Comments on: Nebraska Considers Coerced Integration

By: mcconnell

mcconnell — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:56:14 +0000

Hey Andy, it’s “Kokonut Pundits” with an “S”. Another thing, I agree with what La Shawn’s saying. And that’s all you going to hear from me.

Nuff said.

By: Hube

Hube — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:30:08 +0000

pajamazon: Get real w/those “suggestions” about teachers. Getting rid of all current teachers? Capping salaries at $30K? In what dream did this occur to you?

Please don’t paint all [public school] teachers w/the same brush. Approx. 40% of NEA members are Republican, and many detest the politics of the union.

By: Diggers Realm

Diggers Realm — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:18:28 +0000

Around The Blogosphere #19
The late edition in the continuing saga of interesting and thought provoking news from around the web. There’s sure to be something you’ve missed around the blogosphere. (All links open in a new window for faster cruising) Michael King over…

By: Baklava

Baklava — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:03:07 +0000

Let me just say that I noticed that Phil never came to the table with a solution. Only bashed us for critiqueing the Nebraska’s proposed new rule which would make things worse.

Thanks for the love Phil.

By: Sensible Mom

Sensible Mom — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:27:42 +0000

Will Nebraska Coerce Bad Education?
I saw this article posted at La Shawn Barber’s Corner…So these arrogant legislators and school administrators are trying to force children to stay in schools that don’t serve their needs.

By: Ralph

Ralph — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:09:52 +0000

Wasn’t the original point that the schools in that area were working, and then began to “decline” (if that is true) as a result of the “influx” of new students?

Meaning, the teaching “is” adequate and the resources “are” adequate.

If the children who remain in the schools are capable (competent to be in the education system), then there should be no concern for who is not attending.

By: Mark Slater

Mark Slater — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:19:48 +0000

I think we are avoiding a serious issue here, that is, our “elected” representatives are there not to express the will of the governed, but to push an ideologized social agenda. The wishes of those folk in small-town Nebraska are obvious, for whatever reason. The state legislatures response has been to make the clear intent of the people of Lexington that much more difficult.

Okay, that ought to be obvious by now. But what about the teachers. From wehat I understand, they are as mal-educated as the students they teach. No, not stupid; but mal-educated.

And, I would say, systematically mal-educated, from the cirriculum of “education” majors, teacher’s colleges, and the untested, untried gobbledy-gook that passes for the latest in “educational theory”. This for the purpose of passing on this dumbed-down norm to the children, to create a society of passive sheeple.

Of course, this is being recognized by a growing number of concerned parents, who wisely elect to himeschool. They are then the subject of snotty editorial cartoons that suggest that homeschoolers, by definition, are abusers. This usually from the people, and their sympathizers, who have a vested interest in the current failed system.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:37:07 +0000

Geeze guys. Why all the teacher bashing? Would you do their job for the pay, considering everyone they have to satisfy? All the regulators; federal, state, local. The Principal and finally 25 or more parents.

They have limited means to solve significant social problems from breakup of the family unit in this country, which La Shawn is pointing out on her blog on regular basis.

In addition, children really need a stay-at-home parent to help them grow emotionally and take an interest in their schooling. Raising children is a full time job, and not many can afford this no-pay job anymore.

By: Renee

Renee — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:41:38 +0000

That’s the hypocrisy of this whole situation. The liberal politicians and “education administrators” who complain don’t send their children to the same schools they claim to be fighting for.

The one thing they can not fathom at all is the sacrifice (as you advise) some parents are willing to take, to make sure their child gets an opportunity to succeed.

Another great post La Shawn.

By: pajamazon

pajamazon — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:34:16 +0000

I saw a guy on Fox news last night hawking a book suggesting good public school teachers earn $100,000 per year!
Here’s my suggestion. First, Make unionizing of govt. workers illegal! Second, Fire all current public school teachers. Third. Start over, while CAPPING salaries at $30,000 per year.
These part-time baby-sitters have conned us long enough! How smart does one have to be to “teach” children really?
I met a guy from New York whose wife made 90k teaching second graders! They tell us it’s worth it, but look at their “product” over the last decades. Mush-heads! Most teachers I’ve met, allthough polite and “nice”, did not perform well in the private sector. So they attempt to equate private sector economics with the commie-fiction world of public employees. I maintain that our children will be better served by teachers who want to teach kids than by Union predators who use our children as poker chips in their quest for private sector rewards!

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:10:46 +0000

Send them to Wisconsin where they can attend a “virtual high school” from their own home, via a laptop.

http://www.wisinfo.com/heraldtimes/news/archive/local_19896757.shtml

By: Jim R

Jim R — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:15:13 +0000

So I meant to add, to solve the problem as Phil rightly suggests, it would be a good idea for the
schools losing students to contact the families and ask why they moved their kids.

Everything else is just conjecture followed by proposed solutions for the wrong problem.

By: Jim R

Jim R — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:02:16 +0000

Bad behaviors and language on the playground and school buses, related to us by our children on a regular basis, is what caused us to move out of our first neighborhood. It was a good move.

I wonder how many of these Nebraska parents moved their children due to poor education or racism, instead of just a poor social environment.

By: Tanny O'Haley

Tanny O'Haley — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 07:08:40 +0000

Phil wrote, â€œI take it then that leaving the public schools instead of fighting the beaurocrats is the answer. â€

I don’t have time to wait for them to fix the public school system! It is not in the best interests of my children to have a poor education. The best thing that I can do for my children is to make sure that they get a good education. For me that means sending them to private school. I had to make many sacrifices to send my children to private school. It was a hardship and well worth it.

BTW, at the Lutheran school my children go to there are many low income parents who send their children to this school. They work two jobs and make sacrifices so that their children can get a good education. Also, the school provides grants to those who need it.

Private school isn’t just for the well off but it is for those who care about the quality of education for their children.

When the public school system gets better than private school, then I will send my children to public school. In the mean time, I will not hold my breath.

By: Jim Price

Jim Price — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:04:49 +0000

Call me a doomsdayer, but…

This will not be fixed. Just like decaying morals won’t be fixed; neither will the rise of euthanasia and abortion.

The world grows more and more selfish and depraved, and those traits pass to our kids, who fight to lower moral standards in the name of “freedom” and “equality”. Some of them come to their senses, grow up a little, see the problem for what it is, and complain that it needs to be fixed.

A little rough around the edges, but nontheless a good working theory.

When the ship is sinking, jump off. Who cares if the Captain gets offended.

By the way, my kids are homeschooled, and I still have to pay for the rotten public school system in Arizona.