal governemnt is supposed to fund 40% of special ed. however as of right now only 14% is funded.
 
#35
#35
all i know is when i did community service for a public autistic school a couple of years ago that the ratio of students to teachers was 3-1. i didn't see a lack of funding personally. if anything there were awful lot of people who seemed to spend most of their day watching tv with the kids.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
40% of what? what is special ed funding, who came up the the amounts?

it costs more to educate kids with special needs because of various requirements. because the need of assistant technology, etc. its a heavy burden on the school system finacially. the fed is suposed to support 40% of the special ed budget/
 
#39
#39
it costs more to educate kids with special needs because of various requirements. because the need of assistant technology, etc. its a heavy burden on the school system finacially. the fed is suposed to support 40% of the special ed budget/
I understand that, but who sets the budget? Was it agreed upon, or is the fed simply funding 40% of what they believe to be reasonable in a budget?
 
#40
#40
I understand that, but who sets the budget? Was it agreed upon, or is the fed simply funding 40% of what they believe to be reasonable in a budget?

the fed is only funding 14% of their promised 40%. the budgets are based upon district and state need. number of students in special ed/the cost to educate them (services etc) that cost is estimated per student, and the federal government is supposed to pick up the tab on 40% of that overall cost.
 
#41
#41
the fed is only funding 14% of their promised 40%. the budgets are based upon district and state need. number of students in special ed/the cost to educate them (services etc) that cost is estimated per student, and the federal government is supposed to pick up the tab on 40% of that overall cost.

Just playing devil's advocate, but if the program in Tennessee costs 100,000 and the government pays 40,000, they're fully funding in Tennessee. However, if they say it costs 500,000 in New York, and the government is paying 100,000 it's considered underfunded by the percentage benchmark.

I don't like percentages when the costs vary from state to state, city to city.
 
#42
#42
I stand corrected. however, I will continue to maintain that children of illegal immigrants shouldn't be in public schools. At the very least, they shouldn't be mainstreamed until they are proficient in English.

I agree, and they can pay for their own Rosetta Stone to learn English but we shouldn't have to learn Spanish to accomodate them. However, it might be wise to start teaching our students Spanish at a younger age because they'll probably need it.
 
#43
#43
Just playing devil's advocate, but if the program in Tennessee costs 100,000 and the government pays 40,000, they're fully funding in Tennessee. However, if they say it costs 500,000 in New York, and the government is paying 100,000 it's considered underfunded by the percentage benchmark.

I don't like percentages when the costs vary from state to state, city to city.

well the costs are going to vary from place to place due to population. new york has quite a few more students then in TN. also, NY has alot more inner city schools which generally have a higher rate of special education. the percentage is implemented to supplement such fluctuations. In one area 100,000 may be great for the program, however in higher pop areas 100,000 is chump change.
 

VN Store



Back
Top