Common Core haters
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@JaredBusch Just out of curiosity, have you every actually looked at the budgets for your local schools? It was eye opening for me. Something just isn't right if you can't give a good education for 1/3 of what our local schools are funded at.
Did you happen to notice how much of the budget was going to non-teaching related "stuff". Look at the percentage of the budget that goes toward sports for instance. I'm not saying sports are not important (that's another argument entirely). Look at the percentage that goes toward administration. The teaching budget by comparison is tiny.
Schools around here have threatened to shut down the sports programs in order to get voters to approve another tax hike...... only most schools either break even or make a little money from the sports programs (we're a bunch of US Football fanatics around here.)
We're talking high school right? Rarely do the cost of ticket fees and concessions do anything to put a dent in the cost of busing, uniforming, coaching, etc.
Let's just say, you don't want to be driving by a high school between 8 and 9 PM on a Friday night around here. I do agree that this is not the norm for most of the country.
It is the norm. In almost every highschool town you are going to have the this fanatical, home team, sports thing. I don't understand it but it exists. Even in my little town it is crazy.
It's so bad that my friend has fond memories of going town to town beating up other town's teams.. it's way worse in rural America from the sounds of it.
Oh... man that used the be the case. Even when I was in middle school the "older boys" would get in fights at parties and the like with the opposing town's teams. The town vs. town rivalry is insane where we are.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@JaredBusch Just out of curiosity, have you every actually looked at the budgets for your local schools? It was eye opening for me. Something just isn't right if you can't give a good education for 1/3 of what our local schools are funded at.
Did you happen to notice how much of the budget was going to non-teaching related "stuff". Look at the percentage of the budget that goes toward sports for instance. I'm not saying sports are not important (that's another argument entirely). Look at the percentage that goes toward administration. The teaching budget by comparison is tiny.
I'd say that sports aren't just important but very important, sadly in the negative. They actively undermine the value of school as an educational institution. You can't spend six hours a day preparing for a sport and have any sort of life while maintaining class time, study time, healthy life time and, for most people, time to work.
Which is why I mentioned the double negative. I disagree with school sanctioned sports as a principle. I can understand some benefits but there are a lot more negatives.
Agreed - I'm completely against sports in k-12 schools. Those expenses should be on those that want to participate, and charities that want to prop them up, not on the whole population.
I am not against sports. The really do (in good schools with good coaches) help teach kids dedication or responsibilities. However the school it's self shouldn't be paying for any of this.
This coming for someone who doesn't agree with pretty much anything they do in public schools so I homeschooled.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
I am not against sports. The really do (in good schools with good coaches) help teach kids dedication or responsibilities.
Do they? They teach you that playing games might get you out of having to work or study. I always saw them as a means of undermining teaching dedication or responsibilities. They teach kids to deprioritize what matters for their future and to escape into small town, high school popularity contests.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@JaredBusch Just out of curiosity, have you every actually looked at the budgets for your local schools? It was eye opening for me. Something just isn't right if you can't give a good education for 1/3 of what our local schools are funded at.
Did you happen to notice how much of the budget was going to non-teaching related "stuff". Look at the percentage of the budget that goes toward sports for instance. I'm not saying sports are not important (that's another argument entirely). Look at the percentage that goes toward administration. The teaching budget by comparison is tiny.
I'd say that sports aren't just important but very important, sadly in the negative. They actively undermine the value of school as an educational institution. You can't spend six hours a day preparing for a sport and have any sort of life while maintaining class time, study time, healthy life time and, for most people, time to work.
Which is why I mentioned the double negative. I disagree with school sanctioned sports as a principle. I can understand some benefits but there are a lot more negatives.
Agreed - I'm completely against sports in k-12 schools. Those expenses should be on those that want to participate, and charities that want to prop them up, not on the whole population.
I am not against sports. The really do (in good schools with good coaches) help teach kids dedication or responsibilities. However the school it's self shouldn't be paying for any of this.
This coming for someone who doesn't agree with pretty much anything they do in public schools so I homeschooled.
I agree that sports programs themselves are often a good thing. They give local pride and help a few possibly have a better future, but in reality it really is only a few - perhaps so few as to make it not worth the expense - can't say for sure... but yes - should not be part of the education system at all, and should be solely privately funded.
If your poor and can't afford to pay to play, and you can't find someone willing to sponsor them.. well then perhaps that's not where they should really be putting their attention.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@JaredBusch Just out of curiosity, have you every actually looked at the budgets for your local schools? It was eye opening for me. Something just isn't right if you can't give a good education for 1/3 of what our local schools are funded at.
Did you happen to notice how much of the budget was going to non-teaching related "stuff". Look at the percentage of the budget that goes toward sports for instance. I'm not saying sports are not important (that's another argument entirely). Look at the percentage that goes toward administration. The teaching budget by comparison is tiny.
I'd say that sports aren't just important but very important, sadly in the negative. They actively undermine the value of school as an educational institution. You can't spend six hours a day preparing for a sport and have any sort of life while maintaining class time, study time, healthy life time and, for most people, time to work.
Which is why I mentioned the double negative. I disagree with school sanctioned sports as a principle. I can understand some benefits but there are a lot more negatives.
Agreed - I'm completely against sports in k-12 schools. Those expenses should be on those that want to participate, and charities that want to prop them up, not on the whole population.
I can't +1 this enough. Sports shouldn be an extra individual expense we shouldn't pay for it through taxes.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@JaredBusch Just out of curiosity, have you every actually looked at the budgets for your local schools? It was eye opening for me. Something just isn't right if you can't give a good education for 1/3 of what our local schools are funded at.
Did you happen to notice how much of the budget was going to non-teaching related "stuff". Look at the percentage of the budget that goes toward sports for instance. I'm not saying sports are not important (that's another argument entirely). Look at the percentage that goes toward administration. The teaching budget by comparison is tiny.
I'd say that sports aren't just important but very important, sadly in the negative. They actively undermine the value of school as an educational institution. You can't spend six hours a day preparing for a sport and have any sort of life while maintaining class time, study time, healthy life time and, for most people, time to work.
Which is why I mentioned the double negative. I disagree with school sanctioned sports as a principle. I can understand some benefits but there are a lot more negatives.
Agreed - I'm completely against sports in k-12 schools. Those expenses should be on those that want to participate, and charities that want to prop them up, not on the whole population.
I can't +1 this enough. Sports should be an extra individual expense we should pay for it through taxes.
did you miss a n't
-
@Dashrender Yes.
-
Even in high school I was of the mind that for a fraction of the cost of just one sport a school could provide free lunches to the entire student body.
Although I am also a fan of getting away from school boards and push the district governance up the ladder to the state level.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Minion-Queen said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@JaredBusch Just out of curiosity, have you every actually looked at the budgets for your local schools? It was eye opening for me. Something just isn't right if you can't give a good education for 1/3 of what our local schools are funded at.
Did you happen to notice how much of the budget was going to non-teaching related "stuff". Look at the percentage of the budget that goes toward sports for instance. I'm not saying sports are not important (that's another argument entirely). Look at the percentage that goes toward administration. The teaching budget by comparison is tiny.
I'd say that sports aren't just important but very important, sadly in the negative. They actively undermine the value of school as an educational institution. You can't spend six hours a day preparing for a sport and have any sort of life while maintaining class time, study time, healthy life time and, for most people, time to work.
Which is why I mentioned the double negative. I disagree with school sanctioned sports as a principle. I can understand some benefits but there are a lot more negatives.
Agreed - I'm completely against sports in k-12 schools. Those expenses should be on those that want to participate, and charities that want to prop them up, not on the whole population.
I am not against sports. The really do (in good schools with good coaches) help teach kids dedication or responsibilities. However the school it's self shouldn't be paying for any of this.
This coming for someone who doesn't agree with pretty much anything they do in public schools so I homeschooled.
I agree that sports programs themselves are often a good thing. They give local pride and help a few possibly have a better future, but in reality it really is only a few - perhaps so few as to make it not worth the expense - can't say for sure... but yes - should not be part of the education system at all, and should be solely privately funded.
If your poor and can't afford to pay to play, and you can't find someone willing to sponsor them.. well then perhaps that's not where they should really be putting their attention.
It's very VERY few who get a brighter future. I would like to know how few got to college BECAUSE of sports and were able to use that college time to improve themselves rather than just playing more sports and messing up their lives.
Why do we sacrifice the education of 99.99% to maybe, in theory, help one person who somehow benefited from sports but couldn't study to help themselves or work hard to do so.
-
@coliver said:
Even in high school I was of the mind that for a fraction of the cost of just one sport a school could provide free lunches to the entire student body.
Although I am also a fan of getting away from school boards and push the district governance up the ladder to the state level.
the more local you go, the more corrupt that you get.
-
@coliver said:
Even in high school I was of the mind that for a fraction of the cost of just one sport a school could provide free lunches to the entire student body.
Although I am also a fan of getting away from school boards and push the district governance up the ladder to the state level.
I'm also in favor of getting rid of school boards. I'd want it pushed down to either parents or very small localized schools tho.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@Minion-Queen said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@JaredBusch Just out of curiosity, have you every actually looked at the budgets for your local schools? It was eye opening for me. Something just isn't right if you can't give a good education for 1/3 of what our local schools are funded at.
Did you happen to notice how much of the budget was going to non-teaching related "stuff". Look at the percentage of the budget that goes toward sports for instance. I'm not saying sports are not important (that's another argument entirely). Look at the percentage that goes toward administration. The teaching budget by comparison is tiny.
I'd say that sports aren't just important but very important, sadly in the negative. They actively undermine the value of school as an educational institution. You can't spend six hours a day preparing for a sport and have any sort of life while maintaining class time, study time, healthy life time and, for most people, time to work.
Which is why I mentioned the double negative. I disagree with school sanctioned sports as a principle. I can understand some benefits but there are a lot more negatives.
Agreed - I'm completely against sports in k-12 schools. Those expenses should be on those that want to participate, and charities that want to prop them up, not on the whole population.
I am not against sports. The really do (in good schools with good coaches) help teach kids dedication or responsibilities. However the school it's self shouldn't be paying for any of this.
This coming for someone who doesn't agree with pretty much anything they do in public schools so I homeschooled.
I agree that sports programs themselves are often a good thing. They give local pride and help a few possibly have a better future, but in reality it really is only a few - perhaps so few as to make it not worth the expense - can't say for sure... but yes - should not be part of the education system at all, and should be solely privately funded.
If your poor and can't afford to pay to play, and you can't find someone willing to sponsor them.. well then perhaps that's not where they should really be putting their attention.
It's very VERY few who get a brighter future. I would like to know how few got to college BECAUSE of sports and were able to use that college time to improve themselves rather than just playing more sports and messing up their lives.
Why do we sacrifice the education of 99.99% to maybe, in theory, help one person who somehow benefited from sports but couldn't study to help themselves or work hard to do so.
My wife is an example of this. She was an all-state basketball and volleyball player. She went to school on a scholarship for volleyball and she had to dedicate 12-14 hours a day to just volleyball.... thankfully she refused the scholarship after the first semester.
-
@coliver said:
thankfully she refused the scholarship after the first semester.
thankfully? why would you not have met her otherwise?
-
@travisdh1 said:
@coliver said:
Even in high school I was of the mind that for a fraction of the cost of just one sport a school could provide free lunches to the entire student body.
Although I am also a fan of getting away from school boards and push the district governance up the ladder to the state level.
I'm also in favor of getting rid of school boards. I'd want it pushed down to either parents or very small localized schools tho.
Why? Aren't parents and tax payers the ones who already vote in the school board? Going to a mass vote would amount to the same thing.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
thankfully she refused the scholarship after the first semester.
thankfully? why would you not have met her otherwise?
Most likely not. She probably would have also been burned out and dropped out, as happened to a few of her fellow athletes, in the first few semesters.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
thankfully she refused the scholarship after the first semester.
thankfully? why would you not have met her otherwise?
Most likely not. She probably would have also been burned out and dropped out, as happened to a few of her fellow athletes, in the first few semesters.
I have friends who did this. went to college on a swimming scholarship and it really damaged their futures. nearly all dropped out of college and struggled for a long time to figure out their careers.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The issue with the Common Core is not the Common Core itself. That's actually just a standard of what kids should know at different levels. It's actually not half bad. A bit slack, but anything in public education is.
People associate sometimes whacky and nonsensical teaching methods and standardized testing with Common Core. Those are actually the things that people hate or are having issues with.
That and things like number lines... I've seen a few examples and those simply don't make sense to me at all... and I took Math all the way up to Calculus and we never touched on that -- not in the long-winded roundabout way that I've seen examples work.
Standardized testing was around long before the "Common Core" name became mainstream. The problem is that teachers now have to teach things that directly relate to answer on some standardized test somewhere, rather than teaching the kids how to think critically.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The issue with the Common Core is not the Common Core itself. That's actually just a standard of what kids should know at different levels. It's actually not half bad. A bit slack, but anything in public education is.
People associate sometimes whacky and nonsensical teaching methods and standardized testing with Common Core. Those are actually the things that people hate or are having issues with.
That and things like number lines... I've seen a few examples and those simply don't make sense to me at all... and I took Math all the way up to Calculus and we never touched on that -- not in the long-winded roundabout way that I've seen examples work.
Standardized testing was around long before the "Common Core" name became mainstream. The problem is that teachers now have to teach things that directly relate to answer on some standardized test somewhere, rather than teaching the kids how to think critically.
They never taught to think critically. But at leas they used to teach how to figure things out. The amount of "I can't believe what these kids don't know" has jump to asinine levels these days.
-
@coliver said:
@travisdh1 said:
@coliver said:
Even in high school I was of the mind that for a fraction of the cost of just one sport a school could provide free lunches to the entire student body.
Although I am also a fan of getting away from school boards and push the district governance up the ladder to the state level.
I'm also in favor of getting rid of school boards. I'd want it pushed down to either parents or very small localized schools tho.
Why? Aren't parents and tax payers the ones who already vote in the school board? Going to a mass vote would amount to the same thing.
Mass vote? Where did that come from? Think more like 1 room schoolhouse setting. (Yes, the Amish community ends up with a better education than many a college graduate around here with less years spent getting educated.) I know that it wouldn't always work out, but people would have more say in what's going on.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The issue with the Common Core is not the Common Core itself. That's actually just a standard of what kids should know at different levels. It's actually not half bad. A bit slack, but anything in public education is.
People associate sometimes whacky and nonsensical teaching methods and standardized testing with Common Core. Those are actually the things that people hate or are having issues with.
That and things like number lines... I've seen a few examples and those simply don't make sense to me at all... and I took Math all the way up to Calculus and we never touched on that -- not in the long-winded roundabout way that I've seen examples work.
Standardized testing was around long before the "Common Core" name became mainstream. The problem is that teachers now have to teach things that directly relate to answer on some standardized test somewhere, rather than teaching the kids how to think critically.
They never taught to think critically. But at leas they used to teach how to figure things out. The amount of "I can't believe what these kids don't know" has jump to asinine levels these days.
I was one of the lucky ones. Lessons I learned in kindergarten have stuck with me even now. Look before you leap; look both ways before crossing the street; pay attention... I had plenty of help too (my mom is a teacher) who helped reinforce these things in me as well. I still pay attention to those around me. I help those that I can, and find help for those that I can't.
