Nope! Kevin needs to go. Marshall Meadors election to the State Senate will send a message to the rest of the legislative delegation that public education MATTERS, environment MATTERS, health care MATTERS and out-of-state special interests DOES NOT MATTER.
Loading
452 views
check this out
-2
permalink
I agree. Public education matters, so we need Senator Bryant who will fight for the teachers and not be a tool of the overpaid bureacrats, lobbyists, and teachers' unions. The environment matters and economic development does too, so we need Senator Bryant who will work to conserve our resources like water while not putting too many regulations on businesses so we will continue to have growth and development. Finally, health care also matters which is why we need Senator Bryant who proposes raising the cigarette tax on smokers who drive up health care costs and giving the increased revenue back to the taxpayers. We need to send the message to our legislative delegation that reform matters, accountability matters, low taxes matter, and our state can't afford to have another big government champion of the status quo in Columbia. The people of Senate District 3 will send this message by re-electing Kevin Bryant.
I just came from Trinity United Methodist Church. Anyone who doubts SC has a problem with education needs to go see the Corridor of Shame display there.
And Lee are you forgetting Bryant RECUSED himself from the cigarette tax vote? He can't propose raising a tax and not vote on it! His record proves his position or lack of it on the cigarette tax.
-1
permalink
I've seen that movie. It is the biggest crock of crap ever made. It's not the money, it's how it is spent. Don't believe everything you watch.
This is not the movie, although it may be connected to the movie. I don't know, I've never seen the movie. I went to the church for something else and just happened upon the display. This is a student photography exhibit showing still photos of schools with holes in the floor, exposed wiring, books with no covers, bathroom stalls with no doors, mold growing on ceilings and water fountains etc. Pretty deplorable conditions.
It is a movie talking explaining how bad our schools are on the I-95 corridor. When in all reality, they spend more per student than is spent in any district in Anderson county. They also spend more than the average per student statewide. More money doesn't fix this problem. More parental involvement and a change of attitude fixes our education woes. Unfortuneatly, you can't legislate good parenting.
Look up how much we spend on education statewide. If my memory serves me well, it exceeds $4,000,000,000.00 per year. That includes state, federal and local money. That's a lot of money to be last in the country.
Look up how much we spend on education statewide. If my memory serves me well, it exceeds $4,000,000,000.00 per year. That includes state, federal and local money. That's a lot of money to be last in the country.
-1
permalink
Money does fix issues ... ask George Steinbrenner ... /whistles 
If money can buy baseball championships . . . it can also certainly buy a world-class education system.
- SSHM
If money can buy baseball championships . . . it can also certainly buy a world-class education system.
- SSHM
Money does fix issues ... ask George Steinbrenner ... /whistles [image] If money can buy baseball championships . . . it can also certainly buy a world-class education system.- SSHM-sshm
Money would be the perfect fix in the way you say it. Except the coaches(teachers) and players (students) could be hand picked. 
Where would the others go?
Look up how much we spend on education statewide. If my memory serves me well, it exceeds $4,000,000,000.00 per year. That includes state, federal and local money. That's a lot of money to be last in the country.-yankeefan
Someone has to have the stupidest children in the nation. Unfortunately it's us.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
The problem with the concept of buying a good educational system as opposed to a good baseball team is that the element of competition is removed. Students don't compete because they are in no danger of failing. Self-esteem in our public schools is not a reward for accomplishment,it's a birthright bestowed by educators who think that feeling good about oneself is the most important thing. But if that good feeling, that confidence in oneself isn't based on real achievement, on meeting tough standards for performance, it means nothing. The Yankees aren't great players because they make tons of money. They make tons of money because they are great players.
Money does fix issues ... ask George Steinbrenner ... /whistles [image]
If money can buy baseball championships . . . it can also certainly buy a world-class education system.- SSHM-sshm
Ding ding ding ... !!!
Soooo . . . plumbbob . . . how does one demonstrate to kids the cause and effect relationship of good education = success in life, hmmmm?
Soooo . . . plumbbob . . . how does one demonstrate to kids the cause and effect relationship of good education = success in life, hmmmm?
One might think that such a well educated, well trained and highly funded educational system might be able to impart such knowledge. But in the absence of such a thing, setting standards for tests instead of standardizing tests and making a variety of excuses for those who can't even do well on those would be a start.
Ding ding ding ... !!!Soooo . . . plumbbob . . . how does one demonstrate to kids the cause and effect relationship of good education = success in life, hmmmm?-sshm
On a more elemental level, instead of letting every senior who can jive mom and dad out of a car park it on campus, tie that privilege, and it is a privilege, to performance in the classroom. Stick and carrot has been around a long time for one reason - it works.
Teachers and too many parents tell their kids outright lies about how good theyare doing and what wonderful children they are. Encouragement is essential - no question.But if it isn't based on either the achievement of a standard or efforts expended in pursuit of that standard, encouragement is like cheerleading. It sounds good, but it doesn't put any points on the board.
I think the majority of parents around here with students in the public school system that I encounter don't give a rip and expect that it is solely the school's job to educate their children (when parental involvement is repeatedly rated as the first indicator of success.) I think when you combine this apathy with an anti-intellectual culture and a poorly managed, underfunded school system (can we say WAY too many administrators?) then you have the perfect storm for a failure to educate our children.
Oh and don't forget the fact that you expect one teacher to handle a classroom with 30 or more students AND get them organized enough to learn something. Have you spent time in a room with 30 teenagers? Try to do a science lab with them and tell me how well that works out for you.
PB,
In the early years you MUST foster an environment in which kids can feel successful. As the child progresses in his or her educational process/path, the "training wheels" that guarantee success are removed. It's no different than learning to ride a bike - training wheels initially ... then removed when success can be achieved without.
So yes ... gold stars, happy popcicle sticks, and other such items in K-2. Third grade and beyond . . . the drive to succeed should be present.
IN ADDITION . . .
How we educate our teachers should change as well.
1.) All teachers MUST have a B.S. in Education with a minor in their focus area of teaching. For example, a HS Biology teacher would have a B.S. in Education with a Biology Minor.
2.) All teachers, within the first two to three years of teaching, must have their masters in their field of teaching. Using the same example above, the HS Biology teacher would now have a M.S. in Biology with a B.S. in Education and a Biology Minor.
3.) Offer a different payscale for teachers who graduate with honors (Cum Laude or better). Now THATS competition!
4.) Waive the SC Teacher Certification process for teachers who earn their Ph.D. in their field of study and choose to teach K-12 rather than college. Using the HS Biology Teacher ... the Ph.D. would need to be in Biology.
5.) Introduce yet another payscale enhancement for teachers who earn their Ph.D.
It is no longer enough to know HOW to be a teacher. The teacher needs to know the subject beyond what is outlined in the margins of the teacher's edition textbook.
Simple stuff . . . easy to fix.
- SSHM
In the early years you MUST foster an environment in which kids can feel successful. As the child progresses in his or her educational process/path, the "training wheels" that guarantee success are removed. It's no different than learning to ride a bike - training wheels initially ... then removed when success can be achieved without.
So yes ... gold stars, happy popcicle sticks, and other such items in K-2. Third grade and beyond . . . the drive to succeed should be present.
IN ADDITION . . .
How we educate our teachers should change as well.
1.) All teachers MUST have a B.S. in Education with a minor in their focus area of teaching. For example, a HS Biology teacher would have a B.S. in Education with a Biology Minor.
2.) All teachers, within the first two to three years of teaching, must have their masters in their field of teaching. Using the same example above, the HS Biology teacher would now have a M.S. in Biology with a B.S. in Education and a Biology Minor.
3.) Offer a different payscale for teachers who graduate with honors (Cum Laude or better). Now THATS competition!
4.) Waive the SC Teacher Certification process for teachers who earn their Ph.D. in their field of study and choose to teach K-12 rather than college. Using the HS Biology Teacher ... the Ph.D. would need to be in Biology.
5.) Introduce yet another payscale enhancement for teachers who earn their Ph.D.
It is no longer enough to know HOW to be a teacher. The teacher needs to know the subject beyond what is outlined in the margins of the teacher's edition textbook.
Simple stuff . . . easy to fix.
- SSHM
I like number 4! I live with a biology PhD that taught college and then had to get certified to teach high school. It was a ridiculous process too where you wrote essays on things that would never actually work in a classroom setting.
I agree with you on all of that except I would propose a slight modification. I think that the Education portion of college, post Elementary school teachers, should only be a minor while even your B.S/B.A. should be in a subject. Then, you spend one entire year as a paid teaching assistant (thus giving two adults per every classroom of 30) before you are promoted to "teacher." Like many of our professors were "Assistant" or "Associate" before they got their tentured position. In Germany, teaching is highly prized, so much that when a teacher or professor finishes a lecture, he or she is applauded. No one is given control of a classroom without extensive on the job training. Being the "Lehrer" is a position of honor that one does not get simply by completing a teaching degree. In the U.S. teaching has sometimes (we still have many fabulous teachers) become the career du jour for people who can't make it in other majors but can put together a bulletin board and would really like summers off. (If you don't have enough work to last you most of the summer, you just aren't doing it right.)
SSHM, question--why would you want to pay a phd holder a high wage to teach a high school student? If basic comprehension of a subject is difficult for some, the phd holder doesn't benefit those students; plus, that teacher would probably be frustrated.
JW, I was in classes with 30 other students 30 plus yrs ago and we learned. But I also had parents and grandparents who took an interest in helping me learn things. When I commonly hear a parent say- "I done did that" and "he don't know" and can't add 2 AND 2... A child also learns from what they hear.
Bit of personal experience and bias, I suppose, confused.
I had an experience in middle school in which my Earth Science teacher held a Ph.D. I can say without a doubt that I learned more about science in that year than I learned from the "average and disengaged" high school science teachers.
To this day, I can look at the sky and identify the different types of cloud formations and what it means for pending weather. I remember all of it like it was yesterday. Why? That teacher made a difference. One could make the case that it's simply a matter of her being a good teacher. I'll take it a step farther and say it's someone that has a genuine interest in a given subject . . . and wants to pass on their knowledge and legacy.
I look at Ph.D. in the K-12 classroom as something other than just frustration for the teacher. At the college level, publish or perish is the name of the game. I would wager that there are number of Ph.D(s) out there that are tired of that cycle ... and are looking to make a difference rather than have yet ANOTHER college student skip/sleep through their lectures.
As for paying more for people who have additional degrees . . . well . . . it's not cheap to earn those degrees. Teachers that are truly in education to make a difference will never become rich in the monetary sense of the word. Quite the opposite ... debt is more the name of the game. Their reward is knowing the impact that their instruction and drive has on future generations of people ... society. The other way to look at it . . . because Ph.D.(s) essentially amount to SMEs (Subject Matter Experts), they, if anyone, could develop methods by which to reach kids that "just don't get it."
Calling IBVirginia ... would you mind polling Mr. Ph.D. and measuring his level of frustration in teaching kids?
- SSHM
I had an experience in middle school in which my Earth Science teacher held a Ph.D. I can say without a doubt that I learned more about science in that year than I learned from the "average and disengaged" high school science teachers.
To this day, I can look at the sky and identify the different types of cloud formations and what it means for pending weather. I remember all of it like it was yesterday. Why? That teacher made a difference. One could make the case that it's simply a matter of her being a good teacher. I'll take it a step farther and say it's someone that has a genuine interest in a given subject . . . and wants to pass on their knowledge and legacy.
I look at Ph.D. in the K-12 classroom as something other than just frustration for the teacher. At the college level, publish or perish is the name of the game. I would wager that there are number of Ph.D(s) out there that are tired of that cycle ... and are looking to make a difference rather than have yet ANOTHER college student skip/sleep through their lectures.
As for paying more for people who have additional degrees . . . well . . . it's not cheap to earn those degrees. Teachers that are truly in education to make a difference will never become rich in the monetary sense of the word. Quite the opposite ... debt is more the name of the game. Their reward is knowing the impact that their instruction and drive has on future generations of people ... society. The other way to look at it . . . because Ph.D.(s) essentially amount to SMEs (Subject Matter Experts), they, if anyone, could develop methods by which to reach kids that "just don't get it."
Calling IBVirginia ... would you mind polling Mr. Ph.D. and measuring his level of frustration in teaching kids?
- SSHM
4.) Waive the SC Teacher Certification process for teachers who earn their Ph.D. in their field of study and choose to teach K-12 rather than college. Using the HS Biology Teacher ... the Ph.D. would need to be in Biology.
5.) Introduce yet another payscale enhancement for teachers who earn their Ph.D. It is no longer enough to know HOW to be a teacher. The teacher needs to know the subject beyond what is outlined in the margins of the teacher's edition textbook. Simple stuff . . . easy to fix. - SSHM-sshm
Having a Ph.D. is no indicator that someone can teach. In fact, I would say that 90% of my college professors were the worst teachers I ever had; the other 10% were the best teachers I ever had.The best ones were able to engage you in the subject matter, demonstrating how the information mattered in your day-to-day life; the worst regurgitated the information as fast as they could write.
Now, the worst professors also showed me what life was going to be like in the real world; I was expected to perform to his or her expectations regardless of how the subject was being presented to me; not unlike every boss I've had since I've worked.
I agree teachers need a deeper understanding of the subject they are teaching than is required by the grade level, but it goes to credibility, not teaching skills. Students know when you're faking an answer, and lose interest quickly if they believe that you're just reading the book to them....they know they can just read the book themselves and know as much as the teacher.
A bad teacher is a bad teacher, regardless of their degree level. No matter what requirements we impose on teachers, they will just jump through the appropriate hoops to get the rewards, or leave. Just like when we rate schools with standardized test scores; the schools make sure they teach the test.
I have no suggestions on how to make a good teacher. The best teacher I ever had was my 11th grade Physics teacher. He was so good that I majored in Physics in college. My college Physics professors were so bad I changed majors!
I don't know if it is a poll if I ask only one person, but he loves teaching high school students, and other more unbiased observers think he is great at it (Teacher of the Year). I do agree with String though that a PhD doesn't equal good teaching; there is a balance to be found because I also remember what it was like being in a class with someone who had only as much subject matter knowledge as they could read and mispronounce from the book.
Confused: I would imagine that 30 students 30 years ago were significantly better behaved than many of the hoodlums that come through public school these days, but I wouldn't know. I've only been alive for 27.
Doing someting about education in this state is such a complicated endeavor which I would like to further discuss, but I have to head back to school for the afternoon to torture teenagers for a bit. ;)
The problem with the concept of buying a good educational system as opposed to a good baseball team is that the element of competition is removed. Students don't compete because they are in no danger of failing.-plumbbob
If the students are put in a better school inviorment they will be challenged. Thats the point. Right now in public schools the "element of competition" is who has what on and who has this Ipod or whatever.
Vouchers I tell you thats the way.
Send your kids where you need them to be.
