jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (93 posts)

Every Teacher Knows this, but...

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago

    Hey all,

    In my time as a teacher here in Ohio, I've talked to many teachers. Just about everyone agrees: Some kids excel, some kids don't. It has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, culture, or anything else. It's just that some kids are hard-wired to excel in study and some aren't.

    But to say this -- especially to say this to administration or childrens' parents -- is just asking to be fired.


    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories … dents.html

    This school district decided to give it a shot, and they got fantastic results.

    Interesting stuff.

    1. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I tend to agree; however, I also think some of those "wired" not to excel may be bored, or just lazy.  A lot of students have great potential, but once they get a taste of the standard 6 or 7 class day, they realize it isn't their flavor. smile

    2. 0
      Mike Bigioniposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Great article and you are right. It is a hot topic. It makes sense to me to group kids with similar abilities to make teaching more effective. I had similar situations of huge ability ranges every year. We only grouped some students who were really low and it was a lot of paper work and meetings to get them into a different class. For the most part, parents do not want their child in anything other than their regular class even if it means helping the child.
      Would be interesting to visit the school.

    3. Sally's Trove profile image99
      Sally's Troveposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They got fantastic results because they were working outside the box, which means, getting back to the basics of what being a teacher means.

      I hope for your sake that your employers don't see this thread. Every kid is potentially receptive to the attentive care of a teacher. If teachers adopt the attitude that some kids have it and some don't, then they've pre-judged the children for whom they have the responsibility to encourage, enlighten, and teach.

      If a teacher takes the stance that kids come to them either excelling or not,  then where's the challenge for the teacher, and where's the responsibility of the teacher? Should the teacher be striving to make a difference for the child, or to assure that the child is locked into "some kids don't" excel?

      1. mom101 profile image60
        mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        sally,  you are exactly correct.

        I am SO very proud to hear for a change someone speaking up for the kids. so very proud.

        There is so so so so much I want to say but if I do, I wouldn't  stop. So, just simply.  Thank you for standing up for the kids.

        The school system "around here" has become worse than any dem/rep political race. It is awful.

      2. 0
        Mike Bigioniposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think the idea is to challenge teachers. The responsibility of the teacher is to educate the students and to meet their needs. A good educator is going to put a great effort in no matter what the situation is so why not try to make it so that effort is maximized for effectiveness? It is a lot easier to meet students' needs when they are grouped accordingly. This means better service gets provided.

        The idea here is that those people who want the best for the kids are in favour of grouping according to needs. It seems that people who are opposed to exploring this possibility are more concerned with appearance. It looks bad and people claim all sorts of discrimination while what is really going on is a bunch of adults are worried about their own needs.

        This "tracking" method is sure to fail for one reason only: Adults can't handle the fear of having their child not be the best or at the top. It is time we teach kids that everyone is different. Everyone has their own strengths and weakness and it is OK if you can't paint a picture, write a book or figure out that computer program. There is something you are meant to do and you need to find and foster your own individual skills.

        1. mom101 profile image60
          mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No Mike, let's not ever challenge a teacher, let's put all the stress we can on the kids. They are young, they can handle it.

          Hey, I am for every year at the beginning of the school year to first, make it a mandatory law that all school officials teachers to janitors be drug tested.Then mid way thru the year do a random screening with all being screened. And my list goes on.

          1. 0
            Texasbetaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Really? Drugs is the problem? That is ridiculous. Anybody who can look at our system, see that teachers and school systems are literally mandated to only teach a single test each year, handicapped by the influx of parental rights in schools, demanding this or that for the very kid that they ignore at home, the ridiculousness of our school boards and editorial processes involving what is included in a textbook, along with the onslaught of parents who tell their kids that Adam rode a T-Rex when they get home...and you think it is the teacher's fault and they must be smoking weed at night? Yeah...sounds like a poorly thought out and reactionary answer to a dramatically large problem.
            Mike - Thank you for being a teacher. You should be one of the highest paid people in the country. You deserve to smoke a joint when you go home from that.

            1. mom101 profile image60
              mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Texasbeta. Boy did you miss it or what

              Problem? There are more than one.

              Drug test? What's the problem with that? Have you ever applied for a job? First thing required is a what? A drug test. I wonder why companies make their employees to do this?
              Whatever their reason is, (safety wise I assume)....

              No, I ain't even answering this,

              Yes Mike, thank you for teaching. I am sure you have compassion, understanding and patience for the children.

              I am not against teachers that do their job, just those that abuse the system. It happens.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Teacher's have to have FBI background checks and must be fingerprinted to receive licensure.

                We also have to have physical tests to make sure we don't have TB and other diseases.

                And other such things!

                1. mom101 profile image60
                  mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That is wonderful.

                  I applaud a teacher who has a genuine desires to teach children.

                  As a teacher, I am almost positive you have seen at least one teacher who just plain and simple is sucking the system. Wants a paycheck for dressing nice and yelling at kids. Or something along those lines.

                  I understand if you can't answer honestly I do.

                  I am a mother first. Friend second. My son and I have gone round and round with homework. He is just like me stubborn. Good kid. huge heart. Smart. We are not as less fortunate as many but not as wealthy as some. I just can not make that connection. People are people. Especially school aged kids. Yes, social pressure. It existed when I was in school and even way before. A great show, Little House ..... keeps coming to my mind.
                  That show portrayed the way school actually was in those days. My mom attended a school exactly like it. An entire community or neighborhood of children in one room  All very well behaved, all equally taught. By one teacher. All on their on pace, too.  There were those better off than others, there were the middle class, and there were the less fortunate. Funny thinking, but, the less fortunate seem to have compassion while the better off seem to be snooty minded. Vain even.

                  Do you mind a question? As a teacher, and other than the curriculum being taught, do you feel that what a teacher says to a student stays with them throughout their lives?

                  Pay. A good teacher is well worth the price paid, while a teacher who is half way dedicated to their profession ain't worth the ink used to write the check. It is a waste of time, theirs, the student's and others.

                  There is no reason why classrooms should not be as orderly as those shown on the show Little House... I mean, there are no tolerance laws. If a kid misbehaves to the point of disrupting the classroom, send him out.

                  Schools around here have a security policeman on the premise for things that get out of hand. That in its self is a shame.

                  Ok, here, one teacher does something bad. All teachers are viewed as bad. yes, I understand that to not be the case. But it happens. And it happens in all "jobs". That is just part of life.

                  Example, Joe goes to the local parts place to get a set of brakes to put on his vehicle. The cashier sells him the wrong part. Joe goes and tells his friends hey they don't know what they are doing over at >>>>>>. It happens.

            2. mom101 profile image60
              mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Texasbeta. Boy did you miss it or what

              Problem? There are more than one.

              Drug test? What's the problem with that? Have you ever applied for a job? First thing required is a what? A drug test. I wonder why companies make their employees to do this?
              Whatever their reason is, (safety wise I assume)....

              No, I ain't even answering this,

              Yes Mike, thank you for teaching. I am sure you have compassion, understanding and patience for the children.

              I am not against teachers that do their job, just those that abuse the system. It happens.

            3. mom101 profile image60
              mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Texas, I am so sorry. I meant to mention this earlier, but are should have been used.

              had to do it friend, as you called someone earlier on their grammar.

              1. 0
                Texasbetaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't see where I messed up, but I deserve it. Bad grammar for some reason bothers me quite a bit, particularly when I am at fault.

                I don't think teachers need drug tests all of the time, but to my knowledge, they get them at least once a year, and have randoms. I know in Texas they get tested. However, I am against drug tests in general, and will admit that the fundamental reason is that I don't think weed should be illegal. There are obvious reasons for my motivation in this context, and I will readily admit it.
                I think the system is dramatically more at fault with regards to the failure of our children than the teachers, though I will admit that there are plenty of horrible teachers. There are plenty of horrible everything though. Spending a day with those little evil, loud, obnoxious, little jerks all day is nearly impossible I would imagine. So, I give them a bit of a break considering they make less than my lowest paid employee.
                If I offend anyone by calling their kid a little jerk, I apologize...to an extent. They are probably great kids, but get 30 of them together and then tell me they are all little angels.

                1. mom101 profile image60
                  mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Drugs are. But, I was just picking. I too, have a tendency for correcting others with their grammar. I goof up all the time. Especially when trying to type a thought. I get carried away.

                  Be it weed or anything else that alters one thinking, it should not be legalized. We are talking our children here. I personally would like to think that my child while in the care of an individual is as safe as can be. By saying you wish weed were legal, I have to ask, would you sit with your 8 or 9 year old and share a joint? Of course not. Well, I hope not.

                  Oh I am positive that any classroom is filled with many different personalities. But here  again, the fact is, the teacher in that classroom was trained to handle such things. Those that can't handle the heat need to leave the kitchen.

                  Some say weed is natural. So is poison ivy.

                  I ain't going to get started on that subject.

                  1. mikelong profile image83
                    mikelongposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    With alcohol and cigarettes being legal, would you sit with your 9 year old and consume them together?

                    Your logic is flawed.

                    So, instead of accepting reality (that prohibition does not work, that money is being wasted on a "war" that cannot be won, and that weed is not the harmful substance people have made it out to be) we will continue to perpetuate a system that (through the actions of police and criminal justice alike) preys on weak members of our society and propogates/incentivises corruption?

                    I hope not.... Why haven't we learned from our mistakes yet?

                    In terms of drug testing, it is unfortunate that it is constantly the "underlings" who are compelled to sumbit...  How many administrators are giving urine samples? What of the politicians who would draft and vote to push this measure into law?

                  2. 0
                    Texasbetaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I wouldn't endorse a kid using weed, nor would I endorse them using tobacco or alcohol, both of which are legal. You don't want things that alter your thinking? Do you use caffeine? Do you eat chocolate? Do you eat anything with sugar? Do you drink water that is soaked with hormones? All of these things alter your thinking.
                    I can't say weed alters my thinking, I honestly can't. Though, I do recall when I first used it...it did, at least, it made me retarded the first few times. Then, about 30 minutes later I got hungry and 20 minutes after that I went to bed. Really dangerous. Pot people don't get in the car for the most part. They don't get into fights. They don't drunk dial their ex. They don't wreck their cars into kids. They don't really do much except get everything they want for the night, go home, smoke, watch a movie, eat and go to bed. It serves a person dramatically better for things like chronic pain, stress, tension, a chaotic mind in need of a reprieve, cancer, glaucoma, etc. I get the argument that just because it is natural it isn't good. Opium is natural and I don't think that is good to make legal. However, I do believe that weed is one of those intended things for mankind, with evidence of its use going back before written history. I typically think it is a good thing. Though, everything must be used in moderation, even sugar. Too much of anything or a reliance upon anything, I think is a bad thing. Too much weed has never killed anyone however, not a single time in the history of man. Too much McDonalds kills people every day.
                    Now, if you want to take weed out of the drug test and test for things like cocaine and opiates? Sure. I don't want a teacher who does coke at night. I know what coke does to people. I don't want a teacher who has a drink of alcohol each night either, as I know what that does too. In fact, I know from firsthand knowledge what most drugs, legal and not do. Needless to say, I had a blast in college. Of all the things I have dabbled in, to my grownup days of today where I won't take a drink and won't eat sugar or red meat (I am really crazy these days obviously), weed has proven to be quite beneficial to me personally. I have a tendency to be incredibly depressed, a my brain doesn't produce enough dopamine (or seratonin- not sure, I am not a great science guy). It would shock you to see how much that can affect someone. Antidepressants make me a zombie, in a cloud without the ability to think critically, and it also messes with my junk. I like my junk. It appears there was a natural remedy all along. I don't think it is for everyone. I know people who can run miles and miles and that works for them to clear their heads and get their "brain juice of happiness" high, but I just don't work like that. I work out because my girl would punch me in the face if I got fat. I don't mess with her. She knows where I sleep.

      3. Topnewhottoys profile image61
        Topnewhottoysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But wait, isn't it a fact of life that each teacher's class will include both types - kids excelling, and those that aren't, (and many levels in-between)?

        I mean, otherwise, her class could only be the result of tracking if ALL her students were just of one ability level or the other.

        So... you're saying a teacher that understands and admits, (even if just to themselves), the reality of this fact of life is already failing in their responsibilities to the kids?

        And isn't that the exact challenge and responsibility, (the ones you're inquiring the whereabouts of) a teacher assumes when they face the facts and understand THEIR challenges to achieve the education of their students?

        I am sure you are probably correct that there are some teachers that would just shrug and ascribe to your position, but a good teacher is going to understand their students have different levels of abilities and face the challenge of benefiting ALL students - rather than except the PC ideal of equitable mediocrity.

        You can't have a team of super stars because even then - some will be better than others, just as you can't have a team of complete dunces, because again, some will be less of a dunce than others.

        To ignore the reality of this in pursuit of the ideal is irresponsible, and in the case of children's education, tragically irresponsible.

        Or at least that's my opinion, but I have been wrong before -- back in '78 I thought I was mistaken, but I was wrong.


    4. MickeySr profile image87
      MickeySrposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I (of course, my wife and I) have raised 6 kids, all did well in school, all went on to college . . . 4 girls & 2 boys, all raised in the same home, in the same way, by the same people - and all approached, felt, and accomplished their schooling differently. One would never need to be reminded or encouraged to give attention to schoolwork, another needed to be chased after relentlessly to do schoolwork. For one it all came easy, for another it was consistently a struggle. And they are all intelligent, responsible people.

      The distinction in this matter is not necessarily who is raised properly or who has a good working mind - the distinction is temperament. some people are simply more academically inclined than others . . . not smarter, just more apt and favorable to doing research, to investigation, even to being tested. Certainly there are academically inclined kids whose parents have made them nearly useless for a classroom through a lack of discipline, and there are academically challenged kids whose upbringing has made them assets to the classroom by providing them a proper self-esteem and sense of personal responsibility - but my point here is that, as you say, it's not race, ethnicity, culture, etc, but some kids simply are prone to academic processes and some simply are not.

      I myself am a grand example of this; I virtually stopped participating in school by the 7th grade and stopped going altogether in the 10th grade - I am a high school dropout . . . but I have a good working mind and am academically inclined, meaning, what's fun for me is to learn new things, to pursue an idea, to open some books and do research to gather information and then correlate it into an understanding of 'whatever'. My experience is that most folks who know me are quite surprised that I did not go to college, let alone that I dropped-out of high school.

      The point being, most, I think, count me to be a good bit smarter than I actually am and that's because I tend to be academically inclined. I don't have some smart kids and some not so smart kids . . . the ones whose school work came easy for them are not any smarter than the ones who struggled, and again, they all come from the same genetic code and were raised the same way - some kids (people) are simply academically inclined and others are more creatively inclined or more industrious, etc, just as some of us are more spontaneous and others more deliberative, some more intuitive and some more analytical, etc, etc.

  2. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    Socio-economic background plays a huge role in terms of a given student's academic success. This cannot be discounted.

    1. 0
      Mike Bigioniposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Definitely Mike! I taught for 12 years in 2 inner-city schools and it was a challenge. The majority had no support at home, no quiet place to do homework and unhealthy diets. The brain can't function well when the body isn't nourished properly.

  3. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 4 years ago

    Grouping students according to ability levels is nothing new..its called tracking and I attended schools that used it.
    it made some sense but schools got away from that in the 90's due to social pressures.
    The no child left behind may also have influenced that decision.
    Some researchers believed all ability students should be taught together;this way the higher functioning ones could influence and help the lower ability students. The problem with that is that kids did get bored and parents complained that their bright child was not being challenged.
    There are many theories and whatever works should be used.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A grad student brought up the idea of tracking in class (education) one day, and our professor just started yelling that it was racist and, I'm not joking, "the devil".

      So, the education community really doesn't like this idea.... but it works

      1. 0
        Mike Bigioniposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I guess your professor didn't realize that calling tracking racist is actually racist. Was he/she saying that certain minorities are weaker? As far as I understand tracking refers to academic performance.

        hahaha The funny things people say because they heard someone else say it!

      2. EmpressFelicity profile image83
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it absolutely does - provided it's done in a sensitive way that makes it clear that students can "move up" if they put the work in.

        One of the big, unsung advantages of "streaming" is that generally speaking, it puts the students who WANT to learn, together in one place - thus making it easier for them to actually, er, learn without being distracted by the bullies who don't want them to. But you will have a hard time getting the trendy educationalists to admit that.

        I sometimes think that people like your professor are the "useful idiots" that Lenin (was it Lenin?) referred to.

        1. mom101 profile image60
          mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The advantages of streaming? Ok, let's take it one step up the ladder here.
          I agree, some student's want to learn some do not care. That is just the truth anyway you want to look at it. BUT, I also feel there are teachers who truly have a teaching passion for their students where there are also those teachers who really just want the paycheck.

          Here is my idea, lets group those kids that want to learn with the teachers who want to teach and place the kids who just don't care with the teachers who just want the check. ??

          1. 0
            Texasbetaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, because that is TOTALLY viable and easily distinguishable within said parties. Why don't you just ask for Papa Smurf to fix everything?

            1. mom101 profile image60
              mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well hey, that makes just as much sense as some of the other ideas I have read here.

              To single out either teacher or student would be a form of profiling. Plain and simple.

              Do you think that all teachers have the best interest of the children at heart, and I can see that there are many who agree that there are those children that don't care whether or not they learn.

              The reality of the situation is this  The school system is broken. Badly broken. The problem does not lie within the kids alone. However, they are the ones that in the end will be "punished".

              If you can't see this then maybe this Pap Smurf you speak of has something to teach you. I mean, really.

              There is an old saying, to think, one must get out of the box. That box is comfortable huh?

              1. mom101 profile image60
                mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Money? Yeah, everybody wants more money. Money is not the answer to all questions.

                Sometimes a little effort is required to reap the harvest.  If you don't believe me, just ask a farmer. 

                Have you ever been out to eat and fill the price you paid didn't equal the food/service/quality of what you paid for?

                I do not feel the taxpayers are getting their moneys worth when it comes to the education the children are getting.

                Have you stopped to think that children ARE our future? Do you not agree that they are one of  the greatest assets we have?

                I have been involved with the school system (here) for the past 13 years. It is sad to say the least.

                I am not down on teachers. I really am not. I admire those that have a true calling and passion.  It takes a VERY special person to take on this task. But I am VERY down on those, and yes, there are those, that could care less if their students learn jack squat.

                1. 0
                  Texasbetaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Let me ask you a question, are you in favor of teaching our children intelligent design? Are you in favor of home school? Are you in favor of vouchers? Do you believe the world is only 6000 years old?

                  1. mom101 profile image60
                    mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    A question?

                    Let's see. Which one should I answer?

                    Vouchers, nope.

                    Home school, maybe, it the parent gets the money the school would have received.

                    6000 yrs old, nope.

                    Intelligent design, depends on the teacher.  This world you speak of, was intelligently designed,  but more and more people seem to want to argue that point. 


                  2. EmpressFelicity profile image83
                    EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you conflating all of these things together into some monstrous ad hominem mishmash?

  4. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    While it is a major "Duh" that our children will all learn better in a class of their "learning peers" and with a curriculum better suited to their abilities it won't last.

    It is not PC.  It is racist.  It is discriminatory.  If learning more means that students need to be separated in any manner that isn't "equal" in income levels,race and disabilities then students will not be allowed to learn.

    Sad, but the excellent work of those teachers and administrators will not be allowed to continue.  Eventually some parent that can't read the directions on how to cook a can of corn will complain, the ACLU and politicians will be brought in and the program ended with a scream of triumph.  Low level mediocrity will reign once more.

    1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
      EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this


      "There is unrest in the forest,
      There is trouble with the trees,
      For the maples want more sunlight
      And the oaks ignore their pleas.

      The trouble with the maples,
      (And they're quite convinced they're right)
      They say the oaks are just too lofty
      And they grab up all the light.
      But the oaks can't help their feelings
      If they like the way they're made.
      And they wonder why the maples
      Can't be happy in their shade.

      There is trouble in the forest,
      And the creatures all have fled,
      As the maples scream "Oppression!"
      And the oaks just shake their heads

      So the maples formed a union
      And demanded equal rights.
      "The oaks are just too greedy;
      We will make them give us light."
      Now there's no more oak oppression,
      For they passed a noble law,
      And the trees are all kept equal
      By hatchet, axe, and saw."

      Rush - The Trees

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How appropriate in this thread, for that is exactly what will happen.

      2. Topnewhottoys profile image61
        Topnewhottoysposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @EmpressFelicity - Absolutely fabulous - except now ther's another item on my to-do list: Find that author and read more.


  5. Charles James profile image87
    Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago

    "Streaming" is standard practice in the UK after age 11, and is pretty uncontroversial. Kids can move up and down between streams. In some schools the streaming is based entirely on end of year exam results. We even stream kids so that unless they are in one of the high streams they cannot take the full national exam but only at "Foundation" level where maximum grade is a "C".

    Experiments going on include teaching boys and girls seperately for some or all subjects because otherwise (1) boys hog most of the teachers time (2) boys tend to "show off" in mixed classes and (3) girls are intimidated by relentless boy pressure. The experiments seem to work.

  6. 0
    Home Girlposted 4 years ago

    So, at first we were looking for witches everywhere,
    after that we were seeing red (communism) everywhere,
    now - rasist is the most popular accusation,EVERYWHERE!
    What's next I wonder?
    To put low life idiots born from low life ape parents together with bright,eager to learn kids and force  into them the same rules, subjects, curriculum, whatever, is the most insane, preposterous, moronic idea, and people do it all the time in all countries, and it's called public education, and it is absolutely politically correct. http://www.pic4ever.com/images/297.gif

    1. 0
      Texasbetaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are several aspects to this that you aren't taking into account, along with spelling racist incorrectly, and displaying a potential racism within yourself by referring to certain people as "ape parents."
      Statistically, minorities are from poorer, less affluent families. When you are hungry, one parent at home, living in the hood where you fear for your life, not sure if you are going to eat when you get home, and your mother has an 8th grade education...you might not be as "bright, eager" and chipper in the morning. Is that the kid's fault. Should the kid pay for their parent's and grandparent's mistakes? If we go back to grandparents, don't forget that many grandparents of children in schools were products of segregation within this country, institutionally relegated to poorer, less affluent lives. In that case, it is the institution's fault, not even the grandparents. Does that kid deserve less of a shot because his grandfather was relegated to being a janitor, or killed in Vietnam as we all know blacks were more represented in the draft than any other race? Come on! Your interpretation is short sighted. I think there might be a way to do this, but to just make a reactionary and narrow viewed judgement, coupled with the "ape parents" comment...might show that you need to rethink some things, potentially things within yourself, about yourself.

    2. mom101 profile image60
      mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hey home girl, there ain't no telling what is liable to happen next. 

      This is the way I see it, teachers get paid, and paid well, to do what they chose as their profession.

      Just as the "poor little Johnny", as some would like to label him ,did not ask to be brought into this world to a family of lesser financial means as some of the other kids, no one made a teacher to choose their profession.
      Even with that, teachers at least had the opportunity to choose. I am certain that during their research they were told or they read that teaching would involve teaching children from many different backgrounds and that not all of them were born into families of wealth.

      Politically correct? Hey, home girl, you are on track. Blunt. But on track.

      I think what many are trying to say, is something along the lines of segregation of the children.

      I just can't see that working. People need to realize, our children are our future. Many great people of this country started out dirt poor and made it big time.

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink. Yes, there are kids who don't care if they learn or not, yes, this takes teaching time from the classroom, BUT let's flip the coin, there are teachers who don't care as well, This too takes learning away from the kids.

      Where is the balance? How do we balance the scales? Poor kids want education probably more than the better off kids.

      But, home girl, yes, I feel exactly what you are saying. Teachers have a way of making those that are less fortunate feel as if they are scum. I am sorry, there is just no polite way to put it.

  7. Lady_E profile image83
    Lady_Eposted 4 years ago

    I understand you to a point, but I also believe that kids learn in different ways.  Some kids learn and enjoy learning when they have a teacher who is not just nice, but also passionate about the subject.  Some switch off when the teacher is "stuck-up".

    So we should teach kids in the way they can learn. As you get to know them, you will understand what works for them - even the difficult ones. All kids have the potential to excel.

    Best wishes.

    (I teach in London)

    1. TLMinut profile image61
      TLMinutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Saying all kids have the potential to excel doesn't make sense. Part of the definition of "excel" is to surpass, to be superior so no, not all children, not all people, have that potential. Especially not in all things. For some, it's academics, for others it isn't.

      The push for all people to be the same color, have the same abilities, the same strengths, and the same everything is not realistic or even beneficial. Why is diversity considered such a crime?

      Some people are dumb, of low intelligence, have trouble understanding what is simple to most. Feeling bad for them or not liking that it's that way doesn't change that it is. Pretending that it's not so tells those people that you don't consider what they ARE good at as worthwhile - they know it's true, so pretending to not see it just makes them think they should be ashamed of not being smart.

      Some people are not smart but intelligence isn't everything. It's good, it's a major advantage, but it's not everything.

    2. mom101 profile image60
      mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Lady_E  you are exactly right.

      I noticed you teach in London.  Wish you were here. I can tell you are one that  loves your students. All of them.

      Yes, all kids have the potential to learn. Even those that are handicapped.

      Here, what seems to be missing is patience and compassion.

      Good luck to you in your teaching.

  8. Charles James profile image87
    Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago

    We are confusing various issues.

    Yes there is a wide variety of people who have various strengths and weaknesses, abilities and deficits. Some are inherited some are affected by environment, and some is just luck.

    The children of bright educated parents who value education and can afford private tutors or whatever it takes will on average do better than the children of ill educated substance abusers.

    If you live in a "good" area more of your children's classmates will be "good" and teaching that group of children is a pleasure. In the tough schools teaching is very hard work.

    I am a socialist and so I believe everyone should have an equal chance, which means more resources (not just money) needs to go into the kids who start life from disadvantaged backgrounds. To pretend everyone is equal when manifestly they are not is just plain silly.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    *raising hand and waving it*
    I know! I know!
    We need to give the parents of the smart kids vouchers so they can send their bright, eager-to-learn children to the schools of their choice.
    The rest of the kids will stay where they are and be taught by whatever teachers don't get the teacher vouchers to go to the smart kids' school.

    Oh wait. We tried that already. It was called segregation. It sucked.

    But seriously, if your Little Johnny is so brilliant, pony up the cash and send him to boarding school. Or at least to private school. It will make you feel like he's getting a superior education because you're paying a premium for it.
    Somehow, I doubt the IQ level of Johnny's public school will be adversely affected.

  10. recommend1 profile image71
    recommend1posted 4 years ago

    I think the argument here is based on the confusion in the role of education.  We all look at it as about educating our kids when in fact public education is government socially molding our kids.  The idea represented in the OP is socially divisive and whilst logically it is clearly easier to teach same ability kids this means that we will then by definition be teaching same social status kids.  The dangers here are easy to see and expanded on.

    The idea of widely different schools and different curriculum and even unlike classes in schools would be all about teaching and learning, mass classes of same everything is about indoctrination into the prevailing social constraints.

    Removing education from government and state control and put it under the control of parents would be a better solution - even though the wide variety of weirdly educated kids might be a problem, it would still be better.

    1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
      EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ? If I'm reading correctly then what you're implying is that all the children in the lowest stream would belong to one social class (the lowest, I assume), while the children in higher streams would all belong to higher social classes.

      There might indeed be a trend that way but it's never going to be a given by any means. Massive overgeneralisation! I speak as someone from a very poor background who by your logic should have been placed in the D stream their entire school career. (Fortunately, I wasn't.)

      When you say that state education is about socially moulding children, can you give specific examples of what you mean?

      1. recommend1 profile image71
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ? If I'm reading correctly then what you're implying is that all the children in the lowest stream would belong to one social class (the lowest, I assume), while the children in higher streams would all belong to higher social classes.
        No - I am stating the obvious that this is GENERALLY the case in reality, go visit a school in suburban Reading then go to an inner city school to see this.

        There might indeed be a trend that way but it's never going to be a given by any means. Massive overgeneralisation! I speak as someone from a very poor background who by your logic should have been placed in the D stream their entire school career. (Fortunately, I wasn't.) Of course this was a massive generalisation - for the use intended.  But you are confusing being poor with social status and the two are not the same thing.

        When you say that state education is about socially moulding children, can you give specific examples of what you mean?
        The whole structure of public school system is about this, from the working hours start and finish times to the uniforms, the streaming into grammar, technical and the rest (comprehensive) is (also) about management, blue collar and workers.  You could say that this a logical way of teaching to fit today's structure of society OR that this reinforces what our owners want from us.

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
          EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am not confusing them at all - but I did think you were.

          You could have argued this about 40 years ago, but not now - the grammar school system in the UK only exists in pockets of the country. (Personally, I would say that school uniforms and grammar schools are a good thing anyway - provided that a genuine attempt is made to educate everyone, not just the top 20% who would have gone to a grammar school.)

          I too believe that there may be an element of social moulding going on today, but it's hard to prove. It seems to have gone totally the other way and is trying to make everybody "equal" by standardising education. They don't call it the National Curriculum for nothing.

          I also think that large buildings with lots of children in them tend to be breeding grounds for massively unpleasant peer pressure and bullying, certainly if you have a school where a big enough proportion of the children come from dysfunctional families. The dysfunction is going to spread to the other children, because the more impressionable ones will copy the dysfunctional ones. I suspect it is this - more than anything - that makes middle class parents cough up large amounts of money to send their kids to private schools. If I had (a) had children and (b) had lots of money, that's what I'd do too.

  11. HattieMattieMae profile image71
    HattieMattieMaeposted 4 years ago

    Lot's of reason children don't excel in school! Multiple reason's. Money is never the answer really. You can teach a child with a stick and dirt drawing in the sand. It comes down to environment at home, love, support, encouragement, motivation, example, as well as the same thing at school. If children have emotional problems between friends and family do you really think they care what is happening educational wise?

  12. HattieMattieMae profile image71
    HattieMattieMaeposted 4 years ago

    Yay, was one of those children never excelled in school! Think it was basically family life, and teachers that were not postive and supportive. Role models. Had one teacher tell me I'd never go to college or amount to anything. Well I was a straight A student in College Cum La De. Hmm...What made it or broke it was the Teachers. They either drive you to succeed or fail! What kind of teacher are you is the question when you teach your students. Do you lift them up, or drag them down? All in the way you handle them, and every student is different. smile

    1. mom101 profile image60
      mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      HattieMatieMae:  Truth as it is.

      Teachers fail to make this connection.  Well, most of them. There are a few in each school that are true teachers.

      Yes, every child in every class room is different. What a child is taught by a teacher will carry with that child a lifetime. Teachers play as much a part in a child's life as a parent.

      Have a beautiful day.

  13. Onusonus profile image87
    Onusonusposted 4 years ago

    I think it is essential for the bettering of our society to send the smart kids to smart classes and the rest just have to deal with the fact that they are average and can still have good, productive, and successful lives. Since our public officials don't know how to properly spend money the least they could do is save up a little cash for the future individuals who have the potential to learn how to count.

  14. dtrunce profile image59
    dtrunceposted 4 years ago

    As a frustrated mom of 2 school aged children I do agree that kids excel at different levels.  It's really no different than some kids performing better than others in sports, music, or art.  But the pressure the teachers are put under to produce certain levels of achievement on the standardized testing is crazy.  It creates an environment where the teachers have no choice but to skim over the basics and teach at a pace that majority of kids can't keep up with. The result is that these kids get to middle school and they still struggle with things like simple math.  If you don't believe me ask a teenager to make change for you without using a cash register and watch him/her start to sweat.

    1. mom101 profile image60
      mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      dtrunce, I agree, teachers are put under a lot of pressure to get thru the material given at the beginning of the year to teach which lines up with the overly rated test. As far as the test goes, I have yet to see what good it does either the teacher or the student. It is not a graded test, and I would venture to say that at least 50% of the kids that take it, just pencil in any answer. It too is flawed.

      But then again, let's look at this from a different angle. Let's say you have Sam or Linda. They work in a factory on a production line. They make say 9 an hour. They too are under pressure to keep up and if they can't they know they will be replaced. Pressure is in any job. Even if you are self employed, there is pressure.

      Who suffers from a non productive co-worker, the very people who are writing their checks. Who suffers from a non productive teacher? Our children.

      My dad and one of his friends went into business together and they held an auction once a week. Dad was the auctioneer while his friend worked the floor. Mom wrote out tickets as items were sold, I ran the deli and I was 14. Dads friends daughter was the cashier up front. When people were ready to leave they would see her to pay for the items they had bought. She had been in college 6 years, but could not make change for a ten. That is sad. She was academically smart, but outside of that she was lacking. "Book smart" alone will not cut it in the world outside of school.

      My son, had so so handwriting. His hand was lazy or something, lol. But when he made an 0 he wouldn't always close the top. Teachers knew it was an 0 but still marked his answer wrong.  this I didn't frown on, I could see both sides.

      Wherever there are more than one child, you will see more than one learning style. That is a given, my concern is, if a teacher goes to school to become a teacher, he/she is a trade professional. They have been taught how to handle just about any situation that has happened before. IF that teacher can not handle the job he/she is doing the children an injustice. maybe I worry too much.

      Bullys, peer pressure, social pressure, and the list goes on. It has always been a part of school, but it is getting worse every day. Our high school has maybe 1200 kids, thats fairly small. But it has an officer on the premises all day. That should not have to happen.

      Weigh the pros and cons of school against those of home schooling. Hands down, home school wins. Yes, I know, many parents are not qualified to teach at home.

    2. mom101 profile image60
      mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      drunce: welcome to hubpages. Just saw you were new here.

      Hope you enjoy.

      Looking forward to reading some of your hubs.

      Best of luck to you and your children.

      1. dtrunce profile image59
        dtrunceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks so much.  Still navigating my way but having a good time doing it.  I have a couple of hubs in draft (one coincidently on education today) so stay tuned!

        1. mom101 profile image60
          mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          My pet peeve. lol. 

          Looking forward to reading.

  15. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    As a retired high school teacher, I have to weigh in here. It might not be PC, but tracking works. When kids of different ability levels are in the same class, the teacher teaches to the middle. The brighter kids are bored, and the lower kids are lost. Some schools prepare kids ONLY for college. All kids aren't going to college - they need other options. In the school where I taught, we address this need with numerous programs. Students can learn to become welders, draftsmen, auto mechanics, farmers, cosmetologists, nurses' aides, childcare workers, construction workers, cooks, marketers, etc.

    Not ALL students can go to college, and not ALL students want to attend college. Today, many non-college jobs pay more than jobs for the college educated.

    1. mom101 profile image60
      mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Middle is ok. Not the best, not the worst. But ok.

      We too have the co-op classes and the students seem to do very well. It is the academic or traditional classes they have a problem with.

      My son, went to his principal, and talked with him extensively. He told him he could no longer handle the pressure of everything combined. Peer pressure, bullys, teacher rejection, and so on. He asked the principal if there was something he could do to finish high school as he wanted to graduate but mentally everything coming against him he had to do something else or quit. Yes I cringed. My son, now 18, a senior, did not need my permission to quit school.

      The principal told him of a program, thru the school, for kids that were having difficulties, (my first thought was alternative school, but it isn't) with traditional school. I was torn, I liked the fact that he was mature enough to ask for guidenace, but hurt that he had to.

      I watched, at least 10 of the 13 years he has been in school, him come in and absolutely hate having to go back. I agreed to let him try this new course of action. I was unsure to say the least what it was, etc.

      First day, I took him, I picked him up. He was happy happy happy.He loved it. There were kids no where near in his social group, kids from all walks of life. Girls, boys, rich, poor, pretty, not so pretty. A very diverse group of kids.
      Class started at 8 and ended at 3. Ok, the entire time they are in a classroom, they are on a computer doing their classes. Right up his alley. They start a subject and they can not go to the next one until it is complete. They work on their own pace. They do not change classes. It is straight work. They got one break and that was lunch. Which by the way is catered to them. They do not leave the classroom. If they need a break, they can take one, inside the classroom. They are allowed to have a drink and a snack at their workstation as they work.

      He took his gateway test the other day and got his results yesterday. He passed it with advanced in most subjects. Where as in a traditional classroom, he was BARELY skimming thru.

      Habee, tomorrow, he will finish his last lessons. And he will be finished. Then in May, at graduation, he will walk across the stage and get that diploma.

      This is not a tracking class. The only way to be involved in this part of the high school is by invitation.

      When the principal saw he was serious about quitting, he received his invitation. The principal told him that if one more person dropped out they could easily lose their funding for the school.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is awesome, mom! My middle daughter did not do well in traditional high school, either. When she went to nursing school, however, she graduated at the top of her class!

        1. mom101 profile image60
          mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Habee, looks like it is going to be Monday before he is finished. He played hookie today. (and we had all kinds of suprises for him).

          I am glad to hear that habee. I hope she enjoys her field. My mom was a nurse for several years. She loved it.

      2. EmpressFelicity profile image83
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Glad your son found something that worked for him. Just goes to show that one size definitely doesn't fit all when it comes to education (or pretty well anything else, come to that).

        1. mom101 profile image60
          mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Almost empress, almost. he is almost finished. One maybe two more days.

          This program is a fairly new one and how it came about was simple. If one or two more students dropped out of high school, the school would have lost their funding. They quickly came up with a plan to keep those thinking of quitting in school.

          The kids that go here surrender the hour long lunch to visit with friends, they don't get a 5 minute break in between classes, they don't get field trips, they don't get to go to the pep rallys, or any other programs. Instead, they sit glued to a monitor all day doing lessons. And they love it.

          This goes to show, the traditional school system is too much geared toward the social end of the spectrum. In my opinion.

  16. LeanMan profile image82
    LeanManposted 4 years ago

    I went to a school where students were streamed for their ability - this is fine for the top end of the spectrum but what tended to happen at the bottom end was that the students that had difficulties were dragged even further behind by the disruptive kids that just did not want to be there...

    The teachers teaching the lower end also treated them like the lower end and failed to challenge them so they had no motivation to be anything else but the lowest set in the school.

    I have seen this as both a student and as a teacher and as a school governor in the UK whilst observing lessons..

    But there are two sides to this - ability and willingness to learn

    Streaming is fine if everyone actually wants to learn - there needs to be something else in place to motivate the dissafected students - I don't have time to search for it but I remember a few years back a story in one of the UK nationals where they took an unruly disruptive and totally obnoxious student from one of the worst schools in the country and put him in a school for the "elite" - he could not compete to be the worst in the school so within two years he was top of his classes!!!!!

  17. TLMinut profile image61
    TLMinutposted 4 years ago

    Some say weed is natural. So is poison ivy.

    I always tell my friend that!
    I do, however, believe marijuana should not be controlled by the govt or FDA.
    Too much of the country's resources are spent/wasted on dealing with it that
    would be much better used elsewhere.

  18. TLMinut profile image61
    TLMinutposted 4 years ago

    It's always good to hear of experimental educational approaches and the results achieved or not with them. I understand that what we have now is meant to be the most efficient way to get the most education for the most students; unfortunately we can't turn out well-educated people on an assembly line. What's truly needed is the freedom to try other methods. We're worried, possibly rightly so, that children will lose out if tried in a non-successful method but that's happening already! There's no way to standardize humans. It's fine to have standardized tests (standardized in that context is not bad, we need standards to evaluate the performance of a method) but not to require that each child in the entire country reach those standards in the exact same way.

  19. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago


    So you, regardless of your reason concerning how it affects the individual, you thereby support the judicial/legal corruption that the failed prohibition has caused?

    Wasted tax dollars...the creation of a black market where money disappears into corrupted officials and other criminals' hands...

    Regardless of your personal opinion about the substance, you demonstrate an "out of touch with reality and its physical/moral/financial costs" mindstate.

    1. mom101 profile image60
      mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Physical mindstate?  I rottens teeth. The list could go on for a long time. You know it.

      Moral mindstate? Kids go hungry because some weed head thinks more of his fix than the child in his care. Again, the list could go on.

      Financial mindstate? If it becomes legal, DO YOU NOT THINK the money from the sale of it is going to end up in the same place? Or worse?

      Are your eyes so clouded that you can't see this?

  20. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    Sugar rots teeth, and causes all kinds of harm...  I see the aftershocks (one called diabetis for sure) that are directly linked to sugar consumption and abuse..

    Imagine the United States if sugar was made illegal....  Caffiene products illegal...  Tobacco illegal...  Alcohol...already a proven failure in practical application..

    In a nation supposedly founded on individual liberty, is it not the responsibility of the person to take care of his or her teeth?  Is it the government's job to make marijuana illegal for the sake of my dental health?

    One might try to minimize the relationship I made between weed and sugar, but let us look at what the "scientists" say about this sweet treat:

    http://www.smoothie-handbook.com/sugar- … fects.html


    But we know this already...

    State prohibition of alcohol failed. Its prohibition on drugs continues to fail, and a ban on widely desired products like caffeine, nicotine and sugar would also fail...  These schemes only work to make a very few wealthy, with a large portion being collected by those paid to "enforce" the law. We then lose tax dollars that should be going elsewhere into a failed and corrupted "regulation" system as well as into the black market. Instead of enabling legal corporate and individual licenses, we ensure that weed is simply a tool used to get what real criminals actually want....weapons.

    If we wish to point to the cartels, we can see that they will utilize anything in order to get cash in order to buy weapons and advantage in their ever expanding illicit markets. 

    I want to see these pathways shut down. The government claims to desire it, but has been shown to actually see it as a way to suck more money out of the Social Security fund..

    As for "weed heads", you point to something that was created by criminalization and an overwhelmingly hostile professional environment (at least when one is initially seeking employment).  Whoever it is you are picturing in your mind when you wrote that statement perhaps had some other issues..  Was marijuana the only substance used?  Was there alcohol involved? Cigarettes? You try to speak about a subject simply that simply cannot be discussed in such a way..

    You can look up yourself people who have or currently do consume cannabis and who are also diametrically opposed to the stereotype you put forward...

    The money for legal sale can, in part, go to sales tax. In an era, looking at the 999 plan and so forth, when so much burden is placed on the sales tax as it is, we should be smart enough to take advantage of products that are in demand. When I was in the Marines we had guys who would make their own beer...people can make their own beer across the country..  Why can't we also grow a plant ourselves?  I don't know why this is?

    "The kids....the kids...."   It's already there....it has been there a long....long..time...way before there were laws to criminalize it..

    I was reading an article (I've looked for it recently and can't find it..at least not easily.) reflecting on marijuana use in New York City prior to the prohibition.

    It used to grow wild along the banks of the Manhattan River. People would just walk over, pick some buds, and head back home. There was no concern, especially the way we have seen it fairly recently (and recognizing that in places other than California and states that have relaxed their stance on it still come down pretty hard for even simple possession for personal use).

    The money does not flow to criminals if the product is legalized...the gun runners/human traffickers/society ruiners lose a major source of revenue... We can reduce deficits by cutting our budgets and increasing revenue through taxation.. 


    1. mom101 profile image60
      mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ok bottom up. Let's say for a brief second I agree, the money wouldn't go to the gun runners if the substance were to be made legal.

      But the rest of that statement needs to be addressed. THEY will get their money somewhere. If not from weed, then quiet possibly as you put it human trafficking. More small children possibly snatched up away from their parents and sold into who knows what.
      Deficit???? Now that's clever. Do you honestly think for a second that if weed were to be made legal, we could count on our government to put that money toward the deficit?
      People growing weed for their own use. Tobacco is legal to grow. I'm not all that familiar with the regulations. Here is an idea. Lets say a family of 4. Mom, dad, 2 kids. Let's say they are allowed to legally grow for their own consumption 5 pounds of weed a year. Any more then there would be stiff fines. But out of that 5 pounds, they were not allowed to sell one grain or leaf which would make it still illegal to sell.
      You say kids, kids, kids, its there anyway right? If I had a kid who insisted on smoking it I think I would rather him be at home. In your view, kids already have it. You may be surprised to know, there are fewer and fewer kids smoking it now than 5 years ago.
      Alcohol is legal. People who get caught drinking and driving are fined. Some are involved in accidents that have been fatal. But it is still legal.
      Cigarettes,  they are legal but the use of them have been right at banned.

      Products in demand. Wait here. I will be back

      1. mom101 profile image60
        mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you.  I am in no way saying that people who use the stuff are bad people; I know some people who use it and are very genuine good hearted people. thats not the problem.

        Individual liberty. Let's not go there. Please.

        My dental problems? They are just that. Mine. I take care of them. I know what caused them. It was well Im not sure I can say that here, but the dentist said from drinking soda.

        Lastly, sugar. Yes, it can be hazardous to ones health if too much of it is consumed on a regular basis. Diabetes, however, is not caused by sugar.

        1. mikelong profile image83
          mikelongposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand your issues with the "personal liberty" statement I made...

          If one is free to grow their tobacco and brew their beer, how is growing their own cannabis different?

          I have read up on my diabetes, and see that perspectives regarding the role sugar plays have changed...or is it the "keep sugar flowing" lobby greasing the research wheels? Either way, people are free to choose how much of it they consume...

          http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-12 … -addiction

          1. mom101 profile image60
            mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Personal liberty?  What about personal responsibility?

            That is part of the reason this country is in the shape it is in. Lack of responsibility.

            I haven't read a response from you about being allowed to grow your smoke, but only enough for what you would consume in a years time. Lets say 5 pounds. Now that you are allowed to grow it, you can not sell even one grain of it, elsewise, there will be stiff fines.

            Now, tell me, how would that help this economy?

            1. mikelong profile image83
              mikelongposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If one is not limited on how much brew they can produce for themselves and their friends....if I can grow my own tobacco....there should be as much/as little regulation of cannabis...

              It is really this simple.  Responsibility is up to the individual...no one is perfect..I'll admit to that wholeheartedly. Yet, this word has nothing to do with my claim about personal freedom. 

              Again, there is no justifiable reason for the government to enact/perpetuate prohibition...at least not a good reason.

              How would the economy be helped?

              Must we reiterate how much tax payer money goes in to this failed drug war, especially when it comes to marijuana?

              How much less taxation would we have?

              Imagine getting rid of the cost of all this:


              If that funding on the local, state, and federal levels was sent back to the states/localities, I wonder if we could finance free undergraduate education in public universities...the way it was when my former professors were students?

              With 1/2 less people incarcerated, we would of course need less prison guards and law enforcement...and here in California....the prison guard's union is the strongest..  We are making them stronger by perpetuating failed policies that, like modernism/master plan mentality as a whole, do not recognize reality. While I do not stand against unions, correctional unions like to lobby for longer incarceration times for convicts...

              While there are crimes that deserve time...rape, murder, fraud, assault/battery, types of theft, racketeering, etc...there are others that do not, or actually do nothing but undermine "justice" as we know it.. There are gross imbalances in how "justice" is defined:


              I have witnessed with my own eyes, and have heard enough testimonies from those who have been in the "system" that it is rife with abuse and corruption. "Rife" doesn't even do the situation justice. Some skeletons are falling out of the L.A. County Jail's (the largest jail system in the nation/arguably the world) closets...but there is far more than is being discussed..at least of yet. 

              What our society, especially out here in the suburbs/urban areas, lacks is a relationship with agriculture.  If people get more interested in growing plants, there is nothing wrong with that, at least in my book. Perhaps there would be greater interest in math/science in our society.

              If people decide to grow their own strains of cannabis and desire to make a business they can get permits/licenses to conduct business and they can sell their wares on the market like any commodity.  They would be unique, and money will be made in income.. (sales taxes..income taxes...more money floating around in general than before). A lot of natural sciences/horticultural-based creation/innovation can spread..openly without fear of confiscation/legal recrimination.

              I don't see any problem with this... In fact I firmly believe (as Pablo Rodriguez states) "there is no culture without agriculture."

              Additionally, the flawed prohibition law denies the ability to produce hemp, which, though in the cannabis family, does not grow anything that one can get "high" from...  The United States once had a vibrant, wide open hemp industry...even good ol boy President George the 1st (Washington) grew it.

              We deny ourselves the tools of small-intermediate industry...and strap ourselves to the big corporate rat race...  We need to create alternative modes of creating industry..and hopefully using environmentally friendly methods. There are things that can be done, but we have to admit that what we have been told is false. We have to be willing to set a new course by bringing down federal regulations and, at least, let the individual states decide for themselves what they wish to do.

              There is so much more here than I am even beginning to scratch at...but I hope that you can begin to see the possibilities...

              1. mom101 profile image60
                mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Let's not forget the textile factor?

                talk about flawed, this idea hasn't been thought thru.

                I am not a selfish person,  for the reasoning, I suggested makin it legal to grow what a consumer would use.

                Not good enough.

                Tobacco companies? You want to be equal with them? There's a lot of money invested before one ounce of tobacco is sold. Lots n lots of money., not to mention regulations and such.

                Industry? Why not put the ole hemp to use in clothing? Maybe even since it has the ability to be one of the strongest ropes, maybe it could be used in some kind of building materials to build houses?

                yes, I am being sarcastic. Kinda. I mean, the fact is, the stuff alters ones thinking, has been linked to causing mental illness, when dependent on it, one tends to do without the basic necessities such as food and shelter. I feel it is the stepping stone to one using harder drugs later on. Not a risk we should comprise on.

                People that want it, they are going to get it. Period. Years ago, moonshine was illegal. Now, here in Tn, one can make it.

                In my guessing, I'd guess, in the next few years, the feel good plant will become legal.

                Medicinal uses such as in cancer and the like, I can see helping one to escape pain.

      2. Jean Bakula profile image98
        Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This thread is a bit confusing, it begins with teaching and ends up about pot? My son has been a karate student since he was ten, and he loved the discipline and feeling of empowerment it gave him.  He was in a leadership program at this school since 7th grade, and at 23 will be the successor when his Sensei retires. It's not a McDojo of mixed martial arts, his Sensei is the only 9th degree black belt in the US in this Shobukan Goju Ru style. My son learned that he loved working with young children from karate and just got out of college with a K-5 teaching certification, graduating at the top of his class. During his student teaching, he was blessed with great teachers who cared, and lucky enough to practice in K and 5, both ends of his range. He wants K or 1st grade, as he sees children already start to hate school by 3rd grade. Many parents are the lazy ones. Kindergarten isn't play time and naptime and cookies anymore. Your 5 year old should know how to print the whole alphabet, upper and lover case,  do simple math, and be in the beginning stages of reading before you send them to kindergarten, or they will already be behind. Most parents beg to not have their kids left back in kindergarten because it's such a stigma, but they should have been reading and teaching the kids for years before school started, not blaming the teachers for being lazy when they have made no effort, and don't get me started about the lack of discipline. Most classes have special needs programs and they are seamlessly adapted into the same lessons the other kids have, with an aide, so they don't stand out badly. My son is just subbing now, as our R Governer fired all the older teachers to screw them out of their pensions and will hire younger, less experienced teachers. He hasn't let the schools hire yet. Many teachers have to buy notebooks and pens and pencils for their st udents.  My son spends hours thinking of lesson plans on his own time, and will be grading papers on his own time too. Since he's a guy, he  ends up with playground duty, and the women expect him to fix anything too. But he feels it's a calling for him, and he is gifted. So he'll make $45K a year when he gets a F/T job. Hardly what bankrupted our state. Teachers also take seminars all year long to keep up on educational credits, and he will need a Master's degree too in time, which we can't afford right now. Sure, the Unions protect bad teachers. But nobody notices the good ones who give up so much of their time. The food drives for Thanksgiving, the visits to elder care homes, it all takes so much work and planning. I think the parents are the duds, they need to prepare their children. I know HS students who don't even know their states in the US from countries.

        1. mom101 profile image60
          mom101posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jean:  I am proud to hear that your son has chosen to teach K. It, in my opinion, is one of the most crucial years of school. He has his hands full I am sure. But, from your description, he is the kind of teacher we need more of.

          I firmly agree with you that parents should always seek ways to teach their children.

          When my son started k, he knew all the things that you mentioned. His k teacher and 1st grade teacher told me straight out of their mouths, it was time for me to back off teaching and let them teach him. That is when I got my DA degree.

          He is an only child, and my mother kept him while I worked. She constantly found ways to incorporate learning into their daily routine. At home, while I cooked dinner, went grocery shopping, driving, he and I would sing "learning songs", we would see how many red cars, etc, When he started k and took the test to see where he was academically, he placed 2nd year 9th month. The teachers said that they had to teach to the class, and while the class was learning, he was handed busy work.
          The principal suggested he be moved to 3rd grade. I declined, as he was an only child, he needed more interaction with kids his own age, as he was primarily among adults. He was academically "smart" but let me tell you that kid was nowhere near coordinated. He could not skip or jump rope in p.e. class. I swear to you, his teacher told me, he will never learn to read. ......The next day, I took her 15  or so of the "books" he had made and written. I must tell you,  those little folded paper paged books, are worth more to me than any amount of gold one could have. Just little presents when I would pick him up from mamas, and since she is no longer with us, the books, I find him looking at from time to time, describing the fun they had making them for me.

          Jean, we need more sincere teachers such as your son. They are few and far between. Yes, there are parents who need to help their children more, these are the things we agree on. The differences are: there are teachers who "play" the system. Should your son remain in this field I guarantee you if he hasn't already met one, he soon will.

          Well wishes to him as he starts his career.

          1. Jean Bakula profile image98
            Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks so much. It sound like I did many of the things you did as a Mom! My son always was a leader, and although he was good, didn't always want to follow and do what the teacher said, he had his own ideas! I also kept him back because he was also an only child (I think we give them so much more attention) and he wasn't as mature or coordinated as the other kids either. We live on a sort of isolated street. The similarities are funny. Thanks for writing back.

  21. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago

    I agree that those seeking cash and weapons in other than legal reasons with legal/moral intents will find other ways...

    But, we could also decrease the amount (at least domestically) of people in these areas if we 1) stop creating criminals unnecessarily--enabling the creation of an unemployable pool--think of the psychological implications here...2) use money that is being wasted in the War on Drugs bureaucracy and increase revenue through comsumption taxation (though I also believe that people should be able to grow their own as well..just as people can brew their own beer).

    By cutting federal, state, and local spending on trying to eliminate weed we save money....cutting at least some of the deficit spending we take on when we pass budgets every year on all 3 levels of governance...

    Weed is simply a thing....the character of the person is something else...but we have to recognize the role that society as a whole plays on one's development...

  22. yellowstone8750 profile image61
    yellowstone8750posted 4 years ago

    Lack of social mobility is real. The middle class is also shrinking. It's not all a matter of drive or mbition.

  23. mikelong profile image83
    mikelongposted 4 years ago


    "It alters thinking"......again...if that was the basis for criminalization/prohibition we can go after all kinds of legal substances...

    Marijuana is not a "gateway drug" as people so often say....nonsense...

    A vast preponderance of people only use marijuana, and nothing else...(aside from perhaps alcohol/tobacco).

    Again, you have shown no jjustifiable reason for ongoing prohibition...

    Nothing you have said outweighs the harm corruption causes at the hands of police/justice system, and you have yet to give a good reason why tax dollars should continue to disappear into the hands of those who simply want cash to buy guns and political power...domestically and abroad..

    Again, just like alcohol and the mob, the only way to break the criminal benefits are to dismantle prohibition...

    Mom, you can continue to support the cartels and crooked cops....the actual criminals...

    I'll back those who consume the buds of a simple plant....a plant that causes no harm...

  24. prettydarkhorse profile image62
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    Nice approach, as long as the school authorities are exploring how can children learn more. Mostly trial and error. The most important thing is that the ability to reason and analyze interrelationship of things are given importance in education, plus of course emotional IQ.