Re: education / taxes, etc.

[Guest guest]

Isn't it possible to offer free education, but still have high academic

standards? I don't see why a free education should have to cheapen it. The

universities should still have high standards of who is eligible to attend based

on

merit, not just who can afford it.

At BYU, a lot of our education is covered by the LDS Church. The rest of my

education is being paid for by a grant for those of us in the new Special

Ed/ESL program. And that doesn't make me value it less; it encourages me to

value

it more. I know that other people have sacrificed to pay my tuition. The grant

comes with the expectation that I'm going to have a lot to contribute to

special education after I graduate. I want to live up to these expectations and

not

waste the money of other people. Maybe that's just me, but that's how I feel.

This is so not related to SMA, except maybe my mentioning that I'm going into

special ed loosely relates...

-e

[Guest guest]

I often hear that very argument in a lot of situations. For a long time,

tuition was lower, and more people than ever before were able to attend college.

But what began to happen was that as more people attended, the lower the value

of a college education became. Degrees were a dime a dozen. It's the same

principle used in economics. Now that tuition rates are on the rise again,

people are beginning to realize that going to college is something of value. It

is not just a promised extension of high school. It is a privilege to be earned

through hard work and academic achievement. I know that we've all worked hard,

and if we so desire to be equalized with the non-disabled in all areas, why on

earth would we want to jeopardize our hard-earned educational value by making it

too easy? I don't want the government to fund higher education just because it

is the popular thing to do. If the government is going to provide funding, it

must be based on high standards. The promise of near zero tuition and free

school supplies is a sure way to cheapen the value of an education.

Blessings,

Holly

[Guest guest]

I wholly disagree.

There are many many people who have " been given a free ride " and value

their education more than anyone else I've seen and who have excellent

marks - even perfect GPAs. There are also so many students who are

paying for school in loans and barely making it financially and aren't

keeping respectable grades and loathe being at an educational institution.

Broad remarks about entire populations based on your personal

experience of an extremely small sample is not wise and makes for

terrible stereotypes which falsely continue on.

<3 Kendra

>educational experience. Those who have been given a free ride on

>whatever grounds typically have lower grades and a poor attitude

>about being in school.

>

> Blessings,

> Holly

>

[Guest guest]

I'm studying Special Ed, meaning how to help educate students with learning

disabilities. I'm not talking about students who only need physical assistance.

Those students shouldn't be placed in a special ed classroom, and most of the

time these days, they aren't.

When students do need physical adaptations made, however, they probably do

usually go through the special ed department. That's just what it's called, and

I don't see anything wrong with the name. They're making special accomodations

to assist with education.

-e

In a message dated 9/6/2005 8:43:19 AM Mountain Daylight Time, angie@...

writes:

> That's another term I hate seeing: " Special Ed. "

>

> I know it'd be hard to find another term for those who may require

> assistance

> in achieving education regardless of what degree level they can handle.

>

> It's my opinion that a student whose brain is uneffected or capable of

> handling the information side of education (not the mechanics of it - note

> taking, classroom access, etc) should not be tagged as a " special ed "

> student

> especially when it's financially supported only. Every educational facility

> makes accomodations for its student body; bathrooms, cafeterias, classrooms,

>

> libraries, parking, etc. They only need to re-adjust their accomodations to

> broaden their student body to include students who require some structural

> changes in the environment not the learning material.

>

> The only time special ed should be used is if the course criteria needs to

> be

> adjusted to suit the learning abilities of a student whose mind needs it in

> order to achieve a diploma.

>

> Wealthy aka Rich kids are the ones who MAY have grades that aren't as good

> as

> they could be because money talks.

>

> Angie

>

[Guest guest]

That's another term I hate seeing: " Special Ed. "

I know it'd be hard to find another term for those who may require assistance

in achieving education regardless of what degree level they can handle.

It's my opinion that a student whose brain is uneffected or capable of

handling the information side of education (not the mechanics of it - note

taking, classroom access, etc) should not be tagged as a " special ed " student

especially when it's financially supported only. Every educational facility

makes accomodations for its student body; bathrooms, cafeterias, classrooms,

libraries, parking, etc. They only need to re-adjust their accomodations to

broaden their student body to include students who require some structural

changes in the environment not the learning material.

The only time special ed should be used is if the course criteria needs to be

adjusted to suit the learning abilities of a student whose mind needs it in

order to achieve a diploma.

Wealthy aka Rich kids are the ones who MAY have grades that aren't as good as

they could be because money talks.

Angie

On 2005.09.06 00:48, PurplGurl3@... wrote:

> Isn't it possible to offer free education, but still have high academic

> standards? I don't see why a free education should have to cheapen it. The

> universities should still have high standards of who is eligible to attend

> based on merit, not just who can afford it.

>

> At BYU, a lot of our education is covered by the LDS Church. The rest of my

> education is being paid for by a grant for those of us in the new Special

> Ed/ESL program. And that doesn't make me value it less; it encourages me to

> value it more. I know that other people have sacrificed to pay my tuition.

> The grant comes with the expectation that I'm going to have a lot to

> contribute to special education after I graduate. I want to live up to

> these expectations and not waste the money of other people. Maybe that's

> just me, but that's how I feel.

>

> This is so not related to SMA, except maybe my mentioning that I'm going

> into special ed loosely relates...

>

> -e

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

To put a finer edge on why I would rather not use " special ed " regardless of

it's ideal intent is because in my school days society's view of any disabled

person was not very nice. The word " retard, mutant, Mongo and ..... " (it's

not nice) was tossed around at any student who went to " special ed " .

The only way you could avoid that was to avoid the " special ed " class room and

go mainstreaming.

So it's unfortunate for me that those words only drum up bad memories of

childhood tauntings even though my grades ranged from B+ to A's in the

advance levels for the 1980's!

In my mind's eye your definition of Special Ed is what I was hoping today's

society intends for it to mean. It relates to a students mental abilities.

Yet to have the students go to Special Ed to make changes in accessibility

should be re-routed to the regular department(s) as if it were to add an

extra toilet, doorknob, light-switch, entrance way, etc. The reg's on code

are available in Canadian building depts, though I am not sure if it's listed

as Special (whatever)?

Anyway, it's not my intention to debate this issue. I was simply voicing my

view on a term that will hopefully fade away and be replaced by a more

neutral one for physical access to educational facilities.

Angie

On 2005.09.06 13:08, PurplGurl3@... wrote:

> I'm studying Special Ed, meaning how to help educate students with learning

> disabilities. I'm not talking about students who only need physical

> assistance. Those students shouldn't be placed in a special ed classroom,

> and most of the time these days, they aren't.

>

> When students do need physical adaptations made, however, they probably do

> usually go through the special ed department. That's just what it's called,

> and I don't see anything wrong with the name. They're making special

> accomodations to assist with education.

>

> -e

>

> In a message dated 9/6/2005 8:43:19 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

> angie@...

>

> writes:

> > That's another term I hate seeing: " Special Ed. "

> >

> > I know it'd be hard to find another term for those who may require

> > assistance

> > in achieving education regardless of what degree level they can handle.

> >

> > It's my opinion that a student whose brain is uneffected or capable of

> > handling the information side of education (not the mechanics of it -

> > note taking, classroom access, etc) should not be tagged as a " special

> > ed " student

> > especially when it's financially supported only. Every educational

> > facility makes accomodations for its student body; bathrooms, cafeterias,

> > classrooms,

> >

> > libraries, parking, etc. They only need to re-adjust their accomodations

> > to broaden their student body to include students who require some

> > structural changes in the environment not the learning material.

> >

> > The only time special ed should be used is if the course criteria needs

> > to be

> > adjusted to suit the learning abilities of a student whose mind needs it

> > in order to achieve a diploma.

> >

> > Wealthy aka Rich kids are the ones who MAY have grades that aren't as

> > good as

> > they could be because money talks.

> >

> > Angie

>

>

[Guest guest]

I get what you mean by the difference between merit awards and zero-tuition.

I just don't see why a college can't have zero-tuition but still be exclusive.

Free K-12 schools are required to accept everyone, but a college shouldn't

be. It seems to me like they could still have high academic standards as to who

they would accept and finances just wouldn't have to play into it. Obviously

I've never experimented with the idea, but it makes sense in my head.

Interesting point though about the money being power, and the possibility of

governments getting more influence in what is/isn't taught, how it's taught,

etc. I'm only beginning to realize how much influence the government already

has on our public schools. Sometimes for the better, but other times... Yeah,

interesting thought.

-e

In a message dated 9/6/2005 5:30:01 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

hollyrp@... writes:

> I was not talking about a free ride as in scholarships, grants, etc. Those

> are awards based on merit. I am talking about the zero-tuition policy

> mentioned. That would involve the government funding schools, who would then

in

> turn offer college degrees for free. This is exactly how the public school

> system is operated. Such an arrangement, in effect, simply extends the public

> school system beyond twelfth grade, and essentially strips colleges from

> having any autonomy or academic freedom. It's well known that money and power

go

> together, and if colleges rely solely on government money for operation,

> then government is in a position to specify what is and isn't to be taught,

and

> *how* that information is or isn't to be taught. The implications of such an

> arrangement are startling at best, and damaging at worst. In the Pre-k thru

> 12 public schools, the taxation funding is the norm. But the potential for

> trouble is extraordinary when higher education is funded by taxation. I

> never said there's anything wrong with working hard and receiving

scholarships,

> grants, etc.

>

> My remarks are not based on my personal experience alone, but on many of the

> personal experiences of my colleagues in education nationwide. And in

> regards to the " small sample, " I have taught almost 2500 students in just

the

> last five years. That's provable fact by looking at my rolls. People from

> countries around the globe, people who have been in and still are in active

> status with the military, postsecondary option teenagers, and grandmothers

have

> been in that sample. This week alone, I will see 240 students from all walks

> of life and from a diversity of cultures. I recognize educational gratitude

> when I see it, and 100% of my nontraditional students who have had to work

> themselves to pieces to get back in school are the ones who work hardest and

> more devotedly on a consistent basis. And I am not the only teacher who will

> agree. Ask your teachers about the achievement goals of their nontrads who

> are putting themselves through school.

>

> Blessings,

> Holly

[Guest guest]

I was not talking about a free ride as in scholarships, grants, etc. Those are

awards based on merit. I am talking about the zero-tuition policy mentioned.

That would involve the government funding schools, who would then in turn offer

college degrees for free. This is exactly how the public school system is

operated. Such an arrangement, in effect, simply extends the public school

system beyond twelfth grade, and essentially strips colleges from having any

autonomy or academic freedom. It's well known that money and power go together,

and if colleges rely solely on government money for operation, then government

is in a position to specify what is and isn't to be taught, and *how* that

information is or isn't to be taught. The implications of such an arrangement

are startling at best, and damaging at worst. In the Pre-k thru 12 public

schools, the taxation funding is the norm. But the potential for trouble is

extraordinary when higher education is funded by taxation. I never said there's

anything wrong with working hard and receiving scholarships, grants, etc.

My remarks are not based on my personal experience alone, but on many of the

personal experiences of my colleagues in education nationwide. And in regards

to the " small sample, " I have taught almost 2500 students in just the last

five years. That's provable fact by looking at my rolls. People from countries

around the globe, people who have been in and still are in active status with

the military, postsecondary option teenagers, and grandmothers have been in that

sample. This week alone, I will see 240 students from all walks of life and

from a diversity of cultures. I recognize educational gratitude when I see it,

and 100% of my nontraditional students who have had to work themselves to pieces

to get back in school are the ones who work hardest and more devotedly on a

consistent basis. And I am not the only teacher who will agree. Ask your

teachers about the achievement goals of their nontrads who are putting

themselves through school.

Blessings,

Holly

[Guest guest]

Just because the govt would fund college education does not make it

that everyone will attend college/university. Academic excellence and

athletic ability will still be the major deciding factor in who will

attend. To whomever is accepted, for whomever is enrolled, more grants

and scholarships to cover the total or near-total cost of tuition and

fees.

Yes, money is power - that's why we have the ability to say " I want MY

tax dollars to go toward funding universal university. " That means

MORE grants and scholarships!!! NOT that it's free and mandated. The

quality does not need to be a factor if you are distributing money

through certain measures. This appropriation would not mean the govt

has control over these universities since there are so many

private/public agencies awarding scholarships/grants, as well as the

vast amounts of money supplied by alumni (which is the bulk of funding

for almost all private universities, and also the universities where

tuition has become most outrageous).

What say you regarding state schools that are already funded by

government money? Or the fact that ANY college/university, to be

deemed an institution of higher learning, has to follow a set of

policies and educational teachings mandated by a bunch of state govt

admins?? How is it any different besides the tuition money not coming

from a bank loan (which has NO decision in quality of education anyway)?

<3 Kendra

> I was not talking about a free ride as in scholarships, grants, etc.

Those are awards based on merit. I am talking about the zero-tuition

policy mentioned. That would involve the government funding schools,

who would then in turn offer college degrees for free. This is

exactly how the public school system is operated. Such an

arrangement, in effect, simply extends the public school system beyond

twelfth grade, and essentially strips colleges from having any

autonomy or academic freedom. It's well known that money and power go

together, and if colleges rely solely on government money for

operation, then government is in a position to specify what is and

isn't to be taught, and *how* that information is or isn't to be

taught. The implications of such an arrangement are startling at

best, and damaging at worst. In the Pre-k thru 12 public schools, the

taxation funding is the norm. But the potential for trouble is

extraordinary when higher education is funded by taxation. I never

said there's anything wrong with working hard and receiving

scholarships, grants, etc.

>

> My remarks are not based on my personal experience alone, but on

many of the personal experiences of my colleagues in education

nationwide. And in regards to the " small sample, " I have taught

almost 2500 students in just the last five years. That's provable

fact by looking at my rolls. People from countries around the globe,

people who have been in and still are in active status with the

military, postsecondary option teenagers, and grandmothers have been

in that sample. This week alone, I will see 240 students from all

walks of life and from a diversity of cultures. I recognize

educational gratitude when I see it, and 100% of my nontraditional

students who have had to work themselves to pieces to get back in

school are the ones who work hardest and more devotedly on a

consistent basis. And I am not the only teacher who will agree. Ask

your teachers about the achievement goals of their nontrads who are

putting themselves through school.

>

> Blessings,

> Holly