Slashdot Mirror
How Can Tech Help Fight Education Costs?
http101 asks: "With the ever-rising costs of fuel, we seem to forget those that are truly having problems affording it. No, not the homeless, but our own kids. 'Kids,' you ask? Yes, because being driven to school on the 'Yellow Dog' or the 'Edu-Express' better known as a school bus, is costing your state more money than ever before. In my neighborhood, we have a plethora of home connected by fiber and at least high-speed internet. So my question is, how can technology be better-implemented to ensure a student's studies and also lower the costs of fuel for the districts?"
I can see having a one day a week class at home via a live webcast. The teacher can still take attendance and the kids can still get the knowledge. Unfortunately, this is only feasible if every single kid has access to broadband. And, even with all the advances, there are a LOT of people out in the country that can't even get cable TV much less broadband.
Now, this might work in the inner city, but at that point you'd have to subsidize the cost of broadband for all those people that can't afford it. And saving 4 days of bus driving a month compared to making up for 100 or 200 kids worth of broadband at 15-50 bucks a month isn't a savings.
It would be good to save 1/5 of the gas (or more) that's needed for the buses, but that's not going to happen in the near future.
A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
So my question is, how can technology be better-implemented to ensure a student's studies and also lower the costs of fuel for the districts?
;-)
Just home school. Through this mircale of modern technology, kids can be better taught than through any other method known to man! Not to mention that your child will receive his very own "teacher unit" who just happens to also be related to the child! A Win-Win situation for all!
Joking aside, Home Schooling is a very good option, especially in rural areas where familys can better afford to only have one parent working. The results of various studies show that the home schoolers easily outperform their publically educated peers, and that the social aspect isn't as big of an issue as was once feared.
From Wikipedia (which actually links to quite a few more sources):
"The academic effectiveness of homeschooling is largely a settled issue. Numerous studies have confirmed the academic integrity of home education programs, demonstrating that average homeschoolers outperform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. Moreover, the performance gaps between minorities and gender that plague public schools are virtually non-existent amongst homeschooled students. Source"
---
"According to the findings, children who were schooled at home 'gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society...at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children.'
"The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough maintains that 'insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children.'" Source
Technology only bolsters the abilities of home schoolers. Where as a home schooler of my generation had to be satified with the curriculum, materials the parents could afford, and the local library (an excellent source itself), modern school children can find information on virtually ANY issue simply by checking the Internet. Also, whereas labs done by my generation had to be performed by video tape, the modern generation is capable of actually video conferencing with a lab instructor for more precise education.
Isn't modern technology wonderful?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Part of going to school is also to teach kids how to be social and interact with others.
How does/would home schooling deal with this aspect?
Distance education could be a possible solution. However, it would not be without some major issues. First of all, the ability for children to learn with distance education would be an issue. Age would definitely be a factor in that regard because they may or may not have the discipline or concentration to handle it.
Secondly, there are some social implications. Distance education means that kids would not be interacting with other kids in the physical sense. They would be in front of a screen. That may or may not socially impact them. On another note, distance education could mean the end of school shootings as we know it. Kids would have the Internet to provide some protection from being made fun of because there is no visual contact with other students.
A third issue with distance education is the obesity epidemic. As far as I know, there are no gym classes with distanced education. That also means no playground. And if children become attached to the computer, they will less likely to be physically active. This also adds the question of how distance education would impact extra curricular activities.
A definite advantage of distance education is that it would teach children to use proper netiquette. It can also teach them ethical computer usage. Another advantage of distance education is that school buildings wouldn't bee needed which means lower costs. That includes janitorial work as well as electricity, property maintenance, etc. There would be a building, but none that has the requirements of a school building.
- Organize adult-supervised bicycle rides for kids who live within 3 miles of their schools
- Stop buying computers for primary schools that provide little educational value compared to cheap books and good teachers. The savings could pay for school bus
- Replace old school bus with efficient new ones. Perhaps even a hybrid concept or something similar. Very high cost upfront, but gas savings.
- Raise taxes. Gap! yes! raise *YOUR* taxes so that *YOUR* children may go to school and have a chance at a good education and a good future, a concept America as a whole has completely forgotten for some reason.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
With the mention of fiber connected homes and broadband connectivity, I cannot help but think perhaps the poster has some sort of idea like: "well we don't need schools anymore, let's have all the kids learn at home!" That's a beast of a discussion in and of itself.
As for the main question of how technology in general can help save money now being spent on fuel for school buses, the immediate choices are more obvious. They include things like hybridization of the vehicles, natural-gas burning buses, and other forms of making the fleet more fuel-efficient. It's only a matter of time before some of the efficiency improvements we're starting to see in the family car show up in school buses.
Visit the oldest currently running "webcam" on the internet
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my disk????
No, I think the question he's trying to ask is, "How do we home school without home schooling?"
And the answer is, "Just home school the child. The result will be that your child will do *better* acedemically and socially."
The downside is that home schooling isn't for everyone. I was home schooled, but my wife doesn't feel up to the challenge. So we send our kids to a private school. Even then, it was VERY difficult finding a school that was both affordable and met the needs of our child.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I have a friend whose wife is a grade school teacher. Spend 15 minutes with a teacher, and you'll realize just how truly ignorant that statement is. Many teachers I've met are far more dedicated to their job than any techie I've ever met. You don't teach to pay the bills- because it doesn't, not well at all. You teach because you love the concept of helping people learn and contributing to society. The standards are high- when it comes to education and training, they don't have a choice. Peer review is ongoing. Certification is required and often also ongoing. The amount of prep work my friend's wife does for teaching gradeschool classes is astounding.
Maybe -your- school is full of teachers who are in 'cruise mode', but most are full of people who have dedicated their lives to teaching your children. Show a little gratitude.
Please help metamoderate.
...is the kids who were home schooled typically lack social skills.
I work in over 20 schools supporting their networks. Teachers may very well be dedicated to teaching but they have a remarkably low desire to learn. Tech will never benefit education till teachers are willing to embrace it. Most of them can't even logon to the schools network. The students run rings around them in the computer lab, and don't even get me started their use of computers in the curriculum.
Certification? It doesn't test anything useful that I can see. Peer review? none of their peers no what technology is good for either. There are exceptions but those just prove the rule. There is a lot of perception to change out there before technology starts to actually benefit education. Or maybe I just live in a strange alternate reality where I manage to work for a company that supports the schools with the worst teachers for technology.
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
Since I teach HS, maybe I can clarify. Yes, school is babysitting, at least the way many parents see it. Neither I nor most my colleagues see it that way, but it's hard because we often have to deal with a large number of kids that don't want to be there, are f*** ups, or just don't care. We can't remove the 2 or 3 that screw it up for the remaining 34.
Our schools are on warehouse mode most of the time, and that comes from on high, not in the classroom. Part of the problem is the very idea of education has been severely deprecated. I am a geek, linux, java, yada yada, but I teach history and consider myself an historian first. But, history, nor 99% of anything else in school is going to be worth $1 more in the "real world". But that's not, nor has is ever been the point of an education.
So, we have marginalized an education for practical use, which means that kids don't give two shits about history, just a letter on a piece of paper. It's either "I need it for college, how do I get an A" or "When are we ever gonna need this"?
Don't cry for me Argentina, as I love what I do and have great kids. Really. But, we are in many ways a babysitter, or a caretaker, holding them long enough so they don't rampage the neighborhood while the mommies are out walking the babies. Until there is a penalty (other than personal opportunity squandered) for not graduating and learning, it'll only get worse.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I went to 13 years of public school, and all it taught me was how to interact with people born between October 15, 1974, and October 14, 1975. When I got out into the real world, I had no idea how to interact as an equal with people who were 20 years my senior.
I'll leave up to the other replies to discuss whether or not the socialization aspect of public school is otherwise a good thing.
What makes you think that most parents are qualified to be teachers? In all subjects?
The parents that DO home school their kids probably do so because they know that they are qualified (and probably have some actual classroom teaching experience in the past).
A parent that home schools their child simply for financial reasons, in order to save taxpayer money, may not be giving their child a decent education.
Plus, the school bus will still have to run the same route anyway, using essentially the same fuel, regardless of whether the child is on the bus or not.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
Here in Hawai'i, we have "charter" schools which are experimental schools less restricted by the rules and policies of the Dept. of Education. Of these charter schools, we have ThompsonAcademic.org, an "E-Charter" school which teaches its courses almost entirely online. Teachers actually gets more face time one-on-one with the students who need it, because only struggling students are required to come in for direct personal tutoring. This school attracts a mix of students from both ends of the academic spectrum-- from the overacheiving homeschoolers to the borderline drop-outs who are fed up with traditional schools. Thompson Academic does require its students to enroll full time. If students only want supplemental online courses, there is E-School (http://www.eschool.k12.hi.us/). Hawai'i needs online education in part because it is hard to provide a full spectrum of courses to every island. And many students are surfers (some pro) who would skip school anyway when the surf is up. Online education is not for everybody, but I wish I had this option growing up.
I'm not against home schooling or schooling via the Internet, but there is something to be said about the social aspect of the schoolyard. I learned a lot about social settings and how to play with others, sharing, and even whom to avoid from having to "go" to school. I think that if we all start homeschooling our children or having them learn via the Interenet to save money on the bus driver's fuel bill there will be some aspects of growing up and things that don't develop properly.
I live in a relatively safe area and State for that matter, but there are still violence, gangs, drugs, etc... Not as bad as say downtown LA or Washington DC but there are still problems here. There are potential benefits for both at home and in class schooling. Gas costs shouldn't be a reason to take that away from kids. I am personally happy that I was able to be in an environment where I was able to get the social aspect of the school experience. I wasn't the best or most studious student, but pulled off about a 3.5 GPA. I spent half of the time high school and college learning about other people (Mostly the opposite sex for that matter) and the other half learning what the teacher was teaching. Of course I'm a self proclaimed people person. I'm sure there are many here on /. (and many places for that matter) that are just not people people and would rather learn from home.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I had to bring say 1 dollar a week to help the bus driver keep the tank full so I could make it to school, it would be worth it to me, and it would be worth it for me to send my kids to a public school. (So long as the education was good)
Generation Trance: What generation are you?
Fear not, Mr. History Teacher. When I was in high school I had no interest in history and thought it was a complete waste of time. Ironically, my favorite teacher would become a history teacher who used to go into all kinds of details about war strategies used in the civil war and other wars involving America. I would sit there and listen very intently to everything he had to say about these battles. However, I still only got a C in his class. This was in part due to his tough tests and partially because even though I found his lectures interesting, I still never did my history homework. :)
Fastforward about 10 years...
I developed a great appreciation for history and watch all this shit on the history channel, read books, have discussions with friends, etc. What really matters in the end is whether the person you are teaching is ready for the information. I wasn't in high school but many years later I was. I still remember that teacher though and wish I could sit there and listen to him talk about those battles once again. Cest la vie...
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
maybe they should have specific classes for teaching technology, and let the other learning be a focus outside of those classes. technology tends to get in the way with the learning process unless it's tactfully used (showing simulations in physics is probably the best i use can think of, and illustrations in general if they are animated or aren't in the book).
personally, i think it's easier to give a presentation without powerpoint (chalkboard/overhead), to write a paper by hand (writing comes more natural than typing even though it's slower for me), to write math by hand (the notation is complicated, but i do use a graphing calculator for non-simple computations), and to listen to the instructor (it's hard when they're fiddling with a computer). it's not that i don't know how to use computers, i'm 17 and grew up operating them, it's just that i feel they're more of a hinderance than the graphing calculators and specific purpose analog equivalents (chalkboard, notebook, etc.)
although they're simply wonderful for looking up information.
and don't worry about teachers not embracing the tech, as you get more young ones in they'll do fine. my chem teacher last year did a wonderful job using powerpoint for presentations, but i still like his whiteboarded notes better.
> What makes you think that most parents are
> qualified to be teachers? In all subjects?
The fact that most parents have finished high school and supposedly have a diploma signifying that they know all the stuff they are supposed to know. If you don't then how can you justify keeping your diploma? If you do, then you should be able to explain it to your kids. If you can't, then you know you don't know it, and should probably refresh your knowledge.
Adding to what you said (parent post was long, didn't want to copy it all).
The reason why it concedered by many as 'babysitting' is because most parents do not foster in their kids the love of learning. They expect teachers to do it. If the love of learning doesn't start at home, then teachers will always have an uphill battle. Even, sorry to say, to the point that some people will call it 'babysitting'
While I generally applaud increasing or adding to our general use of technology in helping to solve US educational deficiencies or to just help keep our educational system in tune with the world; on this one I have to call into question the logic of a technological solution to a social / infrastructure issue. As much as school is an educational institution, for many it is also a social institution, and while many home schooled groups do resolve this missing ingredient of regular social interaction among peers many do not. School is where our children learn (or fail to) how to interact, respond to, and respect others and other groups. That aside, I think the greater concern is that we are looking to technology to resolve a financial issue rather than a methedoligy or substance issue. Providing home schooling for moral, ethical, or simply quality issues is one thing, but providing it as a means to lower fuel cost comes across to me as fixing the symptom and not the problem.
If we want to reduce our fuel cost for schools, let's look at mass transportation. We need to consider doing like the MTA's (Mass Transit Authorities) and switch to cleaner, more efficient fuels for schools buses (CNG, etc). In metro areas we need to encourage having kids ride the metro bus system instead of maintaining two bus systems (school and general transit). We could place a "school official" (a.k.a- the current bus driver) on each MTA bus that picks up kids, and then they would be responsible for safety and counting fares. This would reduce fuel and maintenance cost for both the school system and the MTA, it would also introduce social change in our society by removing the stigma of riding public transportation. Over all it would be a benefit to many, and in rural areas the application of alternative fuels and more efficient modern buses would most likely be a better solution than attempting to build out some expensive county wide internet/ multimedia network infrastructure.
Trying to solve a social/ infrastructure problem in life by throwing more technology at it generally does nothing but complicate the situation. Social & infrastructure problems require a social or infrastructure solution. Technology is not the end all be all solution- the tech bubble should have taught us that.
Just my thoughts....
Huh?
And the kids still don't learn a damn thing. The quality of education in this country is plummeting... rapidly. All they are doing is babysitting until they're old enough to take their rightful place at Wal-Mart or McDonald's.
You get what you pay for. Look at the starting salary for teachers in many states...considering it requires, at minimum, a 4-year degree, are you surprised that Education programs at universities aren't attracting the best and the brightest? Add to that the sheer number of teachers we need, and you end up with large numbers of poor-quality teachers.
Not all teachers are bad, of course...my wife is a teacher, and I'd like to think she's one of the better ones. But I met some of her classmates, and saw her curriculum. I wouldn't trust half the kids in the average university's Education department to watch my house over the weekend, let alone trust them with my kids.
Of course, if teaching paid more, it would attract more qualified people, and in turn Education programs would become more competitive, and quality would increase. If lawyers made what teachers made, do you think that law school would be hard to get into? Would it be very demanding? A large number of graduates from teaching programs across the country are just one notch above those that end up at McDonald's. Some aren't even THAT intelligent or qualified*. So is it any wonder that that is what our schools are preparing kids for?
Again, you get what you pay for. In the US, it seems most people are willing to pay just enough to give them a place to send their kids while they go to work, and if they're lucky teach them to read at a decent level.
Of course, to an extent, that is all many people in the US CAN afford. Which is why school funding is always such an issue. I've seen the difference between schools in a fairly wealthy suburban area and a decidedly poor urban area. It isn't pretty.
* - The average teacher is, of course, much better qualified to teach than the average employee at McDonald's. However, if you were to take many employees of Mickey-D's, pay for them to go through college, I think you'd find that many of them would be as qualified, if not more, to teach as many teachers. Teachers are often smarter than fry cooks because of education, not necessarily intelligence.
How about allowing the free market to come up with effective solutions to schooling instead of lockng entire communities into government monopolies.
Lets just cut through the BS...
"How can technology be better-implemented to ensure a student's studies and also lower the costs of fuel for the districts"
The above statement is a ruse. You really don't care about students studies, what you care about is fuel costs, your tax money, blah blah blah. Your like a most people in this country, you want to find a cheap short cut to education at the expense of raising taxes. If its your money your concerned with, why don't you ask your school district why the hell your tax money is paying for such bullshit positions as Deputy Superintendent, and the Secretaries for the Deputy Superintendent, instead of going towards building more modern facilities, paying teachers and a scale more equal to what they are worth, buying better books, and researching better and more entertaining ways to educate children so that learning can be fun and interesting to them (I'm thinking like Bill Nye type teaching here). And if your really concerned about those rising fuel costs, well try carpooling in your neighborhood. If your response is "I'm too busy as a working parent, I don't have time", then tough shit, your part of the problem. Tech is not the answer to rising fuel costs.
If you really wanted to improve the studies of students, you'd ask something more like "As a concerned parent, how can I use tech to supplement my childs education and help them find an interest in learning so that they can do better in school"? If that's the case, step one is again, take some responsibility as a parent. Take an interest in your childs studies. Read their textbooks. Quiz them from the post-chapter assessments. Talk with them about topics they are learning about. Help them study. And if you really wanted tech to help them in their studies, how about installing a firewall that blocks outbound IM traffic... but that only works if you take responsibility.
However, concerning the question "When are we ever gonna need this?" I know I've asked that a lot. But my question wasn't necessarily about me in specific. A lot of times in math especially I just couldn't see a reason why something was important. Sometimes I had teachers who would explain that such and such theory could be used by an engineer/statistician/accountant/whatever in such and such a way. That was all I needed. Then I could sit back and say to myself, "Oh , that's one way to use this." I could then get a feel for the direction it was going and then use that same thing to come up with my own uses of that knowledge.
I know a lot of times that's not the case when people ask that question, but I would recommend asnwering it anyway. If they come back with "But I'm not gonna be a $proffesion", just tell them that they might as well quit school and start welfare now.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
You've posted about this before. Is it possible that school is not about learning but about learning HOW to learn? When I graduated I didn't jump for joy because the learning would stop but because it would finally start. All that time I spent memorizing multiplication tables, spelling words only an English teacher would know, and writing papers that would be barely read by one disinterested person-- it doesn't make any sense apart from the notion that it's supposed to teach me how to learn noninstinctive behaviour. I'm surprised you have 34 well behaved students, too bad you can't hire them part time after school to build you a bass boat or something. 34 people with at least 8 years of education under their belts spending the best hours of the day in a classroom learning the dates when Boss Tweed was born and died-- what a waste of potential. Even for the types who find that fun-- you know they just want approval.
I dare you to mix it up a little. Set up a blog and make each student post a 40-line summary of a historic event they learned that day, while it's still fresh. One student a day. Login required, and all submissions become your property (hey if lycos can do it so can you). Open book, allow them to use other sources, and allow them to plaigiarize if they weren't paying attention, as long as turnitin.com fails to detect it. Grade that post, then open it up for comment by peers-- useful comments you appreciate get a grade or admin perk from you. (I advocate giving commenters a 10 minute hall pass to goof off but that's just me. No I'm not that fat kid in the second row. With the pocket protector.) After a student gets their grade back, vet the post, spellcheck, use any insightful comments, forward any insults to a joke site, and pick the key sentence for use as a fill-in-the-blank question on the exam. You just graded 1 quiz and he just wrote one 34th of the exam for you.
At the end of the semester or year, gather all the posts, improve them with any insightful comments, edit them for content, run them through spell and grammar check, and you've got a new resource. After a year or two it will be sufficiently improved to the point where you can begin to use it. You can put it on the web to increase your respect in the eyes of other high school historians, you can sell it to a third party (who will probably sell it to children and collegians trying to cheat in other schools, but hey you don't know that), you can use it as part of the material next year and maybe help you to cut loose an inadequate textbook, you can print a single copy and donate it to a needy school so they can bind it for use as a textbook, you can improve wikipedia with some of the content... All you have to do is what you are already doing. Use what you're already doing! If there's some rule that doesn't make sense to your java-usin' analytical mind (for example: "5 pages, double spaced, 12 point Courier New-- hmm this does not equal Knowledge") then replace that rule with something useful that you and your students can feel good about. And for heaven's sake don't ask permission, the higher ups will just say no so they don't have to think about it.
US needs to create an Operating System for Public Education, to allow users to educate themselves, from home.
The PEOS would be basically a client-terminal to the Public.Education.Network (PEN).
The PEN would track all students activities, including login/logout times, desktop idle time, and information access logging.
This would of coarse have to be a proprietary system based upon Open Source Technologies, to ensure the continued 'un-restricted' technological development of the system, by authorized developers, nation-wide.
pros:
> save money on gas
> save money on teachers/books/etc
> save money on facility upkeep/maintenance
> give children the ability to access information, quizes, and automated test results, in real-time.
> track user attendence/activities remotely
cons:
> lack of supervision
> lack of social interaction
> lack of 'realistic' justification for such initiatives
WOW! I really feel the need to respond to this. Don't get all freaky or anything. I'm sure many people are going to fly off the handle at what this "gentleman" just said; however, I'd like to analyze his point of view a little. First, I'd like to make note of some important facts from the above: 1. ..nerdy white kid...
2. ...all sorts of schools...7 in all...
3. considerable in school violence
What do these facts imply?
1. Implies that this person is someone who is not inclined towards violence and has a personality that is not aggressive (or perhaps passive-aggressive more likely) and is not at the top of the social heap.
2. Poor. Likely working class. Probably not incredibly stable home life/economic situation.
3. Lived in "Inner-City" school populated with more poor, likely working class, with few stable homes/economic situations.
Now, some of you might say: Obviously, this guy is a racist jackass and probably deserves what he got. Also, he might say, "I think all niggers should die for what was done to me".
How did this state of affairs arise? What can be done about it?
Well, I think I can speak a little from experience. I could talk of similiar situations and a similiar background for myself. I recall several times during my younger years when incidents such as those described caused me to have a similiar attitude for a short time. Trust me, it is really, really tough to be magnanimous when you are being victimized or you see others being victimized.
The problem is a general cycle of violence. Human beings are, in general, extremely self-centered, selfish organisms who want as many resources for themselves as possible and will do nearly anything to obtain them. People cooperate with one another and form civilizations because they feel they get a better deal that way than if they simply went around cracking everyone on the head.
Some people, however, do not feel they are getting a better deal. Some of them are right. If they were enslaved, or, if they were beaten and maligned and neglected by their parents (maybe partly because they were slaves and beaten and maligned and neglected by their masters) they will go forth into the world with hatred and attempt to "take" what they can without regard to their fellow man.
Now, unfortunately, those who may or may not have a legitimate beef with with how they've been treated in life may take out their dissatisfaction and aggression on entirely innocent parties. THIS IS 100% WRONG AND CANNOT BE CONDONED!
Society today wants to have it both ways. We want to be absolved of abuses past victims (or more likely ancestors) experienced without doing anything to break the cycle of violence. This will not work.
What can be done about it? I believe it is unacceptable for someone to roll-over and allow themselves to be abused for any reason. It is also unacceptable to go forth and abuse others without reason (in fact, I'd say it is simply unacceptable to abuse period).
So, the simple solution is this. Follow the "Golden Rule" that is enshrined in every major (and minor as far as I know) religion in the world, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (NOTE: It is not, "..as they have done unto you.."). What do I mean by this?
If someone attacks or abuses you, fight back with everything you have. Never, ever permit someone to abuse you. On the other hand, and more importantly, NEVER EVER abuse anyone else. Simple, right?
If only it were so. Again you come back to the whole "Selfish/Self-Centered" thing. I guess that's why society needs religion (NOTE: I am an atheist).
If it were all this simple, things would be really great and I wouldn't have had to see people shoot their spouses on their front lawn when I was 13 years old, and I wouldn't have had to have seen a drunken man throw his baby into the street of traffic because his wife/girlfriend was yelling at him because he "drank" the money they needed to buy baby formula, etc, etc, etc, and the above man wouldn't hate "niggers" (to use his turn of phra
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
I didn't want to be at school, and I was good at it. My daily refrain for about 4 years was, "do I have to go to school today?" (It ended when I got into a private highschool for the last two years, but even then I only tollerated school). The problem was partially the "f*** ups", as you call them, but I was also bored out of my mind. There were so many things I had to do, that I just didn't care about. It was a total waste of time. The local paper printed my letter last year that ended with, "Can I have my 13 years back, please?
One of your fellow teachers resigned his NYC teaching job with a scathing letter to the Wall Street Journal:
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com