John Stossel Tells It Like It Is!
And Charlotte Iserbyt -- former Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, under President Ronald Reagan, whistleblower, and author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America -- does too!
Why, even Pinky the Cat has something interesting to say!
Play 'em all -- email 'em to your friends and neighbors -- and then let's discuss what John, Charlotte and, yes, even little Pinky, have to say about the Publik Skool Gulag in Amerika. Maybe together we can somehow figure out a better way of preparing children for life in the real world? So, let's get cracking!
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 3:03 PM
40 Comments:
I do not have a child in public schools but I am a product of the Giles County School System and I see the lack of education and social learning that is occurring in the public schools in Giles County. If you question whether or not there is a problem in the public schools ask a high school student to form a coherent sentence or ask them how many Supreme Court justices there are. Here are some suggestions from my little corner of the world.
1) Abolish teacher unions: Here we have a large problem within the education system as demonstrated in the 20/20 piece. Teachers cannot be held accountable because it is darn near impossible to fire a teacher that has reached tenure. Which brings me to...
2)Abolish the tenure system: This is an asinine system for public schools. At the very least a collegiate professor has to show a strong record of research, teaching, and administrative skills before he or she is tenured this is not true for secondary school teachers.
3) A child should not see a computer in school until 9th grade at the earliest: A child does not need a computer to learn math, reading, history, or science. They need a book, a pencil, and paper. Technology is not and will not be the savior of the public school system. Learn to read then learn to surf the Net.
4) No Child Left Behind should be recalled and completely thrown away: The idea that kids should be evaluated based solely on standardized tests is asinine. What do teachers do? They teach the test to the students. Students learn what letter bubble to fill in and do not learn how to think critically and/or independently.
5) The Director of Schools should once again be an elected position: At the very this provides the general public with some way to hold the DoS accountable for his or her actions.
6) Parents should receive tax breaks for their child's good performance in school and fines for poor performance: This might hold parent's accountable for their children's education and encourage parents to use the school system for more than a babysitter.
7) Teachers should be given better pay and benefits comparable with private sector jobs: We are losing our best and brightest to private employment. Those that are left are either a) dedicated or b) desperate and unfortunately the latter far outweigh the former.
8) Term limits should be set for school board members and the Director of Schools: If the President of the United States can only serve for 8 years, school board members should not be able to serve more than that. (The same goes for Senators and Congressmen but that's another blog.)
9) The bottom 10% of teacher should be fired after 4 years: If they can't get do something productive they should find another line of work. I hear McDonald's is hiring.
10) Most zero tolerance rules should be thrown out: If you bring a gun or bowie knife to school by all means you should be expelled. If you bring an aspirin or fingernail clippers...give me a break.
Those are just some thoughts...now if I could just get elected. ;)
To Brad Smith. Excellent post, I agree almost completely with each item you listed. Thanks, Allen Barrett
Brad,
First of all, it is so gooood to see a new person posting under their own name. I congratulate you for doing so.
Second -- and I must be brief, because of other demands on my time -- I can't find anything to disagree with, at least in the sense that I agree that everything you've suggested would be a step in the right direction. However, I would go a little farther than you, and totally abandon the public school paradigm. Forget about reforming the DoS and School Board... and just abolish the positions. Then, take the eight Giles County schools, and privatize them. How? By forming a non-profit corporation for each school, and giving X shares of stock to each degreed employee, where "X" equals how much they made last year in dollars.
With that done, we take the current $7,465/pupil spending, and divide it as follows: 3,596 "regular ed" vouchers of $6,647 each, and 673 "special ed" (including gifted) vouchers of $11,838 each. The schools, as independent corporations, would compete for these tuition vouchers, and so the parents would DIRECTLY control their kid's education, rather than Tee Jackson, the School Board, and an army of State and Federal bureaucrats.
Note that the teachers would easily make much more money too. And transportation? The school bus workers would be spun off into a non-profit, and given all the busses, the garage, etc, and would offer their services for hire to the parents.
With three layers of deadwood bureaucracy removed, and with true market based incentives put into place, it's easy to see that we'd be getting a lot more "bang for our buck" by privatizing the schools.
I've also proposed an even more radical "one room school house" plan... you can read about it in the "Bernetta" thread. Take care.
Brad - excellent
Don m
Brad..
If you were a teacher I think you would sing a different tune. But it's easy to stand outside and criticize the very ones who play a major and defining role in educating this nation's children. Granted, there are areas that need improvement, and teachers themselves would be the first to say so. And those same professionals you sneer at would not be working at McDonalds. Can you not see where that remark is inflammatory?
But hey, your post must have been ok with the reporter. Did you notice that he said he agreed with "almost everything" you said? Beware. Your head may be on his chopping block next!
I apologize for the McDonald's comment it was full of sarcasm and cynicism neither of which work for positive change.
I stand behind everything else. I am not against teachers. Actually I am a fan of teachers. (Did you not notice that I wanted significant pay raises and benefit increases for teachers?) I onle ask that teachers be held accountable for their performance just like everyone else in the world. If I do not perform at a consistent high level I would be terminated from my job. It is only fair. It is because teachers play such an important role in the shaping and molding of future generations that I am in favor of such high standards for teachers.
Terminating the bottom 10% would weed out those who really do not want to be teachers and free space for new people whose hearts are truly for teaching. I have the utmost respect for teachers, custodians, administrators, bus drivers, maintenance workers, etc. These people have dedicated their lives and careers to the noblest of causes, the education of our children. This is such an important task not only for the child, but also for society as a whole and it is for that reason that I want the right people and the best people teaching our children.
Brad..
I believe most teachers have a self-imposed higher standard that they accept and adhere to. It's a lot like those who go into the ministry. Right or wrong, they are held to a higher level of accountability. Sadly, some don't. Those preachers, just like ineffective teachers, shopuld seek other areas of employment. On that, I agree with you.
But didn't wab argue previously that preachers are NOT held to a higher standard?
Gee anomous I'd be interested in reading where wab argued previously that preachers are NOT held to a higher standard? Would you mind showing where that post is. Sounds like just another fairy tale or brain fart on your part.
ox..
Wrong! I don't know where it's at on this blog, but I do KNOW he made that argument. If you don't believe me, I would suggest you looking for it. Regardless, the point remains that he did make that argument.
Just what I thought a brain fart! If you are gonna make absurd accusations about people you should be willing to back it up or shut it up. Why should I look for something to prove something you said especially when I have doubts about it's existence?
Anyone can be wrong usually that admission is followed by an apology, when should we expect yours?
ox..
Silly goose, I don't need to back it up. The proof is in the pudding. He amde the argument, and it's on this blog somewhere. But I am not going to expend the energy to find it for you. If you don't want to put forth the effort to look it up, simply ask wab. I doubt that he will deny it since his comments are on this blog somewhere.
If and when you look it up, may I expect YOUR apology?
wab..
Well, I just got home and picked up the paper. While thumbing through it, I wound up at the Letters to the Editor section. Wouldn't you know it; you had another of your exclusive revelations and criticisms of this "present administration" along with multiple "suggestions" of impropriety. Does this help anyone?
Honestly, wab, why don't you get yourself a job and perhaps you will find that, like the majority of us,you won't have time for your spewings of hatred and jealousy. It apparently remains a most difficult pill for you to swallow that your enlightenedfollowers were not enough to get you elected to office in the last election. And, with your continued whining and accusatory remarks, I rather doubt that you will fare any better should you run again.
To Anonymous of the 5 Dec 4:37 post.
I was wondering if you are pleased with the way things are being done with the cemetery contract. Would you make a contract with someone for them to paint your house and supply all the materials then you go and buy paint, brushes etc. and paint your own house? Of course not, like most people you would probably expect to get what you agreed to. There is a considerable amount of money involved in the perpetual care trust fund and the installation fund yet no one with the city is monitoring deposits to these funds, is that alright with you? Are you OK with the city paying over $70,000.00 a year for phone service and no one knowing how many phones are in use, where the phones are located, what they are being used for or by whom they are being used?
What you refer to as “multiple "suggestions" of impropriety” are not suggestions at all. It is highly improper to operate a public entity in secret, to refuse to even try and control huge expenditures or the reason for them. It is improper for a public official to place themselves above the people they serve by refusing to respond to their questions.
What you seem to consider "spewings of hatred and jealousy" I consider simple outrage at lazy incompetence. As for the rest of your personal attack I would simply suggest that you become more involved and responsible toward government affairs and the community you live in. Allen Barrett
wab..
I am not personally attacking you as you suppose. No, I am merely describing your behavior and attempting, albeit seemingly futile, to help you with your misunderstandings. You should thank me for that, don't you think?
I realize losing that election hurt you, but can't you just lighten up and try to be a positive force rather than someone who appears to be no less than a spoiled brat? You can run again, although I think that would be just as futile.
To anonymous of the 10 Dec. 1:09 post.
You state, “I am not personally attacking you as you suppose. No, I am merely describing your behavior and attempting, albeit seemingly futile, to help you with your misunderstandings. You should thank me for that, don't you think?”
The fact of the matter is that you do attack me personally and with no other ammunition other than that you don’t like me. That is your problem not mine, it doesn’t alter my life one iota. One merely has to read your comments which over and over attack my personal character without offering anything to support the criticism. The problem I have is trying to understand how you can continually attack me for imagined behavior and personality traits that in reality are the behaviors and personality you so constantly exhibit.
You state, “I realize losing that election hurt you, but can't you just lighten up and try to be a positive force rather than someone who appears to be no less than a spoiled brat?” It appears that you are by far more disturbed by the lost election than I am. It was not a life altering experience no more than a visit to Baskin and Robbins for an ice cream. I am the same and am involved with the same things now as before the election. I will consider “lightening up” as you say, when the only hand in my pocket is my own.
wab..
All I can say in response to your assertions about me is that, in all honesty, you are too close to the forest to see the trees when it comes to your own self-analysis.
No, I do not attack you personally as you suppose. If I were, I would be accusing you of stealing, bar-hopping, and the like. But I have NEVER stooped to that level. And there has been plenty of "personal attacking" on this blog. A glaring example would be the "suggestion" by someone that Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Norman had something going. Even if that were true, it is NONE of your business or mine.
What I DO attack you for is the way you come across and talk down to others. That has ALWAYS been my problem with you. I dislike arrogance, egotism, and the like in anyone....nothing personal you see.
To Anonymous of the 24 Dec 6:29 post. Boy, talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Obviously we have different understandings about the term “personal attacks”. You may speak of activities that a person is involved in without getting personal about it. Attaching a name to the bank robber is not a personal attack, referring to him as the “fat” bank robber is a personal attack. When you call me arrogant, egotistical, mean, etc. without anything other than your “feelings” to substantiate it that is a personal attack. If you accuse me of “stealing, bar-hopping and the like” with out any proof it’s a slanderous lie. Your effort to connect me to the “suggestion” referring to Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Norman is despicable. While I strongly disapprove of some of their behavior as board member and director I consider both to be positive friendships and have never, not once referred to or about them on a personal level. I agree with you, at least in part, that the personal life of a person is “NONE of your business or mine” until it begins to affect me or those I care about. My intentions are never to talk down to anyone as I value each individual and their worth, but I tend to over explain out of the insecurity I am not making myself clear sometimes. Allen Barrett
wab..
You are right in saying that we have a different concept of what would be considered a personal attack. Is it a personal attack when someone is referred to as egotistical? I think not when his or her behavior proves it to be true. Is it a personal attack to call a miserly person selfish? No. But it WOULD be if the miser were accused of gaining his fortune by cheating and stealing from others. Do you see the contrast?
Would you say that calling Mrs. Vanzant or Roger Reedy liars would be a personal attack? Or, would you justify that by saying you were merely describing their behavior?
By the way, if the bank robber is fat, he is fat. That would be a matter of fact. It wouldn't be the same thing as accusing him of being fat. Further, if you would go back and read my post, you will find that I never said YOU were the one who made the suggestion about Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Norman. Nevertheless, someone did, and it was despicable! Your claim that you never once referred to them on a personal level proves your misunderstanding of the concept of personal attack. I applaud you that.
No, you have, as usual, made yourself very clear to me. I just hope I've helped in some small way to clear up more of your misunderstandings. Peace.
To Anonymous. This is the second place on here that you have just outright lied about me in a vicious way. I can ignore your petty little groundless assertion about me, it easy for people to see you're just a hate filled little person with no integrity or life but what you create in your mind. I tried to be nice in the other post and offer you an opportunity to say you had simply mis spoken when you said I called Roger Reedy a liar, there can not be a case for misspeak made when you do the same thing twice.
You wrote on the same day as the other lie, "Would you say that calling Mrs. Vanzant or Roger Reedy liars would be a personal attack?"
Your implication is much to clear and you are dirty little coward for posting this vicious lie and not having the courage to identify yourself or ever offer anything in support of such a disgraceful thing. YOU ARE A LIAR TO SAY I CALLED ROGER REEDY A LIAR, PERIOD, CASE CLOSED. Allen Barrett
wab..
Your description of me is EXACTLY my perception of you! Is that not an irony or what?
If you would read again what I said above, you will realize that I threw out some names for example in order to get you to see what is and isn't a personal attack. Apparently, you misunderstood what I was attempting to do. If I erroneously included Mr. Reedy, then I apologize.
You talk about disgraceful. Well, isn't it disgraceful to call people names in a public forum, regardless of who they are? Would you call those same people those names if they answered the alter call at your church? Would you call me a dirty little coward if I did the same? I'm just trying to clear up some things for you and to give you pause for thought.
To Anonymous of the 10 am post.
Boy, anonymous you obviously have no concept of right or wrong. You accuse me of something that is untrue then just throw out some names to justify it. If Mr. Reedy were to read your statement, which you made on another post as well, what do you think his feelings would be toward me? You’re simply going to have to grow up, take some responsibility for your mouth and realize words have meaning and when untrue they tend to hurt deeply. You didn’t erroneously include Mr. Reedy, once might be an error but not twice, you did it intentionally with a malicious intent.
The rest of your post is so stupid it’s not even worth responding to.
Allen Barrett
wab,,
May I approach your throne in defense of myself? I'm being facetious there, so don't allow that to feed your ego. That was not my intent.
I thought I had sufficiently explained the fact that I just threw out some names for consideration. As usual, you go into denial with that "poor little innocent me" position. Outrageous.
For the sake of argument, let's leave Roger's name out of it. The fact remains that you have been very guilty of calling people names. As for my growing up, I think I'm showing much more maturity than you are by refraining to stoop to your level. Perhaps you need to start taking responsibility for your own behavior and not spend your valuable time criticizing me for taking you to task.
I would be willing to stop pointing things out if you would confine your comments to facts without having to come across with your usual air of superiority and arrogance. Think about it.
This is not an arm-wrestling exercise with you. It's not about one upsmanship either. It IS about pointing our the error of your ways. Nobody ever said you didn't have factual information. That's not it at all. Again, turn in your "findings" to those people whose job it is to prosecute wrongdoers. Then, as I have also said before, butt out! It's a simple concept really.
To Anonymous of the 30 Dec 12:24 entry.
Well, it seems that I need to read the older entries more often. Anonymous you obviously don’t realize that you identified the problem with 100% accuracy when you stated that you, “had sufficiently explained the fact that I just threw out some names for consideration”.
Do you really think by just saying you did a thing is an explanation of why you did it?
You just don’t seem to get it even when you say it. When you just make up something and “throw out a few names”, that belong to individuals, and accuse me or anyone else of saying things about those people that was never said you lose any credibility you might have had. Words have meanings and people have feelings and when they see their name “just thrown out there” attached to some untruth it hurts. When you hide behind your anonymous name so no one can challenge you it becomes the act of a coward.
Saying that I have called people names on this blog is like saying at midnight it’s usually kind of dark. I’ve never denied calling someone a name only that I have not called anyone a named that had not earned it. I also gave evidence to support the name then signed my name so anyone who wanted to take issue or correct me could easily contact me. So far not one person I’ve called a name has contacted me and asked for a retraction. Allen Barrett
wab
Well, here are some words that have meaning. You DID call Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Vanzant names...more than once. Now, I did offer your excellency an apology on Mr. Reedy mainly because I do not have the time or inclination to go back and read every post to see whether you did or didn't clal him names. OK? What is it that you don't understand about that?
You don't seem to get it that, just because you have the "truth" about someone that you are justified in calling them names. You made reference to my saying that you call people names on here is like saying it's somewhat dark at midnight and then turn right around and admit that you do it. So, which is it? As for those you have called names on here, I know most of them personally, and I will tell you that they would never play your game by asking you for a retraction. You see, you really are not all that important to them. So why would they beg an apology from you? They see you as a nuisance that hopefully will go away in time.
I hope these words have meaning to you and that you will ponder them and make the appropriate application.
To anonymous of the 8 Jan 4:46 post.
Do you have a problem with comprehension? I have not denied, that means not claimed as untrue, refused to accept as true or right, your claim that I called both Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Vanzant liars, that means a person who tells untruths. Mr. Jackson when he said that the school board had nothing to do with me and Mr. Winkles being arrested. I even gave him the opportunity to change that statement before I stated that he was a liar. There have been several occasions where Mrs. Vanzant has outright lied to me and to others in my presence. For each of these people I did not secretly or in anonymity declare that they were liars but went to them face to face and stated it to them along with the reasons.
This is what I stated in my post of 7 Jan. 11:13; “Saying that I have called people names on this blog is like saying at midnight it’s usually kind of dark. I’ve never denied calling someone a name only that I have not called anyone a name that had not earned it. You tried to add Mr. Reedy to the list when it wasn’t true, then when called on it you stated you “just threw out some names”. I also gave evidence to support the name then signed my name so anyone who wanted to take issue or correct me could easily contact me.”
In response to that statement you posted, “You made reference to my saying that you call people names on here is like saying it's somewhat dark at midnight and then turn right around and admit that you do it. So, which is it?” DUH, there’s your problem with comprehension again. Can you get someone to explain that I used an analogy to say that your claiming I called these two people names was as much a news flash as finding out that it’s usually kind of dark at midnight? Allen Barrett
wab...
There's no sense in arguing with you as to names you have called people on this blog, because you are going to deny it and refuse to apologize.
Forgive me, but I have never personally known a preacher who would resort to such antics, regardless of whether he has the truth or not. Would you welcome some of the people you have smeared if they showed up for church services?
To anonymous of 13 Jan 10:46 post.
There is no argument about names I have called people on this blog or anywhere else because each time my name has been right there under the posting. The problem is that while you were apparently sleeping you dreamed up a few nonexistent name calling episodes and have tried to attach them to me. Perhaps it’s the result of a guilty conscience. If you have evidence of something I did that I have not admitted to I wish you would produce it instead of just continually lying about it. If you have proof show it if not shut it.
If all your experience has been with some pansy preacher I feel sorry for you. I speak in plain simple language and use words that fit the situation. If you would like to have contact with some preachers that were not your run of the mill pansy patch of piety there are some in Giles County but there are many in both the old and new testament. People like Elisha, who called out some bears to eat a few kids that were teasing him about being bald.
I certainly disagree with you about me “smearing” anyone there are those who have smeared themselves and I identified them. The church where I pastor is open to anyone and everyone is welcomed with the same loving enthusiasm. Allen Barrett
wab..
There you go again describing my behavior (e.g. while I was sleeping, I dreamed). Hilarious. I really liked the one, "show it or shut it". Oh, and the "pansy preachers" thing about cracked me up. Aren't you judging other preachers by that remark?
There's no need for me to show any proof, because you would deny it anyway. There have been things in times past brought up to refresh your memory, and you denied those as well. Then you get on here and call people liars and crooks. Ironic.
Maybe you should consider answering the altar call?
To anonymous of 16 Jan 7:51 post.
Glad I was able to contribute to your feel good. When I referred to "pansy preachers" judging their behavior was exactly what I was doing. You keep talking about proof of this thing or that thing but fail to produce. Talk is cheap, now don't try to turn that into me calling you cheap, you're just blinded by your personal hatred of me. I wouldn't want you to get more mixed up and misunderstand.
I already told you to whom I have referred to as liars and the reason. Why, don't you try a little honesty, be careful I wouldn't want you to overdose on it, and take some responsibility for your words of hate by posting with your name.
Oh, sorry I suggested that you've already expressed why you chose cowardice over responsibility. Allen Barrett
wab..
What about it? Will you answer tomorrow's altar call and repent for being all too arrogant and condescending to those who beg to differ with you?
You will not find a person who really knows me that will support your idea of me being arrogant or condescending. As for alter call and repentence, prayer and seeking forgiveness is one of my treasured daily activities, along with praiseing God for His loving kindness and greatness. Allen Barrett
wab..
Think with me here. Of course, nobody who "really" knows you would ever characterize you as being arrogant and condescending. The operative word there is "really". Are you saying that those of us who see your arrogance and condescension don't really know you? That's confusing at best, isn't it?
I am glad to hear that you answered the call. The good Lord knows we ALL need that.
To anonymous of the 22 Jan 1:25pm post
I always welcome an opportunity to think with someone. What I was trying to convey in the term “really knows” is that the better one actually knows another person the better able they are to understand the actions and motivations of that person.
By “really knowing” a person one is less apt to misjudge that person. “Really knowing” or having knowledge of the individual’s full personality gives one a better opportunity to not confuse arrogance for confidence or ego for concern.
A person may have only one opportunity in a lifetime, and only one split second to decide whether to act on that opportunity, to do the right thing and alter the course of their life. The more responsible and involved one is up to that moment will most often determine what is done, act or ignore. I choose to be involved because I came to understand a long time ago that what effects one person will eventually affect every person. Allen Barrett
wab..
You are right in stating that one must not confuse arrogance for confidence or ego for concern. However, would you agree that too much confidence is considered conceit and that conceit and arrogance are synonymous? Also, would you not agree that too much ego smacks of self indulgence and worship moreso than does concern?
In addition, do you think community involvement and activism can be taken too far and thus be construed as troublemaking?
I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.
I recall that the Black Panthers were community activists. Were they troublemakers?
Let me try and explain to you the way I see this whole matter of confidence and arrogance so maybe you might understand why I do not consider my confidence to be arrogance.
God Himself is the ultimate object of reliable confidence. By having faith in Him one can begin to grow a confidence in self. Having a true belief in The Gospel of Christ gives me confidence even boldness. I believe in good people, even though they sometimes are weak and flawed I choose to believe ultimately when facts are clear most will seek to do the right thing. I believe in the fact that God will take care of me regardless of the circumstances, it may not be as I would choose but it will be what's best for me. I believe in hope, hope that in the long run if we do what is right everything will work out for us. So you see, hopefully, what you misunderstand as arrogance isn't even confidence in myself but a confidence in God. So, if there is confidence it's the result of God's Grace not from me. Allen Barrett
wab..
The problem with your style of "boldness" is that it condescends and hurts or maligns people. That is not the same kind of boldness Peter, Paul, and John the Baptizer had when they were fishing for the souls of men. However, i will concede that they boldly proclaimed the gospel and at times had to be very firm in order to "convict the gainsayers".
I'm trying hard to help you to understand the difference between boldness and arrogance. I remain convinced that you do see the distinction.
How would you describe John the Baptizer's behavior toward Herod and his wife? How would you describe Paul's behavior in publicly correcting Peter in front of the church? How would you describe Peter's behavior in front of the authorities who had just ordered him to stop preaching? Were they being arrogant or were they just correct?
Without all the information I can understand how you might misinterpret my behavior as arrogant but if you knew me you would easily see that arrogance isn't apart of my character. Allen Barrett
wab..
As one of my heroes, Ronald Wilson Reagan, oft said, 'There you go again'. I offer you an olive branch and you bite my hand. What am I to do with you?
I think I know what Peter, James, and the Baptizer were doing just as well as I know Christ was angry when he drove the moneychangers out of the temple.
I was merely using these men as examples of what arrogance is NOT. I'm sorry you misunderstood the
application. Oh well.
Post a Comment
<< Home