Quote from: walkstall on June 16, 2017, 06:16:42 PM
Your mother would be proud.   

My mother began teaching in the early 1940s in a one-room country school (ultimately having a 40-year career). Her second such wartime teaching job was near Ann Arbor and a school where famed Scopes Monkey Trial lawyer Clarence Darrow also taught while attending the U of M. Putting it bluntly, there was a high standard to follow there. She did it without whining for a union.

I graduated the year unions came to our school district. Education has suffered ever since, because it all comes down to this ---

A union never protects the kids. Never.

Quote from: Proud teacher on June 13, 2017, 09:25:18 PM
Okay, I don't have time right now to respond specifically to everyone, but the basic comments fall under a few categories.

#1. You're a music teacher? That's not a real teacher! Also, you didn't tell us.

I am a real teacher. I have taken the same education classes as all the other teachers, including many of those in private and charter schools. My master's degree is in education. I have answered questions put to me regardless of what the tone of the question was. No one asked what I taught, what my school is like, what students I work with, although someone did ask about the other teachers I work with.

The music industry is a $15 billion industry in the US. I teach my students the basic skills necessary to participate in that sector of the economy. Also, if you want God in your schools, tradition upheld, and patriotism as part of the curriculum, the music teacher is your best bet.

My student's bread and butter daily work is folk music. I don't mean the stuff by Peter, Paul, and Mary. I mean the real old, traditional stuff that has been a part of American culture for generations. The stuff your great grandfathers sang around the fire. If teachers like me didn't teach it, it could get lost and replaced by Katie Perry. Yuck.

I teach every fourth grader "The Star Spangled Banner." Meaning that, for a grade, they have to sing it by themselves and get every single word right. If they don't, they don't pass the test. Then, they have to meet with me at recess, before school, and/or after school until they can do it right. I also teach them the history surrounding the song. It's a story all about our country in a time of war and the United States triumphing. After learning it, they critique different performers' versions. I don't tell them what to think, and they often get very critical of their favorite pop stars when it is not performed with what they consider to be the proper respect.

Reading, writing, and 'rhythmatic? Got it covered. Even though it's not my primary focus, it all happens.

Reading: We read song lyrics all the time in all grade levels. Doing that is one of the best way to help struggling readers get ahead. Not to mention the opportunities for literary analysis of the words.

Writing: I just wrapped up a concert where my 5th graders were pen palling with a choir of senior citizens. I taught them how to write a letter to another person. Not only did I correct grammar and spelling errors, I taught them how to ask questions to keep the conversation going and to value the wisdom and experiences with their elders.

Arithmetic: music is applied math. Counting rhythms teaches children how to count in base 2, 3, or 4. Understanding how those rhythms function in music requires me to cover fractions. We talk about the distance between pitches in a melody. Then, I make them put it into action by performing these pieces. This is not that different from a science project in the role math plays.

Also, choir is a place where students often raise their voices in song to God. In the public schools. I almost always perform some sacred music in my choir. It would be an omission of some of the best music ever written to leave it out. Don't sell music short. It can be the part of public education that best aligns with the values you feel are being marginalized.

#2. You live in a bubble.
We all live in a bubble. Different bubbles. It's getting worse, too. We have reached the point in society where the other side must be not only wrong because they think different than us, but evil. Therefore, we don't talk to each other. We elect public officials who aren't supposed to really work together. When there are problems, like there are in education, we don't even try to see if the other side has a solution to offer which may make sense. We simply tune them out. I'm out here trying to see how the world looks from your bubble. I don't expect to change your minds on much of anything. You won't change my mind on much of anything, either. However, I think that if we seek it out, there is common ground to be had. Even if not, at least we are trying to make America better than it is today, and we take power away from the people and institutions that seek to maintain their power by dividing us. Sometime, try stepping out of your bubble and see what the other side thinks. It's fascinating.

#3. Vouchers
You don't want vouchers in private schools. Here's why. If you take the money, you have to take the students that come with it. Then, you'll have to offer them all the protection and privileges they have in the public schools. That means that if a Muslim child or a homosexual child or a transgendered child wishes to attend a conservative Christian school, you have to say "yes." If they are bullied or harassed and you do not provide what is needed, you will probably be sued. Whether or not they are successful (and they probably would be), they have taken a lot of money you could be spending on the students that you want to be there.

Those who are economically disadvantaged would be worse off than they are now. Many private schools, faced with the costs of dealing with students in poverty, would raise their tuition rates above what vouchers provide. Even for those schools that would not do such a thing, there would be issues.

We are a school district of choice in our state. We get students coming in who are dissatisfied with their home district. It usually goes okay for kids in families who can afford to live close to us and have a middle class background to begin with. They can afford to live in our area or there is one parent who can stay at home and shuttle the kids where they need to go. It is harder for those who don't. This year, I had a student whose family brought him to school from 45 minutes away because they believed we could help their child succeed. The problem is, they share a single car as a two parent family. Both parents also work to pay rent and feed their family. This means their child arrives at school tired, gets home late, and they struggle to do their best to help their child succeed. However, they have decided to go somewhere else next year because the logistics are too much to handle.

If vouchers were the norm and there were no more neighborhood schools, this sort of thing would be happening everywhere. Further, there would be no reason for politicians to feel like they needed to fix the problems that do exist in our schools. They could shrug their shoulders and say, "if they don't like the school near them, they could go to the one across town." Meanwhile, nothing gets better for the kids who need our help.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/16/its-graduation-day-in-america-but-not-for-everyone/

A selected quote from the above link....

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/16/its-graduation-day-in-america-but-not-for-everyone/

QuoteLittle did I know that more than half a century later, other girls and boys would still be fighting for education equality. Many of those kids are African-American like me, and the families many of them come from are poor and broken, like mine was.

But I was able to attend a better school, and they aren't. Instead, anti-reform forces are blocking them from going to better-performing public charter and private schools.

Today, the nemesis isn't the old Massive Resistance crowd, but a similarly determined cartel of unions, bureaucrats, and politicians. They make a great deal of money from the current system in the form of union dues, salaries, and political contributions.

As a result, they view education equality as a threat and anyone seeking it as their enemy. 

Quote from: quiller on June 17, 2017, 05:37:20 AM
My mother began teaching in the early 1940s in a one-room country school (ultimately having a 40-year career). Her second such wartime teaching job was near Ann Arbor and a school where famed Scopes Monkey Trial lawyer Clarence Darrow also taught while attending the U of M. Putting it bluntly, there was a high standard to follow there. She did it without whining for a union.

I graduated the year unions came to our school district. Education has suffered ever since, because it all comes down to this ---

A union never protects the kids. Never.

Remember kids don't pay union dues.

Quote from: quiller on June 17, 2017, 06:29:02 AM
A selected quote from the above link....

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/16/its-graduation-day-in-america-but-not-for-everyone/

Ever seen a leftist agree that Unions are Marxist and corrupt? Yeah, me either.
This will be completely ignored as right-wing propaganda by our supposed 'Enlightened Leftist teacher'.
Above link compliments of Hoofer.

Oxford Rewrites History Exam to Make it Easier for Women to Get Top Grades.

https://heatst.com/world/oxford-rewrites-history-exam-to-make-it-easier-for-women-to-get-top-grades/

snip~

Oxford University has completely redesigned one of its core history exams with the explicit aim of giving more top grades to women.

Academics at the university – often ranked top in the world for history – will now allow students to do one exam at home, rather than in an exam hall.

The move – immediately attacked as a "soft" alternative – was made because authorities felt female students were getting too few first-class degrees.

Quote from: walkstall on June 17, 2017, 07:03:12 AM
Oxford Rewrites History Exam to Make it Easier for Women to Get Top Grades.

https://heatst.com/world/oxford-rewrites-history-exam-to-make-it-easier-for-women-to-get-top-grades/

snip~

Oxford University has completely redesigned one of its core history exams with the explicit aim of giving more top grades to women.

Academics at the university – often ranked top in the world for history – will now allow students to do one exam at home, rather than in an exam hall.

The move – immediately attacked as a "soft" alternative – was made because authorities felt female students were getting too few first-class degrees.

What!!?!  Oxford has ruined their reputation with this idiocy. Women are already better able to perform in the traditional classroom than men. If too few women are taking top honors at Oxford, they should try to attract the top female students rather than water down the degree.

Quote from: naleta on June 17, 2017, 07:12:28 AM
What!!?!  Oxford has ruined their reputation with this idiocy. Women are already better able to perform in the traditional classroom than men. If too few women are taking top honors at Oxford, they should try to attract the top female students rather than water down the degree.

As they are dumbing down the test for female students.  Would that not also help the men also even more now? 

Quote from: naleta on June 17, 2017, 07:12:28 AM
What!!?!  Oxford has ruined their reputation with this idiocy. Women are already better able to perform in the traditional classroom than men. If too few women are taking top honors at Oxford, they should try to attract the top female students rather than water down the degree.

Oxford accepted draft dodger Bubba Clinton. When the slippery slope began is not as important as the oozing condescension expressed here.

Oh you poor little child, out in the big bad world of hardball academia. Let's bring it down to what we expect is your average level....

So what will they do for the top female students that don't need the dumbing down.   

Quote from: walkstall on June 17, 2017, 07:31:10 AM
As they are dumbing down the test for female students.  Would that not also help the men also even more now?

  Why, you evil chauvinist brute, you! Help a MAN? In BRITAIN? Their woman prime minister attended Oxford....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May#Early_life_and_education

I believe Oxford still adds unearned importance to applications from Oxford graduates (who often enroll their sons and occasional daughter shortly after their birth). Considering how class-conscious the UK truly is, it's their equivalent to our sending congenital idiots to Harvard.

I don't see that changing for the next few generations until the population swing finishes its arc and Islam owns Great Britain. Unless Theresa May gets serious, that part is as certain as sunsets in the West (as well as merely the west).

Quote from: walkstall on June 17, 2017, 07:45:19 AM
So what will they do for the top female students that don't need the dumbing down.   

Offer them teaching assistant jobs, at 70% of what they pay the men.

Quote from: naleta on June 17, 2017, 07:12:28 AM
What!!?!  Oxford has ruined their reputation with this idiocy. Women are already better able to perform in the traditional classroom than men. If too few women are taking top honors at Oxford, they should try to attract the top female students rather than water down the degree.

Now stop that! We're talking about liberal women here, common sense plays absolutely no part where education is concerned, it's about "Feelings", nothing more.

Quote from: walkstall on June 17, 2017, 07:31:10 AM
As they are dumbing down the test for female students.  Would that not also help the men also even more now?

You assume that the male students will be allowed to take the test home just like the female students. Not necessarily true.

Quote from: naleta on June 17, 2017, 07:12:28 AM
What!!?!  Oxford has ruined their reputation with this idiocy. Women are already better able to perform in the traditional classroom than men. If too few women are taking top honors at Oxford, they should try to attract the top female students rather than water down the degree.

How dare you insert logic into this situation.