SENATE BILL: 2011 Education Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Snowguy716

[Ban my account ffs!]

Finally!

Senators, I urge you to support this bill.  I left it open ended because I thought it should be more comprehensive but I thought everybody should have input.

And just so we're clear:  What I mean by the class size targets is that when a school district receives the money for the class size reduction program, they must start by hiring teachers at the lowest grade levels (in my bill, this is Kindergarten-2nd grade).  Once class sizes in these grades reach the target of 18 students per classroom teacher, then they can begin hiring teachers in grades 3-5.  Once those classes reach 21 students per classroom teacher, they can move onto the next 'cohort' and so on and so forth.

Since most larger school districts are set up with a middle school/high school (k-5/6-8/9-12) combination, I put those as the default.  In rural districts and very large districts that have a junior high/senior high make up either separately or in combination (7-12 in small districts), I am allowing adjustments for them since in those districts, 6th grade is still considered an elementary grade.

The separate sex classrooms are pretty self explanatory.  The focus will especially be on boys since girls tend to perform quite well under current curriculum strategies.  Boys, however, have been falling behind for some time now.  Studies show that if teachers change their teaching methods to focus on the ways that boys learn (by having shorter class periods, doing instead of listening or watching, having more classroom activities), I think boys' achievement will go up.

I am also contemplating adding an amendment that would offer grants, especially to inner city schools, that increase the length of the school day and increasing after school programs.  This keeps the kids off the streets in the afternoon.. especially when single parents are likely to be at work.  The longer day would also allow students to complete more work in class and reduce homework loads... students are much more likely to complete their work in school than in a home environment where there is little discipline and parents are either too busy or simply don't want to be involved in their child's academics.

[Rowan]

Increasing the length of the school day is a no go for me. If you were to do that, you need to increase the salaries of the teachers and also it would result in higher utilities costs. I do not believe that local municipalities can afford that at the moment.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Increasing the length of the school day is a no go for me. If you were to do that, you need to increase the salaries of the teachers and also it would result in higher utilities costs. I do not believe that local municipalities can afford that at the moment.

Pennywise, pound foolish, Rowan!  Refusing to reform the system in order to create better outcomes among students will only greatly increase the cost to society in the future through increased crime rates and reduced economic productivity.

And for that matter, you're unlikely to raise utility bills in the schools since schools are often active during the afternoons/early evenings with extracurricular activities as it is.  It's not as if we're pushing to keep school in session until 10 o clock.  



In any case, increasing the school day is going to cost money.  That is what the grant program would cover.  

Please, just have a little foresight.  

[tmthforu94]

An interesting proposal.

One way to possibly combat high utility costs would be to give students a longer winter break and go into the summer more.

[Yelnoc]

As far as increasing class time goes, I can see that resulting in students "burning out" faster.  You can get away with skipping in High School but for younger students that behavior can be academically devastating.

[Rowan]

Increasing the length of the school day is a no go for me. If you were to do that, you need to increase the salaries of the teachers and also it would result in higher utilities costs. I do not believe that local municipalities can afford that at the moment.

And for that matter, you're unlikely to raise utility bills in the schools since schools are often active during the afternoons/early evenings with extracurricular activities as it is.  It's not as if we're pushing to keep school in session until 10 o clock.  

Not true. Air conditioning/heating is turned off in classrooms that aren't being used for afterschool activities.

[tmthforu94]

Increasing the length of the school day is a no go for me. If you were to do that, you need to increase the salaries of the teachers and also it would result in higher utilities costs. I do not believe that local municipalities can afford that at the moment.

And for that matter, you're unlikely to raise utility bills in the schools since schools are often active during the afternoons/early evenings with extracurricular activities as it is.  It's not as if we're pushing to keep school in session until 10 o clock.  

Not true. Air conditioning/heating is turned off in classrooms that aren't being used for afterschool activities.

As a high school student, I can confirm this.

[Ban my account ffs!]

As far as increasing class time goes, I can see that resulting in students "burning out" faster.  You can get away with skipping in High School but for younger students that behavior can be academically devastating.

Well, some schools have actually done this, drastically lengthening the school day until 5pm, so the school day is more than 8 hours long.  The results have been very good.

http://www.kipp.org/news/star-tribune-minneapolis-st-paul-mn-a-longer-school-day-a-smarter-kid-

As for the utility costs:  Again, that is the point of the grants.  If you don't support this, then don't.  But don't say you'd somehow support longer school days except that we have to do the obvious:  pay people more and heat the buildings longer.

Both of those things are part of the general operational budgets in schools, and these grants would pay for precisely that. 

And if you oppose paying for longer school days to keep kids off the streets in vulnerable inner city schools (that apply for the grants on a voluntary basis), are you also opposed to the rest of the bill?

Knowing this now will aid me greatly in deciding whether or not I should move forward or compromise.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Long school days? Separate sex classrooms? When I was in middle school, the girls were the only thing that kept me going!

[Rowan]

I don't support a longer school day at all, actually, and have never said that I did.

[HappyWarrior]

As far as increasing class time goes, I can see that resulting in students "burning out" faster.  You can get away with skipping in High School but for younger students that behavior can be academically devastating.

Well, some schools have actually done this, drastically lengthening the school day until 5pm, so the school day is more than 8 hours long.  The results have been very good.

http://www.kipp.org/news/star-tribune-minneapolis-st-paul-mn-a-longer-school-day-a-smarter-kid-

As for the utility costs:  Again, that is the point of the grants.  If you don't support this, then don't.  But don't say you'd somehow support longer school days except that we have to do the obvious:  pay people more and heat the buildings longer.

Both of those things are part of the general operational budgets in schools, and these grants would pay for precisely that. 

And if you oppose paying for longer school days to keep kids off the streets in vulnerable inner city schools (that apply for the grants on a voluntary basis), are you also opposed to the rest of the bill?

Knowing this now will aid me greatly in deciding whether or not I should move forward or compromise.

I agree with the long school days but not the gender seperation.  A critical part of school is learning social skills and I think keeping genders seperate can only hurt children's social skills.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

HappyWarrior has a good point


Rebuttal, Snowguy?


lol, I have become the Moderator of a Presidential Penguin Show (also known as a debate).

[Ban my account ffs!]

As far as increasing class time goes, I can see that resulting in students "burning out" faster.  You can get away with skipping in High School but for younger students that behavior can be academically devastating.

Well, some schools have actually done this, drastically lengthening the school day until 5pm, so the school day is more than 8 hours long.  The results have been very good.

http://www.kipp.org/news/star-tribune-minneapolis-st-paul-mn-a-longer-school-day-a-smarter-kid-

As for the utility costs:  Again, that is the point of the grants.  If you don't support this, then don't.  But don't say you'd somehow support longer school days except that we have to do the obvious:  pay people more and heat the buildings longer.

Both of those things are part of the general operational budgets in schools, and these grants would pay for precisely that. 

And if you oppose paying for longer school days to keep kids off the streets in vulnerable inner city schools (that apply for the grants on a voluntary basis), are you also opposed to the rest of the bill?

Knowing this now will aid me greatly in deciding whether or not I should move forward or compromise.

I agree with the long school days but not the gender seperation.  A critical part of school is learning social skills and I think keeping genders seperate can only hurt children's social skills.

I guess I should have been more clear in my bill.  The only classes separated are the four basic subjects:  language arts, science, math, and social studies.  Boys and girls would be together in PE, music, technology, art, recess, lunch time, any field trips or all school activities, and in the classroom during times when they aren't working on the 4 subjects.  Teachers would have a mixed classroom.. and then during the 4 subjects, the boys from one room would team up with the boys from the "buddy" classroom and the girls from that room would come over to buddy up.

The parts of the school day where most socialization occurs... during the classes and activities I mentioned above... students would be mixed.

Socialization is just as important as academics... but I think my proposal would increase academic performance without hurting socialization.

[HappyWarrior]

As far as increasing class time goes, I can see that resulting in students "burning out" faster.  You can get away with skipping in High School but for younger students that behavior can be academically devastating.

Well, some schools have actually done this, drastically lengthening the school day until 5pm, so the school day is more than 8 hours long.  The results have been very good.

http://www.kipp.org/news/star-tribune-minneapolis-st-paul-mn-a-longer-school-day-a-smarter-kid-

As for the utility costs:  Again, that is the point of the grants.  If you don't support this, then don't.  But don't say you'd somehow support longer school days except that we have to do the obvious:  pay people more and heat the buildings longer.

Both of those things are part of the general operational budgets in schools, and these grants would pay for precisely that. 

And if you oppose paying for longer school days to keep kids off the streets in vulnerable inner city schools (that apply for the grants on a voluntary basis), are you also opposed to the rest of the bill?

Knowing this now will aid me greatly in deciding whether or not I should move forward or compromise.

I agree with the long school days but not the gender seperation.  A critical part of school is learning social skills and I think keeping genders seperate can only hurt children's social skills.

I guess I should have been more clear in my bill.  The only classes separated are the four basic subjects:  language arts, science, math, and social studies.  Boys and girls would be together in PE, music, technology, art, recess, lunch time, any field trips or all school activities, and in the classroom during times when they aren't working on the 4 subjects.  Teachers would have a mixed classroom.. and then during the 4 subjects, the boys from one room would team up with the boys from the "buddy" classroom and the girls from that room would come over to buddy up.

The parts of the school day where most socialization occurs... during the classes and activities I mentioned above... students would be mixed.

Socialization is just as important as academics... but I think my proposal would increase academic performance without hurting socialization.

How does it improve academics?

[Ban my account ffs!]

As far as increasing class time goes, I can see that resulting in students "burning out" faster.  You can get away with skipping in High School but for younger students that behavior can be academically devastating.

Well, some schools have actually done this, drastically lengthening the school day until 5pm, so the school day is more than 8 hours long.  The results have been very good.

http://www.kipp.org/news/star-tribune-minneapolis-st-paul-mn-a-longer-school-day-a-smarter-kid-

As for the utility costs:  Again, that is the point of the grants.  If you don't support this, then don't.  But don't say you'd somehow support longer school days except that we have to do the obvious:  pay people more and heat the buildings longer.

Both of those things are part of the general operational budgets in schools, and these grants would pay for precisely that. 

And if you oppose paying for longer school days to keep kids off the streets in vulnerable inner city schools (that apply for the grants on a voluntary basis), are you also opposed to the rest of the bill?

Knowing this now will aid me greatly in deciding whether or not I should move forward or compromise.

I agree with the long school days but not the gender seperation.  A critical part of school is learning social skills and I think keeping genders seperate can only hurt children's social skills.

I guess I should have been more clear in my bill.  The only classes separated are the four basic subjects:  language arts, science, math, and social studies.  Boys and girls would be together in PE, music, technology, art, recess, lunch time, any field trips or all school activities, and in the classroom during times when they aren't working on the 4 subjects.  Teachers would have a mixed classroom.. and then during the 4 subjects, the boys from one room would team up with the boys from the "buddy" classroom and the girls from that room would come over to buddy up.

The parts of the school day where most socialization occurs... during the classes and activities I mentioned above... students would be mixed.

Socialization is just as important as academics... but I think my proposal would increase academic performance without hurting socialization.

How does it improve academics?

ugh...

Read what I've already written in this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/education/11gender.html

There are arguments for and against in this article.  But these also only take into account schools where classrooms are completely separated all day.  I think having together-time and separate-time would be even more beneficial as it would allow more open discussion of problems that students might otherwise feel uncomfortable talking about in front of boys or girls.

ANd keep in mind this is a small pilot program... not a full implementation across all schools.

[tmthforu94]

I have a concern on this for smaller schools. In my grade, there are only about 25 boys. Under this law, we'd all likely be placed in the same class. If that were to happen, someone like me on the higher end, intelligence-wise, would be slowed down.

It would be extraordinarily difficult for small schools to be able to keep honor classes and still separate boys and girls. Because in my school, if you had an honors English class for boys only, there'd be 5 students in it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have a concern on this for smaller schools. In my grade, there are only about 25 boys. Under this law, we'd all likely be placed in the same class. If that were to happen, someone like me on the higher end, intelligence-wise, would be slowed down.

It would be extraordinarily difficult for small schools to be able to keep honor classes and still separate boys and girls. Because in my school, if you had an honors English class for boys only, there'd be 5 students in it.

The vast majority of these programs are for elementary grades.  And right now this is on a "first come, first serve" basis among schools that voluntarily apply for the program.  Small districts with concerns like yours likely will not apply.

I have made no commitments to universal implementation whatsoever.  The only large-scale project in this bill is money for hiring teachers for class size reduction.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I a.ways favor smaller classes. We'd need more teachers in the workforce and proper funding to ensure that could be achieved.

I still can't support separate sex classrooms. School isn't only a place to learn, but a place to develop social skills (hence my intense opposition to home schooling), and single sex classrooms, especially in elementary school, despite what studies in Minnesota (a limited sample) say, I'm going to be stubborn.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What.... The.... Fyck ?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I just realized my post above didn't make sense. Anyway, I oppose splitting the sexes and I always will for the reasons incoherently stated above.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There are some advantages to same-sex education. Girls tend to excel more in math and science with it.  Maybe there would be some advantage in reading for boys in classes tailored more to them but I don't know if this has been demonstrated. I tend to think literature and social studies/history benefits from having points of view discussed from both genders.  It's tricky but maybe a pilot program would not be a bad idea to see if it provides any results schools would want to adopt, but I am very much against the idea that the government would consider adopting as standard one way or another.

Smaller class size is a great thing to aspire to. It is the bulk of the money here, I'm not sure where the funds are coming from, and I don't know if there are enough people who would make good teachers and want to be hired for this to work.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There are some advantages to same-sex education. Girls tend to excel more in math and science with it.  Maybe there would be some advantage in reading for boys in classes tailored more to them but I don't know if this has been demonstrated. I tend to think literature and social studies/history benefits from having points of view discussed from both genders.  It's tricky but maybe a pilot program would not be a bad idea to see if it provides any results schools would want to adopt, but I am very much against the idea that the government would consider adopting as standard one way or another.

Girls and boys are born with the exact same brain, and there is nothing in biological differences that affects one's predisposition to one discipline or another. Maybe there are differences in education or social incitations, but making separate classes would only accentuate the problem.

This is discrimination. This is like saying black people are better at sports and worse at intellectual works (that might be factually true, simply because 1. blacks are poorer and can study less ; 2. the society's stereotypes orient blacks toward less intellectual jobs. Anyways there's nothing natural in these differences). It offends my deepest values as a humanist and a universalist. It should offend the values of you all.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There are some advantages to same-sex education. Girls tend to excel more in math and science with it.  Maybe there would be some advantage in reading for boys in classes tailored more to them but I don't know if this has been demonstrated. I tend to think literature and social studies/history benefits from having points of view discussed from both genders.  It's tricky but maybe a pilot program would not be a bad idea to see if it provides any results schools would want to adopt, but I am very much against the idea that the government would consider adopting as standard one way or another.

Girls and boys are born with the exact same brain, and there is nothing in biological differences that affects one's predisposition to one discipline or another. Maybe there are differences in education or social incitations, but making separate classes would only accentuate the problem.

This is discrimination. This is like saying black people are better at sports and worse at intellectual works (that might be factually true, simply because 1. blacks are poorer and can study less ; 2. the society's stereotypes orient blacks toward less intellectual jobs. Anyways there's nothing natural in these differences). It offends my deepest values as a humanist and a universalist. It should offend the values of you all.

race and sex are not really comparable, since sex is a universal and biologically valid concept. whether or not there are inborn differences, the point is that by the time kids reach school, and especially middle and high school, there are different tendencies (not absolute), so the question is how you approach the different tendencies in learning styles.  it's not as though boys or girls are worse intellectually, just trying to see if there are different styles which help them learn. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

There are some advantages to same-sex education. Girls tend to excel more in math and science with it.  Maybe there would be some advantage in reading for boys in classes tailored more to them but I don't know if this has been demonstrated. I tend to think literature and social studies/history benefits from having points of view discussed from both genders.  It's tricky but maybe a pilot program would not be a bad idea to see if it provides any results schools would want to adopt, but I am very much against the idea that the government would consider adopting as standard one way or another.

Girls and boys are born with the exact same brain, and there is nothing in biological differences that affects one's predisposition to one discipline or another. Maybe there are differences in education or social incitations, but making separate classes would only accentuate the problem.

This is discrimination. This is like saying black people are better at sports and worse at intellectual works (that might be factually true, simply because 1. blacks are poorer and can study less ; 2. the society's stereotypes orient blacks toward less intellectual jobs. Anyways there's nothing natural in these differences). It offends my deepest values as a humanist and a universalist. It should offend the values of you all.

Boys and girls are not born with the same brains.  It is absolutely ridiculous to pretend that they are. 

It is people like you that will be the downfall of boys and men as you will scream "total, rigid equality NO MATTER WHAT!" as boys continue to fall further and further behind in every metric.  Instead you will claim they are simply lazy because they have less patience in an educational delivery that clearly favors girls.

If there is a good reason to oppose my small pilot program in this thread, your's, good sir, is not one of them.  At least Duke makes a valid point regarding socialization rather than making a ridiculous claim that BOYS AND GIRLS ARE EXACTLY 100% THE SAME.  I could start a list of differences if I thought it'd make a damn bit of difference.