Thursday, November 22, 2007

Kids and Politics

When I was twelve, I spent my time fishing, playing kick the can, and dreaming of a major league baseball career. I was not lecturing adults on global cooling or the dangers of DDT or any of the other now discredited media driven hysterias of my youth. But todays youth are different. They are far more politically active. The question of the day is, is this a good thing?


My guess is that like so many issues, there will be the same liberal/conservative divide. Liberals will by and large think it a good idea. Conservatives, not so much.


Children, by virtue of their age, have limited formal education. What formal education they do have comes almost entirely at the hands of liberals. They have very limited informal education or life experience to draw from. For the most part, they don't get paychecks and they don't pay taxes. They have no experience with the sophistry of politicians. They are less stable emotionally. As they mature and explore their world, they will often need the comfort and support and sense of belonging that can be provided by groups and causes.


For all of the above reasons, children are far easier to manipulate than mature adults. So they are a tempting target for agenda driven individuals. Recruiting children is a great way to swell the numbers for your cause.

Kids should be kids. There will be time enough later to confront adult issues. We shouldn't use them for our own political purposes.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree that children should not be used as political pawns. Mr.(term used loosely)Navrital at first appeared to be attempting to just that. But I was wrong, he failed to accomplish that goal. Those kids didn't fall for it.
Basically, it's like this. I always thought he was a little bit crazy, but I was wrong, he's mean. And he tried to use his political idealism to hide his mean streak. He's just plain mean. Go away Denis, Racine doesn't need you.

Caledonication said...

Nicely stated Denis. I might add that the kids you are speaking of aren't just twelve year olds, many are in (or just out of) college.

The last thread was mind bogglingly ironic.

Please stay Denis. Racine needs you. ;-)

(Too bad some people don't understand what blogs are.)

alex weyenberg said...

caledonication,
although i am sure raccoon hunting, professional wrestling, and intense Walker Texas Ranger power hours have made you a very intelligent and well rounded person, most college students (especially graduates) are very well educated and capable people. i am sure they can handle thinking for themselves, and do not need to be sheltered.

ALEX WEYENBERG

concrete katie said...

How old do you have to be to have an opinion?

pariah jeep said...

That is a good question CK. I've had them ever since I decided that "because I said so" wasn't a valid reason. Unfortunately, much of the manmande global warming hysteria reverts to "because someone said so" very quickly. Adults are swallowing this too, so I don't blame children for buying in.

As for college students, I have seen college - especially advanced degrees - facilitate growth of knowledge and experience, but I have also seen it cultivate inordinate amounts of arrogance. I have also watched a number of decidedly non-intelligent factors contributing to "intelligence" in younger folks (my Tommy is brilliant because he has made it to Level XII on his "Batman Beats UP the World Crime League" game on his Nintendyo Sytem 4000 Parental Non-Involvement Game Box).

Anonymous said...

Come now, Denis. Seems like your trying to concoct an elaborate justification for something.

That 12-year was Tom Rutkowski’s son, so he has all the intimate info on this thing. Don’t feel too bad.

The facts are on our side. Precepts are for ideologues.

SAM BRAUN

Denis Navratil said...

CK, perhaps it is just my imagination, but it seems that education systems today place a greater emphasis than ever on valuing opinions, regardless of whether the opinion has merit. Rather than applauding silly, poorly reasoned opinions, education systems should emphasize the process of gathering information, the analysis, logic, the importance of keeping an open mind etc... Instead what we see too often is breathtaking elitism and condescension such as that offered by alex weyenberg to caledonication. I dare say there is little chance that alex could reevaluate his opinion. He is in too deep, already committed, and any reevaluation of his opinion would be too humiliating to even contemplate. He will likely stick to his guns and flail away at anyone who challenges him. This would preclude any possibility of him learning anything. Let us not place too much importance on the opinions of children.

Caledonication said...

alex: I was referring to the "life experience" aspect of what Denis was commenting on. I said many, not most; specifically addressing the idealistic (know it all) zealots, which are commonly found on campus. While I don’t forget where I came from, I have plenty of experience mentoring fresh meat at my corporation. In your last sentence, “i am sure they can handle thinking for themselves, and do not need to be sheltered.” you demonstrate that you really don’t get it. The point is that many of them are not thinking for themselves.
As for your sophomoric personal attack, I presume you are simply reacting to having your logic "spanked" in the previous thread. You don’t need to worry about showing me how smart you are. It is quite evident. Actually, now that I've thought about it for a moment, I'm not even sure why I bothered responding to you.

Michael Gibson said...

I would just like to say that my teachers do not teach me my politics, but I do agree with them. They don't just shove their beliefs down our throat. They ask questions and offer up discussions. I have personally done reading on my own time about political issues and I did my 8th grade research paper on the topic of George Bush stealing the 2000 election in Florida. This topic was not on some list of things we could do. It was something that I wanted to honestly research.

And by the way, even though I disagree with you almost 100 percent of the time, I can appreciate that you put up this space so we can get some honest debate going.

P.S. That doesn't mean that I forgive you for your extremely flawed post about Green School.

Michael Gibson said...

As I have put more thought into this, I have come up with a few argument I would like you to answer to. For one thing, Most of us arguing with you are 16 and 17 year olds, who will very soon be eligible to vote and be part of the democratic process. Do you suggest that we wait until we are in our 30's to vote? I think that by learning now, we are simply preparing ourselves to make these sorts of decisions.

Second of all, the Walden green effort that I believe you are basing this blog off of, at least to an extent, is meant to be a student effort. It was originally suggested by a group of seniors last year, and yes, there are teachers like Tom Rutkowski helping us through the project, but we put on the presentations and develop the Power Points and, as you may have noticed, do the fighting for our cause. Tom has not gotten on here to argue with you. I think he wants to leave it up to us.

Pariah Jeep said...

Michael - how did George Bush steal the 2000 election? I read somewhere that the entire Supreme Court is on the Republican payroll - did you come across this in your research?

Denis Navratil said...

Michael, I can't speak directly about your educational experiences and background, so please don't take personally any of what I will now write. Teachers in grade school, high school and college tend to be liberals. School children and young adults often want to please their teachers. It is not necessary for teachers to "shove their views" down their students throats. It happens quite naturally. Additionally, it is quite likely that many teachers have little or no exposure to arguments that differ from their own. As such, students are getting a rather unbalanced education when it comes to social issues. At least one of your cohorts noted that you watched Al Gore's global warming story. That might have been a useful exercise in spotting propaganda, but its value as an education tool relating to the environment should be questioned by knowledgeable and responsible teachers. At the very least, the egregious distortions of truth should be relayed to the students.

You mentioned that you do not forgive me for my initial post. That is a telling sentiment in itself. Why would the issue of forgiveness enter into this discussion? Must someone be forgiven for holding a view that differs from your own? Keep in mind Michael, I had never heard of you until you responded to my post. It is not possible that my post was directed at you in any personal way. It was a cheeky post aimed to spark discussion about the value of the program at Walden and the value of the "Green" movement generally. But one of the common characteristics of far left idealogues is a tendency to be perpetually outraged about something or other. It would be a shame if you choose to react likewise in the future when someone challenges your thinking or actions, as manufactured anger will prevent you from actually considering another point of view.

Regarding your age and impending responsibilities as a citizen, I am not suggesting a change in the voting age. But I would suggest to you that at age 16 or 17, you consider matters with a greater degree of humility and uncertainty. Consider the possibilty that your world view may have been shaped to a large degree and without your awareness by but one political philosophy.

For the record, I am able to forgive the personal attacks that you directed at me, though you have not asked for it. I mention this for two reasons: I think an inability to forgive will be very harmful to you, and, I want you to feel comfortable should I ever be invited to meet with you and your group.

Anonymous said...

Green School supporters.
This might be too easy, but if we spent the $140,000.00 on NEW WINDOWS for Walden, the energy efficiency would begin immediately!! we could take the reduced Heat and energy bill and use the saving to pay for the Solar cells. I wonder if the Grant applications could be re-submitted to reflect that plan. WE Energies was willing to pony up $50 G's but they realized that they would still have that revenue coming in from the heat loss and energy inefficiency over the next 5-10 years. The loose nothing! I am sure they'd give me grant to not improve my heat loss in exchange for some Photo-cells.

Michael Gibson said...

Pariah - The main source for my research on that paper was from a documentary called "Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election". You can find an 11 minute trailer for this film on google video.

Dennis: You commented that showing An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's documentary (not story) about global warming is a form of propaganda in schools. I believe that his documentary is backed by science. It is interesting how you turn global warming into a debatable issue on both a scientific and political level. As far as scientists go, it is a unanimous conclusion amongst the scientific conclusion, unless you are working in a lab sponsored by Exxon or something of the sort. Furthermore, our environment is not a political issue. Out environment is what allows us to live, and without it, we are nothing. I am not suggesting that the U.S. should be the only ones to clean up the mess, but rather we should band together on a world wide scale and combat the problem.

I was, and still am, outraged at your posts for a couple of reasons. For one thing, you seem to believe that your posts are nothing but "cheeky remarks." I personally found them insulting. Just looks at the first word in your title: Mindless. That suggests that we are not thinking or are just a group of airheads. You may have meant it as a sarcastic remark, but I see it as a very out of place and rude thing to say. The other reason for our outrage is that you have disregarded the facts and twisted them to make it seem as if our project is a bad thing.

We will probably not be able to meet as a group all at one time, but we may wander into your store at some time if you would like to discuss in a face-to-face manner.

Anon 9:42 - Like I said before, there are no grants that we can apply for to fix drafty windows. Even if we could, I think that these solar panels will make us more sustainable as a school and program. They should be good for about 30-40 years with proper maintenance. This means that after our ten years of income, we can reduce our energy bills, thus reducing our pollution. That will also give us money to continue on fixing our school.

Denis Navratil said...

Michael, yes of course there is scientific unanimity on the global warming issue when you casually dismiss those scientists with whom you disagree.

How would you suggest that the world band together on the global warming issue?

Regarding your outrage, that is your choice and I think it is a mistake for the reasons already stated.

But it does make me wonder if there was any way to question your project without provoking your outrage. Suppose I had written something like:

Walden students are actively involved in an project that will have little or no meaningful impact on the environment. The educational value of the project is even more suspect in that it relies on an unquestioning faith in a looming environmental disaster such as that promoted by Al Gore.

Would that argument have provoked your outrage?

Re any meeting, you are welcome in my store of course. A scheduled meeting over a cup of coffee might be nice as well. You know where to reach me.

Anonymous said...

Michael - as I said in another thread, I am not picking on you.

What did your teacher say when you turned in your paper with a documentary as the "main source"? I would not have accepted that because I know that you can find more sources and use them effectively to create an argument. Do you participate on the debate team? I think that you would enjoy this experience, especially when you have to argue on an issue in a manner that you don't agree. It isn't as sexy as the football team, but in twenty years when the team is fat and you still have memories of intellectual sparring, you will be much happier.

As for your point about global warming being a "scientific consensus", THIS is what the popular press and many scientists want you to think. I could discuss the hidden agendas behind getting grants, getting tenure, etc., but that is a book.

Here is a "consensus" that always troubled me - that an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs, allowing the mammals to take over. First there was a theory. Then an impact crater was found with about the right time frame, that went along with the pre-existing theory, and this is considered “fact” today. First of all, mammals have high metabolic rates, so the FIRST parts of the food chain to be affected would have been the mammals. It wasn’t just the big dinosaurs that died, it was also the small ones. Yet some primitive species (turtles, alligators, etc.) survived. I could go on. At any rate, some voices started to be heard in the last ten years – voices saying that not all of the data matched the events. Now these voices are louder and are being heard. Can you imagine if you were a scientist ten to thirty years ago who submitted a grant to study the premise that an asteroid did not kill the dinosaurs? Do you think it would have been funded? Do you think their peers would have given them tenure, or given them new jobs once they were denied tenure?

Oh well, I guess I did go into some of the hidden agenda about grants and tenure.

As I said before, good luck with your projects!

Michael Gibson said...

You are correct that I dismiss conclusions made by scientists from oil companies. It is well known that scientists get paid to conduct fake studies that disprove issues. For example: smoking. Once people started to realize that smoking was bad for your health, scientists got paid by Philip Morris to come out and say that it is ok. (This example is obviously a simplified account of what happened). The same is happening today.

Getting the world to band together on any issue will be difficult. I, to be quite honest, can not offer a solution to this problem, but I can say that if it is not addressed, we will get ourselves into some serious trouble. The rest of the world has a higher minimum fuel economy than us. Follow this link. http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=228
To me, the chart shows us very well what would could be striving towards.

Pariah Jeep said...

Sorry - that last anonymous was me. But Michael - do you REALLY believe that the only scientists who do not support the theory of global warming due to human activity are paid by the oil companies? How much are they getting and where the hell is my check? There are a few at universities like Harvard. Really? The British Petroleum Endowed Chair in Geophysics?

Michael Gibson said...

I never said only. I think that the percentage of scientists who agree on the issue is somewhere between 98-99%.

Walden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Denis, what makes you think you are smarter than every REAL scientist on earth, and why would a propaganda film win an Emmy?

Pariah Jeep said...

98-99% is quite a large value. How did you arrive at this range?

1. An exhaustive review of all journal articles (the ones that are refereed, not committee "reports", moveon.org features, etc.) and meeting proceedings published in the last twenty years.

2. Your feeling from daily press reports that all scientists think this. If so, did you check that each report referenced the data from answer 1?

3. Your feelings

With respect to #1 - we'll never know how many articles were rejected by the customary two or three reviewers because the paper did not take a pro-human influence on global warming position and was considered heretical.

Anonymous said...

Mike, I believe you stated that you did a report on the 2000 election. I would be curious to know your conclusion. Did Bush steal the election??
If you concluded that he did, you are coming from an extreme point of view. The election result and the review of the Judicial decisions have been under a microscope, and and recount by Gore's standard, or Bush's standard still give the win to Bush.
Now if you, as a rule, dismiss facts and evidence and allow your heart and good feelings to guide you, then you could believe that 98-99% of non-Exxon scientist believe whatever you want.
I reach out to you as a young man who seems to be intelligent, and hope you will put that intellect to analyze more carefully the info put in front of you. I know it'll piss off your liberal in doctrinaires at Walden, and perhaps at home, (my parents were Liberals too.). But once you actually have to back up your points, you quickly realize that the Left has very little beyond a few bumper stickers to stand on, and once you Haliburton, or Exxon 3 times you have still not factually won the debate.
I salute you for trying to back up your points here and on other posts, and I look forward to watching as you grow.
I think Denis' web sight is great place to discuss varying opinions, and I am thrilled that he throws out the red meat!!!
The Windows should be the first issue if your goal is to be prudent with energy, and carbon footprint. If we can't replace the windows then lets see if O. Brown would be a smaller "footprint".

Urban Pioneer

Michael Gibson said...

PJ - I believe and Inconvenient Truth stated the 98 percent agreement. I know that they took a sample of 928 top scientists and, after reviewing the results, found that only 2 disagreed with the belief that global warming is the fault of human activity.

UP - In fact, I do believe that the 2000 election was stolen due to the use of voter purge lists. Jeb Bush's campaign cochair Katherine Harris had Database Technologies make a list of felons currently living in Florida. When they sent her the list, they suiggested that she make an address check. She wrote them back with a note that said simply, "Don't Need."
Two years later, Database technologies admitted that only 3,000 of the 94,000 people on the list were, in fact, felons. To be placed on this list, you may have committed a misdemeanor or crime in another state. You also could have shared a similar name with a felon. Parts of the list would have shown to be completely bogus at a galnce. For example, There were people on the list that supposedly committed crimes in 2010. Very interesting, I know.
The makeup of the list was about ninety percent African-American. African-Americans tend to vote democratic. Let's review the facts: Jeb Bush, George Bush's younger brother, was governor of a state that, after much scrutiny, turned out to be won by Bush by a margin of only hundreds. %57,700 African Americans were purged from the voter rolls because of the false accusation that they were felons. I think anyone with an open-mind can see that Gore should have won the election.

The Racine Public Library has a documentary called "Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election" about this subject. You can also go to www.unprecedented.com .

Pariah Jeep said...

Michael - your information about the Florida election is news to me and thanks for sharing. If this is true it is a disgrace. The fact that many absentee ballots, particularly from military personell overseas (many of whom vote Republican), were not counted was also disgraceful. But two wrongs don't make a right.

I hate to turn this discussion in a different direction, but this is an example of, if true, voter ID actually HELPING the Democrats, who typically fight the concept of voter ID because it will disefranchise minority voters. Republicans want it because they argue that ghosts, felons, illegal aliens, etc. are currentyly able to register to vote.

Michael Gibson said...

In a book I read about the voter fraud there was also some discussion about voter ID's. To be honest, I only skimmed through it and didn't use it for my report, so I don't really know much about the system or the criticisms of it. Would it be free to buy a voter ID card? Why not just use a driver's license. I don't understand the point.

Katrina said...

Dinnis I aggree with you that kids are more involved in political issuse than they once were. I belive that this is inpart due to the fact that we feel like we are being cheated and controlled by adults.

This starts with school. Just last week my english class a chair broke (these chirs are at least 50 years old a few are the very old ones from the thirties). Now to most people this would not seem like such a big deal. However that was the last one in the room. For the rest of the class the student had to sit on the froor. Later that day I went to to another class room. I set my books on the table (I and other students are in no way rough on the tables or chirs) and the table clasped and fell on my. Also some of our charts in our science classrooms were made before the moddern coppyright laws (over 70 year old).

We are told things are this way because the distract has no money. We can understand this and did belive that thoes who were involved in political matters did there best not to wate money and to look out for us.

Then when the district decided to have a referendom we found about a group of people called the Racine Taxpayers Assoation. A group of ADULTS that have yet to support money going into our schools(yes I know how the schools are funded with the property taxs). In our eyes we see adults that are trying to bring us down. This is what drives us into action.

For proof in you ever visit Sunpraie or Mukgonco (sorry about the spelling)where the schools and clubs have money if you go to any sort of rally you will see almost no kids or teens there.

In short if kide were better taken care of there would not be as much uprising.

Also it appears to to us that the aduls that aid the caues are pushed away which may be why few take the time to learn what we are really about(not that you (Denis) does). For example four years ago when the schools were really in a mess I was at a public meeting at Gilomre middle school. Perhaps you were there. Anyway a man in the back spoke up above the croud during the meeting and said that he had bought (he moved his faimly) a house close close to Michle Middle so his son would not have to attend Gilmore. This is how badly some people care about kids (agin not saying that you do not). The district did nothing for him.


My last and most powerful example: Someone said that a lot of money could be saved by bringing 6th grade back into elementary schools and the 9th back into middle schools. She was told by the board that this just would not work. A year later it was put in the paper that our smartest central office workers had come up the very same soultion after much work on the taxpayer clock.


If you ask for a tape of the meeting from AM 1400 you can listen to both these accounts.

Anonymous said...

Katrina, please stop posting your babble on this site. you are giving a bad name to all Walden students.

Anonymous said...

Whoever you are you must not have read, but what I wrote in a good argument and many students would agree.

Katrina said...

Katrina

Michael Gibson said...

Katrina, I am also a Walden student, but I think you are exaggerating the issue to prove a point. There are no rooms in our school that have no chairs. If Something breaks Coop will come fix it.

Katrina said...

Perhaps I am Alex Wienburg only sat on the floor for one hour. But I still say that if things were better in our school less students would be involved in political activies (answer to the original question). Thats all I'm trying to say.

Anonymous said...

Katrina, It would help us to understand your postings very much if you used better grammar,etc. I think it is a good thing if kids are involved in politics, but only if they know what they are talking about. I agree with Michael that many of your facts are exaggerated. If you came to the green school meetings, you would know that. Also, who are you?

Katrina said...

Sorry, I will try to be more clear in the future.

Denis Navratil said...

Katrina, you will be an adult soon. You say that the adults in the community are failing the children. Perhaps so, but not in the way that you seem to think. For example, RUSD and other public schools in Wisconsin are very well funded. The per pupil spending has increased considerably over the years, well above the rate of inflation. It is appropriate to wonder why the schools are in poor condition with breaking chairs. But it is unfair in my view to blame taxpayers because we have provided RUSD with more than enough funding.

Katrina, you will be an adult soon if you are not already. What would you do differently, such that the children will not say that you have failed them?

Michael Gibson said...

What is your opinion of why RUSD is failing?

It may be true that RUSD gets enough funding (which it doesn't, in my opinion), but what does that mean when a guy like Tom Hicks comes in and, instead of helping the schools, decides to build himself a fancy new office? I think that a lot fo the money in RUSD gets spent in al the wrong ways.

You can also look at things like the text books we use. I don't know about at other schools, but books at Walden go without replacement for 15 years. This results in textbooks that are out of date and in poor condition. We have novels for use in Literature classes that are 25-30 years old. When new textbooks do come in, they often have less information than the older books. Teachers often end up continuing to use the old books because of this.

Denis Navratil said...

It is interesting Michael that you know many of the teachers unions talking points. A few years back I studied the RUSD budgets, going back several years. What I found was that the per pupil spending has been increasing, well beyond the rate of inflation. I also found confirmation of your example concerning the textbooks. Spending on textbooks has been steadily declining while salaries and especially benifits have been escalating.

But mispent money is not the largest problem. The bigger problem is that students are being politicized for far left causes. This is indoctrination instead of education. And Michael, I believe that you are, in a significant way, being harmed educationally by your exposure to RUSD.

Michael Gibson said...

So what you're saying that a liberal bias in our curriculum is the reason that we are failing? What if we were being taught with a conservative bias?

I don't know how much teachers get paid, but I know it increases with seniority. I would suggest that the salaries of people like Hick's be reduced and with that money give back to the teachers and schools.

Today while I was in the computer, I had a thought. We got all brand new PC's with Windows XP in our computer lab this year. Formerly, we had little iMacs that were very slow and outdated and, for many students, not familiar (going with the assumption that most kids use Windows at home). I really appreciate this change a lot, but it would have been cheaper to sue Linux instead. I you aren't familiar with Linux, it is a free, open source operating system that you can download over the internet. You then burn an image of the disc and set up a computer using that. It is very diverse and, as it is open source, easily manipulated. I'm sure it can be set up in a way where any student couldn't just hack in to the kernel and mess things up. Using this, we could have not only cut off a portion of spending for the computers, but we also could have opened up an opportunity for a computer science class. Just a random thought.

Caledonication said...

"So what you're saying that a liberal bias in our curriculum is the reason that we are failing? What if we were being taught with a conservative bias?"

We are not suggesting to being taught with a bias of any kind. We are talking about education versus indoctrination.


"I really appreciate this change a lot, but it would have been cheaper to sue Linux instead."

I can appreciate this train of thought. However, speaking from the perspective of an IT administrator. There is a lot more to managing workstations and a school network, than simply installing your favorite flavor of (free) Linux. There are costs associated with managing systems that are far beyond the grasp of the casual user. Additionally, there are other aspects of an operating system which need to be considered as well. For example, who will be maintaining the workstations and network? What type of learning curve will there be for students who use other OS's at home? Will the OS support the software that will be needed? Will the necessary software be supported by the OS? What about hardware compatibilty? I'm not saying that a school shouldn't use Linux, but just because it is cheaper or in some cases free, it really doesn't reveal the actual cost of ownership. Also, while I agree that it would be a great learning experience for a computer science class, a secure, well maintained network is definitely not the place for inexperienced hands to be.

Katrina said...

There once was a second student run computer lab upstairs in what is now Attent's room. They did something like what you had said in the past. They got all the old cumputers they could find for free then built there own. Teachers voted to shut it down.

Denis Navratil said...

Michael, I agree wholeheartedly with Caledonication that education should be free of bias and/or indoctrination. The difference between education and indoctrination is like night and day. You should not be taught or led or misled into adopting a particular viewpoint. Instead you should be taught how to think clearly such that you can reach the correct conclusion on your own.

Katrina said...

Dennis: (I will try to be clear)

1. This district has a problem with accounting. Each school club or group has a account to deposit money into. When a school club or group has money to deposit into their account this is done usually at the school office the clerk usually takes care of this. That is all good and fine. However once this money is deposited it is hard to keep track of as we have just gotten a new computer program to do the deposit and withdraw information. The clerks were not trained well on it and money often disappears into cyberspace. Mike this often why Tom R. often jokes at the meetings that the $1,000 we have in the distract account will never be seen agin.

This problem was also an underlying cause of the district audit. Which you will see if the information is ever properly made public. Knowing the extent of the damage this could do to the reputation of the district this will probably never happen.

2. This district also needs to pick a course and a direction and fallow it. What costs a lot of money is starting up and closing buildings. An example is Caddy vista. It was shutdown then it was to reopen this year. Next, the plans changed just two weeks before school started!!

While this building was empty Julian Tomas school was rebuilt.
Four years after the construction of Julian Tomas Winslow was closed.
During all of this a private company was paid to take on students from the distract. At the location that once was the Taylor home.
It is the worst thing to have one empty building sitting open not to mention two; plus a profit for a company!

Katrina said...

"I don't know how much teachers get paid, but I know it increases with seniority."

Mike

Starting teachers start at $28,000-$30,000 per year. This goes up to a cap of about $35,000 after a few years. To earn more than this they must have a masters degree. With this their pay moves up slowly to a cap of $59,000.*

*Teachers who work extra and do things like coach can earn more than this.

Michael Gibson said...

What makes you all assume that we are indoctrinated? The class that comes closest to indoctrination is probably our Sociology class. Kids leave this class so annoyed with all of the teacher's talk of right-wing conspiracy that they themselves are ready to become conservative republicans. We aren't just happy little consumers of what our teachers tell us.

Caledonication said...

**sigh**

Michael Gibson said...

I assume that sigh as a sigh of defeat!

Caledonication said...

Assume away...