Kitch

Are not government run 'systems' not always on the verge of crumbling due to lack of funding? Doesn't this make sense anyway? It's a very fine balance for the government to run something like the health care system. It's easy to over or under spend, and each has its own problems. The idea is to spend just the right amount, which means that it is always on the verge of collapsing... but I'd like to think it never will. (That is unless an ultra-right wing... or pro-free market government creates such circumstances to justify privatizing everything). The agenda of different governments that run on different paradigms can also be seen in which programs they overspend on and which they underspend on.

You're right, this cannot be blamed on the students and this IS the way public education is set up. And teachers are held accountable for failures of students AND the amount of time that they must spend managing their classes. Some teachers don't know how to effectively manage classrooms. They don't know how to prevent/limit the circumstances that lead to behaviour problems and so have more than their share to deal with. Sure, these teachers should be held accountable (how do you do that though... just asking). But this is only a narrow view of the problem... that problem being students who are given the 'social pass'. This is indeed how it is set up, by the government (in Ontario... I can't speak for other provinces). When Mike Harris became premier, he made some huge changes to education. He changed the funding model and cut a lot of funding, leaving schools to find ways to proceed without resources. Well, when McGuinty came to be our new premier, he and his party made further changes. He didn't reverse anything that Harris did, as some people may have you believe, he made different changes. He did pump more money into public education, but not for schools... he didn't change Harris' funding model, meaning that schools still have less money than they had to work with in the early 90's. He introduced standardized testing and the Ontario College of Teachers (maybe Harris did this, I don't know). The organization responsible for implementing the standardized testing, EQAO, is an arm's length group of the Ministry of Education. And what do they do? They rank our students (and schools) with regard to literacy and numeracy. The public isn't supposed to use these rankings, but as we know, they are published in the news every year. The idea was that if a school was found to be producing students that are below the provincial "standard", then attention was to be paid to that school. Unfortunately, that attention was not in the form of additional resources... to be honest, other than the negative attention paid to these schools by the media, and therefore the public, I don't know what poor scoring schools got! But I do know that enrolment at these schools is likely to go down leading to further decreases in funding (I believe). The second change in the Ministry of Education was the OCT, which was designed to make teaching a self-governing profession (euphemism), which really meant holding teachers MORE accountable for the success of their students. This is not a bad idea, but it has been taken too far. I believe that the perception of teachers in our province has become more negative than it was before Harris. When a teacher called home to inform a parent that, say, their child was showing up to class late every day, then that parent would likely listen to the teacher and the behaviour of the student might change. Well, now, to give you an example, I know two teachers who have called a parent to tell them that their child is late every day. The response? "My son/daughter just likes to sleep in". Hmmm. And then when THAT same students fails a test, the teacher is the one who is held accountable? The government created this environment (whether intentional or not) which makes the public happy because 1. they're looking out for the success of the kids in Ontario, as seen by the amount of standardized testing, and 2. because teachers are more accountable for the success of the children of Ontario. (Not to mention that the definition of success is a certain grade or passing a credit.... no longer is it defined by the amount of LEARNING that occurs!). So parents out there are happy because the government is on their side, trying to get those lazy teachers to do their job. And now we have rules that say we HAVE to accept late assignments and are not allowed to give zeros to kids who hand work in months late. So while education keeps getting worse because kids are not taught any form of responsibility and are not held accountable for THEIR actions, the government keeps getting re-elected on these policies that are designed for nothing more than getting re-elected... NOT to better the education of our students.

I understand and sympathize with your position. (I am a teacher by the way). I'm glad that you know that the policy at your child's school is a school policy and not an approach taken by 'education'. But I feel the need to defend my profession. I hear a lot of people talking about the teaching profession, but few people really understand what teaching is all about, what it's like or how it... works (not that you're one of those people... I don't know). We are definitely fortunate, I won't deny that. But it's not as easy or cushy as you might think. We can, in fact, lose our jobs. It's not, as you point out, dependent on the conditions of the economy, but depends on the population in the region of our schools. Teachers are often (at least in the TDSB) declared redundant, meaning that they no longer have a job. That being said, it's typically teachers with little seniority who suffer this fate... and, in the end, compared to the number of teachers out there, I don't THINK that it's all that common. I agree with you that it is ridiculous for your child's teacher to ask for funds for a trip with 2 days notice (I think that's the time frame you said they gave). I won't even say that this is an isolated thing and that most teachers would be more sensitive... I don't know if that's the case. But I DO know that I, personally, as well as MANY of the teachers that I know, would initiate the process FAR before the date of the trip. Also, trips to go see plays are indeed very valuable and are an experience that cannot be replaced/replicated in the classroom. For example, every student in high school READS Shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote plays that were performed. His work was not read, it was seen. That being said, reading his work allows students to see the poetry of his words but watching the play allows people to understand what is happening in the story, which is equally as poetic. (This is coming from a science teacher, mind you). And in further defence of my profession, people see that we get 2 months off in the summer and that we work 6 or 7 hour days, as opposed to the typical 8 or 9 in other occupations. Well, the amount of time we spend in class is probably equal to the amount of time we spend working after school or at home (and I'm not talking about extra curriculars). We have to plan every lesson that we deliver, depending on who you are this might mean planning right down to the words you say. We have to mark endless assignments and tests. We have to manage classrooms filled with children ranging in ability and attitude (including the kids who haven't been parented very well and ruin the learning environment for everybody). Since I started teaching, I fall asleep at 8 or 9 at night, whereas in other jobs I would get up at the same time and not go to bed until 10 or 11. The two months off is time for us to recover from a very stressful and intense school year. Don't get me wrong here. I admit that we're lucky. We have one of the most noble and rewarding jobs that exist. I'm just saying it's not as easy as some people think. But, your experience, as far as I understand it, is the result of an inconsiderate person and ill considered school policies, not teachers in general. So please don't further stigmatize us. We're already less respected than we used to be, and it's resulting in very difficult classes to manage. Kids show up late these days and we call parents to inform them... you know what a surprising number of parents say? "My son/daughter just likes to sleep in." For real?? The teacher is seen as the problem now, not the person who is in the second best position to solve problems. The first being parents. So, again, please don't speak poorly of "teachers". Trash a certain teacher all you want, but I personally am not at fault for your experience here.

3 teachers out of... how many? And christians indoctrinate their kids with christian 'values' as do jewish people, muslim people and many other people of many religions. At the same time people who believe communism is a great idea and those who believe that it's truly a dog eat dog world and that you need to look out for number one and only number one are out there indoctrinating their kids. People are out there perpetuating the most ridiculous 'old wives tales'. I suppose that Obama can be blamed for people who agree with his ideas? If that's true, then we should blame Jesus because catholic priests rape little boys and girls. So what's the moral of the story? I think shakyhands said it best.

Spin? Did you not read what I said about that teacher? And where in my post did I use the word conservative? Guilty conscience?

Of course it applies. What's your point, may I ask?

Isn't Oshawa closer to Caledonia (where Keng is from) than California? Maybe there is a bias in the media for covering local 'news' more thoroughly than non-local 'news'. The idea of equity has nothing to do with the past. Neither does equity have anything to do with treating people 'equally'. It has to do with allowing people equal opportunities to live equally 'happy' lives. So if some minority group suffers some oppression at the hands of society, the government, which is supposed to represent society's opinions, gives this group some advantages over other groups (to offset the effects of the oppression) so that it may be on equal footing (in terms of the ability to live to a certain standard) with those other groups. Difficult to actually implement, perhaps, but a step in the right direction I think. And by difficult to implement I don't simply mean how to go about doing so but also how to decide what constitutes oppression, disadvantages, proper advantages given, and so on.

Cry me a river bud. Perhaps the day has come that 'god' and everything that goes along with... it... is no longer simply accepted as 'truth'. Or at least by people who don't have permanently attached blinders. 'The evidence is all around us'. PLEASE! As if the ONLY explanation for anything we can observe is god! How narrow minded and passive.

While I appreciate your attempt, chum, you need to read more carefully. Not once did I say anything about 'proof' other than claiming that it does not exist in science. I did not use an example of molecular evolution to support Karl Popper's definition of science, nor did I use any words that indicate that I think these theories have been proved to be true. Really, I was responding to two different points made by different people in my post. One, that the existence of a god can be 'proved' scientifically, and two, that the theory of evolution is solely based on a fossil record. All that I was doing with my DNA examples was showing that there is more EVIDENCE than just the fossil record SUPPORTING the THEORY. Take note of the words that I used: "The notion that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor (thanks M.Dancer for the correction on evolutionary concept) is not simply based on fossil records; it's based on genomic analyses. DNA sequences change at certain rates in different regions of a species and in different regions of their genome. We can use this information to construct phylogenetic trees that indicate ancestral relationships. From some of these studies, researches [this was supposed to be researchers] have SUPPORTED, not proved, the hypothesis that we are closely related to chimpanzees. In fact, because we believe that all life evolved from a single common ancestor, a scientist hypothesised that for this to be true, ALL life should have some sequence of DNA in common. And you know what? They found it! If anyone is interested I can go back into my university notes and find the names of the people involved and the gene sequences. What I'm trying to say, though, is that there is strong evidence that humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor." Really though, who KNOWS if DNA really even exists? Nobody. Nobody has seen it. All that we have is evidence, direct and indirect, that it exists. But it doesn't do us much good to not carry on any research because we don't KNOW. I mean, it SOUNDS like you're saying that there isn't any use in using any information that isn't based on an absolute truth. I'm confident that's not what you're saying, but that's how it sounds. Besides, the research that I'm talking about, in terms of genomic studies, is based on layers and layers and layers of well supported theories. That doesn't indicate truth, but indicates likelihoods.

Whether or not a god exists cannot be answered using scientific means. In science there is no such thing as 'proof', only, as Karl Popper said, conjectures and refutations. What that means is that we can disprove scientific hypotheses, but cannot prove them to be true. The 'god hypothesis' is not scientific because there is no experiment that could be conducted, that I'm aware of, that could refute it. That doesn't say anything about the likelihood that a god exists, only that it cannot be evaluated scientifically. The notion that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor (thanks M.Dancer for the correction on evolutionary concept) is not simply based on fossil records; it's based on genomic analyses. DNA sequences change at certain rates in different regions of a species and in different regions of their genome. We can use this information to construct phylogenetic trees that indicate ancestral relationships. From some of these studies, researches have SUPPORTED, not proved, the hypothesis that we are closely related to chimpanzees. In fact, because we believe that all life evolved from a single common ancestor, a scientist hypothesised that for this to be true, ALL life should have some sequence of DNA in common. And you know what? They found it! If anyone is interested I can go back into my university notes and find the names of the people involved and the gene sequences. What I'm trying to say, though, is that there is strong evidence that humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor. Hey Keng, What would this world look like if everyone who disagreed on some issue just decided to stop talking to each other?

I'm guessing he's linking all people to monkeys. It hurts, doesn't it? You really are ignoring my particular questions aren't you. I feel sorry for you that your god 'blessed' you with such a weak mind.

Ya, same "type" of people. Because everyone who voted for Obama is just like that lady in the video. What a narrow minded thing to say.

I prefer to remind people that beauty fades but stupid is forever.

Thank you for your lesson in etymology. Don't kid yourself though, it's not a lesson in logic or any physical law. I'm an existentialist... atheist. I really find no need to compartmentalize what flavour of non-belief I subscribe to because, really, I just don't believe in a higher power and there are no degrees of that, I don't think. I believe that there is no 'meaning' (in the sense of the word that people use when they say the 'meaning of life') other than what we decide. There are no moral absolutes. And I am responsible for everything that I do, good or bad, because I made the decisions leading to those actions. But that's another thread... start it up if you're interested. Again, I am not unfamiliar with the concept of sin. I was raised in a catholic home, went to catholic school and church as a kid... I've even been baptised and had my first communion. It was only when I was about 16 or 17 that I decided for myself that I have faith in myself rather than in some god. So, please don't assume that I just don't 'get it'. And please don't try to tell me that the concept of sin is based on ANY sort of logic or law, especially physics. The idea that doing something that leads to illness or death isn't always based on a real correlation, especially one that indicates a true cause-effect relationship. The topic of this thread, for example, deals with homosexuality, which, kengs believes is a "sin". So, homosexuality leads to illness or death... absolutely? Nope. I'll wait patiently until it is explained to me, by kengs or somebody who is of the same opinion, why being gay = evil and exactly what it means to be evil in this way. Just to keep tabs, that's the 4th time I've asked that question, I believe.

You're stubborn eh?

As a teacher, I can say what that lady did wasn't right. I don't think that this is 'typical' of either teachers or Obama supporters... but I'm Canadian, so what do I know about the minds of people down there. (Except that there is no "typical" person).

It's interesting that this is the first of my posts that you decided to respond to... rather than answering some questions that might reveal something about YOU. WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT GAY = EVIL???????? Why are you avoiding this question? By the way, please don't pretend to know anything about me. Ya, I'm atheist so don't use the word 'sin' to describe things that I consider immoral. Furthermore, I decide what I think is immoral, not some externalization of my conscience that some people have given a name to. (Sorry to those believers that I've offended who didn't provoke that response from me). Paedophilia = immoral and incredibly so Communism = a great idea that is VERY unlikely to work Polygamy = fine for those who consent, but immoral to impose it upon those who don't Satanism = belief in a different externalized conscience rather than in oneself (weird and, in my opinion, as ridiculous as any other 'religion', but definitely not immoral) If you disagree with me on these ism's, and you think you're up to it, why don't you challenge me on them. If your god is so good and powerful, then you'd have been endowed with the intellect to do so. (Again, no offense intended to anybody else).

For real? I'm not the one who can't grasp anything that's been discussed here. I never said, nor do I think, that this was not an 'issue'. Of course these guys shouldn't have been standing there, AS I SAID, in an attempt to intimidate voters. But the fact is that the police were called and the one with the weapon was taken away. And the guy who wasn't taken away, well, I don't know what to say about that. Do you think that the police should have forced the other guy to leave too? I hope that it's clear now that I'm not saying that 1. this is not an issue or 2. these guys were justified in just hanging out. Again, you seem to be trying to make a bigger deal out of this than it really was. I think the news coverage was appropriate. Do you disagree? Do you really think that, IN THE END, this event could lead to 'real' problems such as in Latin America?

I don't know what you mean about "without cause". If somebody is driving at 50k/h over the limit, that's cause, is it not? How, exactly, does it allow for police to discriminate against minorities? Now, don't get me wrong, I don't know much about this particular legislation, and I'm DEFINITELY not a fan of most police officers, but I just don't undestand what your beef is. (It's sad that I feel that I must explain my reasons for asking questions rather than my questions being taken as just that... questions. Not that it's YOUR fault in particular... just the way our society works it seems).

You're going on and on, seemingly for no reason. I never said that they were just two dudes hanging out. I'm really not that slanted in my opinions to recognize what these two clowns were doing there. What I AM trying to say is that the original poster of this story and a few people that I've heard/seen talk about it have over exaggerated. The dude you quoted was a voter, not a poll-watcher. I saw the video that he was in from which your quote was taken... but that's irrelevant. I'm sure the story would be viewed the same way by people on the opposite side if it was KKK members standing in front of a polling station trying to intimidate voters. But if all they were doing was standing there, then it's not that interesting. As this story isn't THAT interesting. I have in no way tried to justify their presence, only point out the sensationalization by a few people. By the way, I don't know what, exactly, you're referring to with the phrase "bannana republic elections" but I assume you're talking about latin American 'elections'. I REALLY don't think you're trying to compare what happens down in those countries to what happened in America... are you?

Nothing?

Did you stop reading my post half way Kimmy? People could have, and presumably did, walk around these guys. Maybe some were intimidated. I didn't say that they were justified in being there... just that the story was exaggerated.

Polygamists, satanists and communists... sure. Why not? You still haven't answered my questions from above bud. Is there a particular reason for that or did you just miss what I asked?

Thanks man, but I want the guy who keep saying gay = evil to give his definition and explain how/why this is so. He seems to be using a circular argument... being gay is evil because being gay is evil.

Interesting idea. I like it. I think. But is it the size of the unions that leads to the inability to release employees that don't do the job they're paid for? I'm pro-union... based on very little knowledge of the way that they work. I just know that without them, some companies would exploit their employees. So what do people who oppose them have against them? (Other than Brunopolis' distaste for their size).