Slashdot Mirror

FERPA does not automatically protect a student's "Directory Information" such as e-mail addresses, and phone numbers. FERPA only applies to the privacy of a student's academic records. There have been several FERPA cases tested in court with regard to what is, or isn't, a protected student record.

You can, as a student, request that your own "directory" information not be published by the school. I would say its probably easier to be safe than sorry, in this particular case. It would not be feasible for faculty to cross-reference every students directory "privacy flag" when sending a mass e-mail to many CC recipients.

There is a better way to send mass-recipient newsletter type announcements and retain privacy for recipients' e-mail addresses. For example, using a Mailing List Manager (Sympa, Mailman, Majordomo) intended for that purpose. If its just a one-time message, then BCC would beat having to set up and manage a mailing list.

Every time I hear teachers gripe about having to teach towards a standardized test, I think, "There goes another awful teacher."

I am in science teacher ed, and my students are facing schools in which they are told what to teach every day, and practically handed a script (if they were reading teachers, they would be handed a script). Don't underestimate the power of standardized education to dispirit good teachers.

It bothers me that little Johnny can pass an algebra class, but can't solve 3x=15 on a standardized test. Passing a class means that the teacher vouches that you have learned something. The standardized tests are busting teachers who are vouching for students who haven't learned anything.

They very well have learned it, but like your example (3x=15), mathematics is presented as heaps and heaps of skills and trivia. Who the @#$# gives a rats ass about 3x=15. Students learn and forget because what they have been presented with is disposable knowledge. Learn the skill, demonstrate the skill, forget the skill.

I'm not saying there are no bad teachers out there, but I think the all the reforms to fix the bad teacher problem have made schools uninviting to anyone really interested in teaching science as something meaningful, exciting, and world changing. NCLB and the legacy of A Nation at Risk which have tried to turn schools into factories for making low skilled workers have succeeded in marginalizing teaching as a way of exciting students.

Standardization is the thief of creativity and creativity robs standardization.

It seems that no one is ever happy. The countries with high graduation rates and high standardization like South Korea have a low dropout rate. However the annual standardized test in South Korea always coincides with massstudent suicides.

Education is the USA is moving to a point where there is no depth, no love of learning, and no respect for the transormative power of education. Much of this is a direct result of standardized tests and limited teacher autonomy and resources. The weekly cycle of cover the standard: Powerpoint Lecture -> Read the Chapter -> Do your worksheet -> Scantron on Friday. move on to next state standard then rinse and repeat crushes any love of learning.

I would rather see a USA where we foster a love of learning, go deep on interesting topics then work on them in a meaningful project based way rather than the drive-by, inch-deep mile wide education system that we have become. If we work in a meaningful way the questions about math and science will come and apply to a realworld situation instead of being taught in abstract isolation.

When the USA can not longer produce innovators with a love for learning and/or attract innovators from foreign countries, we will become the low-cost labor market for those who do innovate. I implore everyone who reads this to help stop this madness. When George W. Bush was in office, he had a plan to take the Perkins-IV funding and shift it away from career and technical learning programs (nursing, welding, computer programming, cad, autobody) and shift that money to fund more standardized testing. If that would have happened, programs would have ceased to exist and dropout rates would have soared even higher.

From TFA:

Teachers who are unable or unwilling to teach the theory of evolution in biology might be one reason U.S. students are falling behind in science, according to new research. [. . .] The findings come at a time when the national Center for Education Statistics, a part of the U.S. Department of Education, released findings that said only 21 percent of students in grade 12 scored at or above "proficient" in 2009, with 60 percent reaching the level of "basic."

First off, bad reporting -- what are those statistics referring to? When we go to the NCES website, we find this is referring to science performance in general. This trend in biology teachers is distressing, but I'm not sure bad teaching of evolutionary teaching is resulting in 88% of students not achieving high marks in, say, physical sciences, earth sciences, etc. NCES itself notes immediately after the statistic in its own report:

Twelfth-graders who reported taking biology, chemistry, and physics scored higher than students taking less advanced science coursework.

In other words, students who take more science and harder science do better on science tests. Duh. I'm not sure the teaching of evolutionary theory is even on the map compared to problems like students not taking science, not being interested in science, and probably poor science teaching in general, particularly in the low-level science electives for students not taking real bio, chem, or physics. I taught high school math and science for a few years, and I can definitely say that the teachers assigned to teach these dumbed-down science courses were some of the worst in the school -- often coaches or people with science degrees or related degrees who weren't able to find a job doing anything else because their skills were so poor.

Is the teaching of evolution a problem? Sure. But I'm not willing to believe it is even in the top 20 causes for these students performing poorly on tests of scientific knowledge in general.

you missed country music.

Joking aside, video games are a pariah, and the main reason they are targeted is because of the interactive nature of them. But if you read page 22 of this you will find that books and movies are MORE influential than video games. And what is the #1 behavior? Self published violent writings, which Jared L Loughner did in spades.

Yes you might be right on many levels. I get quite frustrated at my job, but I really do give good customer service, even those people. Assuming they do not see the micro expressions come across my face before I gain composure and put on that fake smile.

On some levels I think some of my point stands. I worked in the higher end web/tech industry for 15 years I did not have to deal with very many every day people. I would bet 'some' people that read this site also do not deal with the "general public" all that much. I mean I knew on paper "14% of people in my county lacked basic prose literacy skills"[1], which is about 1 in every 7, but without dealing with this in person, it was just some number on paper. "25% of people in the USA's IQ are below 90"[2], while not a perfect measure of intelligence, still says something. Beyond that people in the USA seem to lack in logic related skills (math), compared to the rest of the first even second world. We are the stupidest nation dollar for dollar[3] there is. I just find it sad and frustrating. I doubt you can solve people using bad passwords without addressing some of those facts first.

But as you started I am talking about the left of the tail not the middle and you are very right on that end.

1. http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/StateEstimates.aspx
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
3. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rankorderguide.html

Study: Couples who delay having sex get benefits later

A new study in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Family Psychology sides with a delayed approach.

The study involves 2,035 married individuals who participated in a popular online marital assessment called "RELATE." From the assessment's database, researchers selected a sample designed to match the demographics of the married American population. The extensive questionnaire includes the question "When did you become sexual in this relationship?"

A statistical analysis showed the following benefits enjoyed by couples who waited until marriage compared to those who started having sex in the early part of their relationship:

* Relationship stability was rated 22 percent higher

* Relationship satisfaction was rated 20 percent higher

* Sexual quality of the relationship was rated 15 percent better

* Communication was rated 12 percent better

Single and Multiple Cohabitors’ Risks of Divorce

...contrary to the early hypotheses, research has consistently shown that those who cohabit prior to marriage have a greater chance of divorce than those who do not cohabit. (Bennett, Blanc, and Bloom, 1988; Bramlett and Mosher, 2002; Dush, Cohan and Amato, 2003; Lillard, Brien, and Waite, 1995).

Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce

Examined relationship between premarital sexual activity and risk of divorce among women married between 1965 and 1985. Found that nonvirgin brides faced considerably higher risk of marital disruption than did virgin brides.

Marriage & Relationships

You seem to be missing the point. It is not about lower taxes it is about equal taxation. The infrastructure is there for all to use. If the wealthy use the infrastructure better than you do that is your problem. Learn how to use the infrastructure better. You seem to have a problem with people who make money. You want the rich to pay for goverment and then get upset when they run it. But wait... did you not want them to pay more and they do pay more in percentage, I would guess they pay more than you do unless you make more tham $250,000. If the burden of society is on the rich and they are paying for most of it, which they do http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/12/the-rich-pay-fo.html, then you should be fine with the elite running the country. It is clear however you are not, yet you want them to pay for most of everything. I hate to break it to you but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

We out spend any other nation when it comes to war. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for that, although Democrats do get us involved in more: WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War. http://nationalsecurityzone.org/site/why-the-u-s-outspends-the-world-on-defense/

Public education is the biggest failure. http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/12/international-education-rankings-suggest-reform-can-lift-u-s/

We out spend everyone on healthcare as well. http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2593-Chart-1-US-Gov.-outspends-world-on-health.html


The problem here is that you want people to change their morality. You do that through social means, not the strong arm of goverment.

There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief.

If you actually care, you have more than the necessary resources to look it up yourself. Mine it is not to convince someone against their will that a cherished belief is wrong.

So which is it?

Read again. These statements do not contradict one another.

I happen upon you, who not only talks of evidence but suggests that there is an abundance of it, in favor of censorship

I'm sorry, where do you see support for censorship in my post? You clearly have mastered quotes, please do point it out.

I'd be lucky if I could perform a Google search on the topic without somehow lousing it up

It's called safe-search.

Your claim is fantastic. On par with claiming to have proof of evidence of God.

My claim:

it does appear that you (like many other slashdotters) regard pornography as being harmless. There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief.

A claim that evidence exists of sexually explicit material (mind you, not even having qualified what variety of pornography this would be, such as the forms directly depicting and portraying as pleasurable or erotic the violent beatings of other human beings) being something other than harmless is in your mind equivalently fantastic as the claim of having proof of God's existence? Perhaps you've simply never thought about pornography at all. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Now for some links, which you also seem to enjoy very much.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Cline
2. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED364919&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED364919
3. http://www.springerlink.com/content/nl0u0phwq6727n2t/
4. http://www.strengthenthefamily.net/is_there_proof.php

Feel free to cry about the sources of some of these links. Again, I have already reasoned on the subject and seen enough evidence for me to be convinced in the direction that I am: the consumption of pornography is harmful. I do not need to prove this to myself again and I have no desire to do anything in your regard but to show that I believe what I say and am not making baseless claims, "bad bluffs." Again I will say, if you actually care about the subject there is more than enough material on the internet to show you what the esteemed medical/psychological community has found in their studies regarding pornography. I'm washing my hands of this thread. Good day sir.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that teachers are underpaid for their education level (which might also explain why the higher testing students tend to go into other majors, I might add.) My brother is an elementary special ed teacher, and you're right, he works insane hours, is paid today, with 6 years more experience in his field than I have now, and a masters degree, as much as I was paid while I was still working my way through the low end of the engineering pay scale, AND he has to pay for shit out of his pocket. And all that is wrong. (And, again, a reason why people who score higher often do not choose to go into teaching, thus reducing overall scores)

But it doesn't change the fact that that's the demographic we have teaching. There are exceptions, but on average, teachers are not our best and brightest by any means.

(Caveat here: The statistics I've looked at don't necessarily separate elementary from secondary education. And honestly, I'm not convinced that there's any reason you NEED to have an equivalent education and intelligence to an engineer to teach first grade. Another site from a specific university suggests that secondary education majors are, in fact, in the upper half of GRE scores, but primary are near the bottom, which may be how it should be)

Just FYI, for the US, usually, when you abbreviate as DoE, you mean Dept. of Energy
http://www.energy.gov/
The Federal Department of Education prefers to call themselves the education dept. (ED)
http://www.ed.gov/
as you can see used many places on their website.

Both your thousand spent and your fifty thousand over the course of their life are very different from the real numbers, but your argument is actually made more valid by using reasonably current figures

Federal spending, per capita, for public primary and secondary education (2007 - most recent year data have been aggregated for public release):
$ 9,683
Average contribution (per year) for a US worker to the US GDP (In 2007 standardized dollars, as used to apply a cost of living locally factor to all other countries figures - note that the cost of living in the US is always the base for reporting and so not adjusted).
$46,436
Average contibution without even a high school diploma or GED:
$6,283
Average contribution with a publicly derived High School diploma:
$28,608
And just for a little more of the overall picture, average contribution with graduation from a four year college or better:
58,447

Average number of years working for a high school graduate: 42 years
(Note this is less than the number from age 18.5 (typical graduation age) to normal retirement at age 67 (now the typical age to receive full social security benefits), mostly because of people who retire at less than full social security age or become disabled, plus the occasional death or criminal conviction or other such factor.)
Total Time for primary and secondary education in US (K-12): 13 years.

the entirety of the pupil's increased potential be attributed to the kindergarten teacher; none to the pupil him/herself, none to any teachers at other grades, none to the educational system set up (buildings, libraries, school buses, etc).

If you read the study, or even the article, you'll see that the authors attempt to correct for these factors. The $320,000 figure is the effect attributed to the teacher. Perhaps their calculations are not perfect, but they did try to address the point you made.

As it happens, the U.S. already spends ~$9700 per pupil per year on public education. Project that out to a class of 35 and you're at $340k per teacher. So it actually sounds like we're spending about the right amount of money on education, maybe a little too much (you want your education system to realize a greater economic gain than what you've invested).

$340k per class is not $340k per teacher. As I explained above, the $320k really deserves to go to the teacher. But even if we actually spend $340k on teachers, it's still worth it. As explained in the article, the $320k estimate is only the earnings differential, and "doesn’t take into account social gains, like better health and less crime." So, in this sense $320k actually underestimates the value of a good teacher. If you include the value of these positive externalities, a good teacher is worth well over $320k.

If schools actually start paying their best kindergarten teachers $320,000 per year, then yeah, sure, to hell with unions. Until then, however, I view them as a necessary evil.

1. That study took the wage increase of pupils due to a good kindergarten teacher and attributed it to the teacher. By asking kindergarten teachers be paid $320k, in essence you're asking the entirety of the pupil's increased potential be attributed to the kindergarten teacher; none to the pupil him/herself, none to any teachers at other grades, none to the educational system set up (buildings, libraries, school buses, etc).

2. As it happens, the U.S. already spends ~$9700 per pupil per year on public education. Project that out to a class of 35 and you're at $340k per teacher. So it actually sounds like we're spending about the right amount of money on education, maybe a little too much (you want your education system to realize a greater economic gain than what you've invested). The problem with low teacher pay isn't because we're not funding education enough. It's that the public education system is vastly inefficient and probably corrupt in places. A public airing of the dirty laundry like in TFA is probably what's needed to help clean it up and help increase teacher pay by reducing waste on underperforming teachers and elsewhere in the system.

Nope. Our national literacy rate was better before the Puritans got their wish of herding everyone into conformity factories.

Where did you get that? It seems that the historical literacy rates have gone down pretty much since forever.

your source includes Private school teachers with public school teachers, skewing the results upwards a great deal
 
I must dissuade you from another misconception. Here is the u.s. department of education's breakout of public versus private teachers stats. See column 4, 'base salary' and/or column 3, 'Total school-year and summer earned income' : http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_075.asp?referrer=list

Conflict of Interest.

While I normally would begin this discussion by putting forth a rather common sense argument (simply put: a good teacher is not good because technology makes him good, but rather because he makes technology work for him), I believe that the discussion is a moot point. Here's why:

The director of the Office of Educational Technology (the agency that published the previously cited report) is Karen Cator. Just read her bio there, and you'll discover that she worked for Apple computer for a decade. Conflict of Interest. The recommendations put forth in this report are invalid, because the director's previous employer stands to gain billions in revenue if the recommendations in this report are implemented nationwide. And what does this director stand to gain by steering billions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of Apple?

IQ is highly overrated

In practice, it's almost useless...

It's true that it's not all you need to do well. Citation needed on it being almost useless, in the same way that citation is needed on water not being wet.

Google tests are (way) better than IQ, but guess what Google found out: the best performers are the ones who have the lowest scores on their interviews.

The best performers are those that were hired in spite of having a low score in one interview out of several. These are people that are so impressive for some reason or other that even a low score in an interview does not rule them out. Citation needed on Google tests being way better than just an IQ test - I only know that they are more laborious, not that they outperform 100 years of research into IQ. If they do I expect it's because they include either an actual IQ test or an IQ test by proxy such as riddles or hard subject-specific questions you can't just memorize ahead of time. In any case, citation needed.

IQ is not concerned with - the candidate knows about the job - the candidate has good (enough) people skills - the candidate showers, shaves, etc

... and yet IQ tests still predict performance very well in many jobs. It's both fantastic and fantastically politically unacceptable.

If you are up in arms about IQ, then just wait till you read about the general fitness factor. This is the first link I found on google: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ698164&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ698164

Prior to modern public schools kids learned all of those things

Which kids?

In 1870, which is when the US government first started keeping statistics on literacy, about 20% of the US population over age 14, including 80% of the black population, was illiterate (source). By 1959 that was down to about 2% of the US population, including 8% of the non-white population.

A reasonable assessment of education in 19th century in the US, based on government stats and contemporary literature, might go something like this:
- Upper-class kids got education from mostly private schools, private tutors, and possibly some parental instruction. They frequently went on to study at a university at some sort.
- Middle-class kids got some education from a combination of public and parochial schools, Sunday schools (which would have emphasized biblical reading and the like), and home instruction, but rarely finished what we'd now consider to be a high school education. Farm kids, for instance, frequently stopped attending school at around 8th grade to help out on the farm.
- Poor white kids would possibly get basic literacy from public schools, and not much more than that. They often dropped out early to go work in factories once the Industrial Revolution really started to take hold.
- Black kids got essentially no education at all. This was a matter of policy - many southern states banned teaching slaves, and many teachers who arrived in the south during Reconstruction to teach ex-slaves were run out of town by force or intimidation.

I don't see how the "per employee budget" figure has anything to do with, well, anything. Essentially, these employees are tasked with spreading this money through several different educational systems. The total K-12 budget *alone* is about half a trillion, according to The National Center for Education Statistics. The federal contribution here is so paltry that I'm happy to argue that there is not enough federal support for education.

You are entirely wrong about the ED only being involved in K-12. They're involved in pre-school. They're involved in higher education. They're involved in technical/vocational training. The Pell Grant program is sponsored and administered by the Department of Education, as is the federal work-study program.

Also, according to their own budget, the figure is $46B, not $68B.

Angle doesn't want to "get rid of" SS and Medicare, she wants to "phase them out." You must see the contradiction there.

Explain to me exactly where I described myself as "pro-slavery." In fact, show me where anyone, anywhere on this thread described themselves as "pro-slavery?" Yes, violent revolution is necessary sometimes. But only you, Glenn Beck, and those idiot militia people who were planning to ambush cops think that now is one of those times.

Do you consider yourself to be in a state of "intractable oppression?" Why? Because the government takes some of the money that society supported you in earning, and uses it to support others, under laws passed by your fellow citizens in a democratic system? Dude, you aren't oppressed. In fact, you're being grossly insulting to people who are.

The old Tea Party slogan was "no taxation without representation." It looks to me like the new Tea Party took a sharpie and scribbled out those last two words.

Back on topic: I looked up what Sharon Angle actually said about violent revolution, and it's pretty clear that she believes that, when Thomas Jefferson talked about violent revolution against oppressive governments, the current Democratic government is exactly what he had in mind. That's short of the characterization in the original post, but not very. I don't imagine that these public statements of hers are going to endear her to the people of Nevada.

I do not know where you grew up, but when I was in elementary school, we had maps that showed countries which had not existed in over a decade. We had math textbooks that were falling apart. The teachers had to spend money out of their own pockets on classroom supplies, despite the fact that their salaries were the lowest in the entire region.
...
The funding problems wind up magnifying the policy problems and the result is an embarrassingly bad education system.

There is no funding problem. In 2005/2006, the U.S. spent over $9100 per student per year on public primary and secondary school education. It's among the highest in the world. For a typical classroom of 30 students, that's over a quarter of a million dollars a year. With that amount of money, there is absolutely no excuse for a teacher having to pay out of their own pocket for basic classroom supplies.

The problem isn't that schools are underfunded. The problem is that the money is poorly spent.

Have any sources for those numbers? The U.S. alone spends over $500 billion a year on public education. So I find it highly unlikely that $465 billion would feed and educate every child on earth for 5 years.

What does the Department of Energy have to do with this?

Or did you meant the the Department of Education!

Budget cuts? You've gotta be kidding: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html Per pupil spending has skyrocketed in the last 40 years.

If you have any student loans, universities in the United States are required to report your last date of attendance, if you are attending at least half time or not, and other information to the National Student Loan Data System. This may be an automated way that they are trying to get information for this.

While I imagine universities are not going to rush to using the last date you showed up in class versus the current date for refund and grading (withdrawal with no grade versus withdrawal-failing/withdrawal-pass, etc.), I could easily see universities using this data in the event of a grade dispute or similar issue.

But a lot of times, K-12, Internet is heavily filtered to block sites offering even non-pornographic entertainment, to the point where it interferes with legitimate course work.

I'll assume that the word "entertainment" isn't really what you meant (we can argue about the value of entertainment in an educational setting if you like ;^), but I'll respond to the crux of your point - they filter because they have to - it's a federal requirement, called CIPA, filtering must be in-place before the school can receive eRate funding (federal money for their technology expenditures).

Links:

CIPA: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html

eRate: http://www2.ed.gov/Technology/overview.html

My daughter's in third grade at a public elementary school here in New Mexico (not the highest ranked state for education). Starting this year she's had elementary algebra (solve for 'x' in arithmetic), geometry (point/line/plane, area and circumference), number line theory and graphing. For a kid who doesn't like math and who we have to really push to do homework, she's doing ok (3/4 mid-term grade).

I went to ES in the early 70's and don't think we got to this stuff until 6th grade.

Weird!

There is a great children's book, "The Chinese word for Horse and other stories" by John Lewis ( http://www.librarything.com/work/1564984 )which shows the structure of some (very few) Chinese characters. (Charles E. Tuttle co. published a small paperback that illustrated some basic Kanji in the same way, but I can't find my copy and I can't remember the name.) Look for a Chinese calligraphy guide that describes the meaning of the radicals as derived from pictures and you will be well on your way to binding the character with the meaning.

It can take as much as 15 years for something to go from short-term memory to long-term memory. (See "Brain Rules" by John Medina http://brainrules.net/ ) A program that helps bridge the gap between initial learning and structured recall is SuperMemo http://www.supermemo.com/ . Ignore the cruddy website and look at the idea behind it and the history.

Flashcards are good, too.

Major practice for writing Chinese is provided in "copy sheets" which can be found at Chinese shops that sell calligraphy supplies and school supplies. They have blocks with faint outlines of Chinese characters and you practice your calligraphy by tracing the character with your brush tip.

You might find "A practical English-Chinese Pronouncing Dictionary" by Janey Chen http://www.amazon.com/Practical-English-Chinese-Pronouncing-Dictionary-Language/dp/0804818770 . This book give an International Phonetics pronunciation (both Mandarin and Cantonese) next to the Chinese words. This is VERY important: One slight change in sound utterance and you've said something different from what you intended!

When learning Chinese, learn some patterns. I suggest "Chiang's Practical Chinese Language Patterns" http://www.amazon.com/Chiangs-Practical-Language-Patterns-Self-Learners/dp/9579727236 , "Practical Chinese Reader" (and the associated workbooks) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887271871/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=9579727236&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=14FXWRGNRW203JQ3QYZC , and an advanced monograph: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED280308&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED280308 .

Another resource, associating the sound with the character by typing it, can be found here: http://vpc-mandarin.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-and-why-to-write-chinese-by-typing.html

My ex-girlfriend and I used to watch a lot of Chinese movies together with the captioning on. The right channel would be Cantonese and the left channel would be Mandarin and the characters would change color as the actors pronounced them. You can find a switch to change the audio channel in most Chinese video stores. This is a good way to associate the sound visually with the language. Cartoons are great for kids and beginning adults because the language is syntactically correct but not too complicated. (Watch out though!; Jackie Chan has lousy Mandarin pronunciation and Zhang Ziyi has lousy Cantonese pronunciation.)

Side note: Japanese Kanji are derived from Chinese characters, b

probably you didn't have proper individualized instruction in Earch Science, which this article covers:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ088300&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ088300

Where did you hear that?

According to the National Assessment of Education Progress Texas was doing just fine.

4th Grade Math: 242 (National Average: 237)
4th Grade Reading: 219 (National Average: 217)

8th Grade Math: 281 (National Average: 278)
8th Grade Reading: 258 (National Average: 260)

It's hard to find any support there for the idea that video games violence doesn't cause increased aggression, even in adults.

Adrenaline.

Q1. Is there a link between video games and adrenaline?

Q2. So?

Are you sure? From http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

In the 2004-05 school year, 83 cents out of every dollar spent on education is estimated to come from the state and local levels (45.6 percent from state funds and 37.1 percent from local governments). The federal government's share is 8.3 percent. The remaining 8.9 percent is from private sources, primarily for private schools. [ * * ] This division of support remains consistent with our nation's historic reliance on local control of schools.

Local funding is certainly a big part but state funding is the biggest and federal funding isn't insignificant. What's also hidden in these numbers is the fact that schools in poor areas get more of the state and federal funding than schools in rich areas. Of course, a lot of that money is wasted on special education and magnet programs, depending on your opinions of them... for instance, how is it helping poor kids to have a magnet program that buses in smart kids and puts them in their own insulated program within a larger dysfunctional school? Well, that just highlights the fact that increasing funding without changing how funds are allocated isn't going to have the effect you're looking for.

Honestly I'm surprised there are so many people left on Slashdot who haven't given up the funding argument and accepted that parental involvement and other environmental factors of the children have a lot more to do with performance.

More American students are going to college than ever before. We have a much higher rate of literacy than we've ever had. You talk about 50 years ago, but 50 years ago the vast majority of Americans had never seen the inside of a college. Their grammar was probably much worse than modern students, but the local factory or textile mill never tested them. As recently as the 1950's even basic literacy (especially in poor and rural areas) was still a real problem. Fifty years ago the illiteracy rate was 2.2%. By 1979, that number had dropped to 0.2%. Here is a good summary of the data up to 1979). In more recent years, the U.S. literacy rate, which is very high already compared to most of the world, has improved even more (from 1992-2003, there were slight gains).

Every generation thinks the next are a bunch of slackers. But the data makes it clear. The U.S. has never been more educated and literate than it is today.

Would the results of a survey by the DOE showing the "most important reasons" parents homeschooled their kids be better?
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/FigureDisplay.asp?FigurePath=images/figure_2.gif

Even assuming that religious reasons were not at all related to their decision, almost a third of homeschool parents cited religion as their primary reason for taking their kids out of public schools.

just a minor point: public libraries aren't free. they're a shared cost institution, getting their funding from numerous taxpayer sources.

http://nces.ed.gov/FastFacts/display.asp?id=42

Question:
From what sources are state libraries funded?

Response:

Revenue

Sources of state library agency revenue are the federal government, state governments, and other sources, such as local, regional, or multi-jurisdictional sources. State library agencies may also receive income from private sources, such as foundations, corporations, friends of libraries groups, and individuals. State library agencies may also generate revenue through fees for service or fines. Revenue may be designated for aid to libraries, for the current and recurrent costs necessary for the provision of services by the state library agencies, or other purposes.

        * State library agencies reported a total revenue of $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005. The states provided state library agencies with $895 million in revenue, $158 million came from federal sources, and $30 million came from other sources.1

        * Of the financial assistance to libraries provided by state library agencies in fiscal year 2005, some 56 percent ($409 million) was targeted to individual public libraries.

Let's apply a bit of research to that John Kerry quote, turns out he just boffed a joke, the copy of his written remarks that was handed out to reporters before he made the speech had this sentence at that point: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

Something that the youtube sound-bite has conveniently edited out is the fact that he was clearly beating up on Bush at that point, to take his statement the way you have is to completely ignore the context and assume he just decided to make a random comment about the military in the middle of a totally unrelated discussion.

I can't really blame you for doing that, the republican party is so highly skilled at doing the faux outrage act, its no surprise millions of people are suckered in by it. However, I do blame you for citing Murtha - how does accusing someone of murder equate to thinking that they are dumb or poor? Since when do only dumb or poor people commit homicide? Sounds like you may be a classist. And, you didn't even get that one right either, Wuterich is still charged with negligent homicide.

So, in summary you have completely failed to support your claims that Murtha or Kerry have a "desire to paint the military as a bunch of dumb poor people."

Now, lets take on the general perception that poor and uneducated people end up in the military...

99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree."

You just kicked the crap out of your premise with that one.

let's compare:

Bachelor's Degree:
enlisted force: 4.7%
us population: 16.7%

Master's Degree:
enlisted force: 0.7%
us population: 5.9%

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_009.asp

And don't even try to point at the officers - a bachelor's is a requirement to be a commissioned officer, having a degree gives you options. This is about the military being the employer of last resort for a lot people. If that were not the case, we would not have seen the number of conduct waivers double over the last 5 years - the people with options have been going elsewhere.

Ann Coulter is an opinion-writer, not a news-source — just as Camille Paglia, whom I quoted earlier without any objections from you.

Obvious excuse is obvious. I'm asking what justification is there (aside from Right-wing paranoia of some vast takeover conspiracy) that we should flat out dissolve the DoE. You? You're bringing opinions to the table. For me, or anyone, to object to an opinion makes about as much sense as objecting to someone saying, "I don't like electronica music." My objection is that you have yet to answer my question, and I'm annoyed this isn't already clear as fucking day to you. Surprised? No. Just annoyed.

I didn't ask you for news citations,

Cheap dismissal technique for any citations you find inconvenient.

...and I didn't dispute the fact, that America's Public Schools education is declining —

LOLWUT? Wait, so you agree the educational system is going down the tubes, but somehow you require citations regarding misbehavior of States in handling their business, who just happen to, oh yeah, set state guidelines for education, direct funds to cities & local districts, and control the aforementioned to make sure children are properly educated... Take your grandstanding to make yourself look smart and fuck off. You can double that prescription while you're at it, considering all the details I've posted so far, and that all you can offer is "You Lie! I disagree! My opinion that I copied from Mann Coulter has more validity than reality!" As far as that Camille Paglia quote, it sounds a little like an out of context, snipped from a long, unrelated editorial, so again, that's just another red-herring.

...in fact, this was my whole point against rewarding failure at the Department of Education,

What reward? What the hell are you talking about? In case the concept has not sunk into your dense skull, THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CONTROLS GIVING MONEY TO STATES, MONEY THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAS. THEY ARE NOT A PRIVATE AND SEPARATE GROUP FROM THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT. What crack have you been smoking?
What a smart person you are.

which we didn't even have until 1979, and the education was better before then.

How is this relevant? In regards to the Southern social standards that said segregation and discrimination were "A-Okay!" prior to the Federal Government stepping in and saying something had to change? Or maybe this is in regards to literacy rates? I'm not here to give undue credit to the DoE, but it looks an awful lot like a broad social movement swept the nation to improve literacy and education across the board, formalized with the creation of the DoE. How do formal rules that say you can't arbitrarily give some people the short end of the stick regarding educational opportunities equal a "failure?" Explain.

What I asked you, was citations of the States not learning from each other's mistakes...

Once again, fuck off. I've already posted a number of links, some evidencing, among other things, that we are on average slipping in terms of skills. Simple knowledge of mathematical averaging tells you that either at one end, all districts are doing rather mediocre to poo, or on the other end some are doing very well, while the majority of others are crapping things up. This isn't a fucking College thesis, I'm not about to go chasing a billion citations around for your benefit, and the fucking issue IS FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION. Quit stalling.

Is it your contention, that only peo

Waaaah! Waaah! Big bad guhv'nmint iz takin' our monieezzz! Dey shoodn't taxez mine, just the lib'rals dat i h8tez!

fix'd

And your true colors shine through. /bullshit or GTFO.

I'll be graduating next summer with a Masters in IT Management. (Undergrad in Simulation Design Engineering) 75k or so in loans, and the year I went to college they jacked up the interest rate to 6.8%.

And to everyone saying its unsecured debt needs to actually look into their facts. Student Loans can not be bankrupt on, if I don't pay, the gubmint will dock my pay. Which actually is a better deal that paying the loans, the max they can dock is 15% per check, and my loans will be way more than that to actually pay.

The loans are government backed, they should be no interest.

You can do an income contingent repayment plan: http://www.direct.ed.gov/RepayCalc/dlindex2.html

Easy solution - leave the country. The only way they could go after you then would be to sue you and get a judgment against you, and borrowers living in foreign countries are ineligible for DOJ litigation referrals. (Warning - Word Document. Look on page three).

There are much better places to live in this world than America despite with LimBeck, Sean Hannity and Fixed News will have you believe. There are many nations with lower unemployment rates that welcome immigrants, particularly educated and highly skilled ones, with open arms.

For all unsubsidized Stafford loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2006, the interest rate is fixed at 6.8 percent. The interest rate for subsidized Stafford loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2009 is fixed at 5.6 percent.

PLUS loans? Parents should have been saving since the child was born.

PLUS loan rates were changed to fixed in July 2006, so those receiving loans disbursed from 1998-2006 enjoy the variable 3.28% rate, while those who started school in 2007 and later will be assessed a fixed 7.9%-8.5% rate (in addition to a 4% upfront fee).

I don't see anything about how it is constitutional... but you can see for yourself the history here

The first sentence of their own history says "Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States".

Also - "In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education as a Cabinet level agency."

So, there ya go. The country ran for over two hundred years without a cabinet level position for Education.

Ironically, Ronald Regan left us with this quip - The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Has Education gotten better since 1980?

low teacher salaries

The US leads the world in absolute levels of teacher salaries, and is about even with most other large economies if you measure by percent of GDP per capita in a country (though maximum teacher pay as measured as percent GDP per capita is a bit higher in Japan and Germany).

What's more, Japan averages 35.5 students per class, compared to 18.3 in the US, so their teachers are teaching twice the number of students.

Considering the average American's lack of basic understanding of science and mathematics compared to nearly every other developed country

I hate to go [citation needed] on you but I'd really like to see your data.

So far my googling managed to find:
http://nces.ed.gov/timss/table07_1.asp
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930085.html
http://imo.math.ca/results/CRBY.html

A gym teacher is already going to learn many health-related things about a child. The President's physical fitness test (or whatever it's called) produces a nice national fitness benchmark, for instance--one at least as good as a heart rate monitor.

The silliness is in reacting to what is a completely bog-standard piece of athletic gear, just because it is electronic. A stopwatch is also an electronic device for benchmarking students but it rarely produces these types of questions.

And to answer your question, educational health records are generally covered under FERPA not HIPAA.

Learn more:

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/doc/ferpa-hippa-guidance.pdf

The Constitution does not prevent recognition of religion or acknowledgment of the prevent belief structure. The two issues are completely non-sequitur; though it is frequently a source of confusion.

The entire intent, and that's what is important [...]

You are aware that the question of whether the intent of the consitution is what is important or not is a somewhat contentious issue in legal theory, and is far from the single-sided obvious choice you indicate here. See (e.g.) this paper for a summary of the issues.

[...] is the church is to have no government control or influence. Anti-religious nut jobs have forgotten to check the intent. Its a stretch by any measure to believe, "In God We Trust", influences government decisions in any way, shape, or form; or that its capable of having such influence

And you've just highlighted the very problem with the original intent method of interpreting the constitution: the approach of determining the intent of the original framers is highly subjective, and you can essentially argue over the intent forever. You've picked an interpretation whereby the framers were intending to protect the government from interference by religion. Many (even most) others pick an interpretation where the framers intended to protect religions from interference by the government, preventing the government from favouring one religion over another and thus establishing a state religion. It's very hard to tell what was originally intended, and it's likely that at least a little of both was in the minds of the framers when they wrote the first amendment. And maybe some other things, too.

And until someone can prove this is in fact, not only the case, but that its a common fact, continued argument by these nut jobs only confirm they are ignorant nut jobs attempting to force their anti-religious religion down everyone's throat.

That's actually pretty-much the opposite of the intent, which is to prevent everyone from having the Christian religion forced down their throat. There are plenty of people opposed to this, and not all are "anti-religious" as you put it. In fact, I've spoken to many Christians who agree that religious approaches like this have no place in government.

And frankly, I find their motives to be more offensive. After all, at least with the religious nuts attempting to force it down your throat, their motives are obvious. With the other guys, they're lying to your face which pissing on the Constitution with their ignorance, lack of comprehension, and inability to learn history.

Actually, I think you're the one who needs the history lesson. One of the main arguments for the interpretation of the constitution I suggested above is that many of the original framers (e.g. Madison) had been disturbed by the British laws preventing preaching other than by appointed Anglican priests. They saw any support of any particular church by the state as a bad thing. It is hard to dispute this (see, e.g. the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, an antecedent of the first amendment which was drafted by Jefferson, which says in part "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical"), although that hasn't stopped some conservatives from trying.

"I would love to see your reference. Every math PHD and statistics lecturer I have ever heard mention the topic has said essentially the same as I did."

Actually, since you made the positive assertion, you're the one that should provide a citation or reference for your claim.

But nontheless, consider "Strategies for Detecting Outliers in Regression Analysis: An Introductory Primer", Victoria P. Evans, Educational Research Association, 1999 -- "... under the assumption of the Gaussian normal distribution, extreme data points have the potential to occur. To reject points simply because they are extreme is essentially to reject one of the assumptions upon which the regression analysis is based." (p. 18)

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/48/4a.pdf

But if they fail, they cost society an even more significant sum. So the overarching priority is - is the parent accomplishing the task they have taken on? If they start faltering, intervene with assistance and constructive advice. If they start having real trouble, then the child should go to school.

This is a sticky situation to have the state try to control, given its own track record with dealing with faltering students. I'm not saying the cost to society isn't there, I'm just saying it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical given the number of students the public option already fails.

While playing devil's advocate a little more... According to the US Dept of Education, in 2007 the percentage of home schooled children in the US was only 2.9% of all school age children. One would think the focus should be more on the ~80% of children in the public school system (the remainder are in private schools), and the segment of those that are currently being failed by the public schooling system, rather than on the much smaller fraction of home schooled children.

There are certainly parents and children who shouldn't be doing home schooling, but forcing them into a system that performs demonstrably worse rings false. Who knows, for some of those kids, the public system might be better. I just think the focus should be on fixing the public option, rather than harassing home schoolers.

FWIW, I was a public school brat.

Unschooling is much more closely related to free schooling or democratic schooling as has been practiced successfully since the 1920s at places like Summerhill School. These students are sought after by colleges because they are articulate, self-motivated learners. It is actually much like college because students choose what to learn about (often through classes or workshops), rather than the high school model of everyone taking the same state-required classes. I would bet nearly all Slashdotters learned to code this way.

The biggest drawback to unschooling is that it pretty much requires one parent to stay home (or both to work part time). On the other hand, in areas where the public schools are underfunded, private schools can eat up all the income from a second job anyway.

the ever increasing number of high-school drop outs

[Citation Needed]

Both in Canada and the US, it looks like drop out rates have reduced rather substantially in recently years.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/dropout05/NationalEventDropout.asp
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2008001/sectionf/f-dropout-abandon-eng.htm