H.A.--Schools focus on math, reading - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 30, 2006

H.A.--Schools focus on math, reading

Date: May 1, 2006

This is a district with the highest paid superintendent in the state,some of the worst scores in the state,and higher than average administrative costs. It is a dismal failure by any reasonable measure. The superintendent makes the ridiculous statement in this article that,"Our children are as intelligent as anyone else," then goes on to talk about all the extra help they need. If they are so intelligent,why are their test scores so low? Are the students purposely marking incorrect answers? If they are as intelligent as anyone else why do they need smaller classes? This fundamental dishonesty is so prevalent in education. It is a principal reson why the general public is resistant to increased funding for education. It doesn't help either when a drug policy is instituted that requires four positive drug tests before you're banned permanently from extra -curricular activities.

Date: May 1, 2006

Reporter wrote:

"The same dollars are not equal district to district," Wimbish said.

Say what?

Date: May 3, 2006

When I was a student in the Hattiesburg Public School system it was not a high poverty district. As long as the middle class continues to flee to Oak Grove and Petal the school system will suffer. By moving out of Hattiesburg they have cast a vote in favor of poor education for the city of Hattiesburg. They seem to be very comfortable in claiming the benefits of the community but not taking on the responsibilities.

Date: May 3, 2006

Good point Eagle. Maybe when gas is $4.50 they'll flee back this way.

Date: May 3, 2006

They seem to be very comfortable in claiming the benefits of the community but not taking on the responsibilities.

It is the other way around. The city of Hattiesburg is constantly trying to annex more and more of the county areas into the city. The city is trying to claim the benefits of the community by annexation rather than addressing their own problems. The situation with the police force in Hattiesburg is systematic of the problems.

Date: May 4, 2006

LVN wrote:

Good point Eagle. Maybe when gas is $4.50 they'll flee back this way.

Just how much extra gasoline do you think these people use because they have relocated to Oak Grove? If it amounted to an extra gallon per day that represents a cost (assumming the $4.50 per gallon price) of about $135.00 per month. In return they can send their children to a school where the cops don't have to put in routine appearances, and I believe their tax burden is less. And sorry to be so blunt, but who are we to decide where it is best for people to live.

Date: May 4, 2006

This discussion implicitly assumes that all individuals have a right to a free public education, which is a false assumption. Individuals have the right to have access to education, but nowhere in any legitimate document does it state that the government has a responsibility to provide free public education for all.

Cossack and Mr. Wizard are touching on the issue, but I will address it directly. Until Hattiesburg gets a real Superintendant of Schools who will enforce discipline and tighten up on other problem issues, don't expect caring parents to allow their children to stay in the Hattiesburg system. Hattiesburg does not have the responsibility to cater to students who cannot follow rules regarding drugs, fighting, weapons, assaulting teachers (both physically and verbally), etc. However, many liberal-minded individuals espouse the belief that these individuals can be rehabilitated. While that may be true, it is the individual, not society, who decides whether or not he or she will be rehabilitated. Until the school system institutes some strict rules and follows them to the letter, the Hattiesburg system will not be a good place for education. No one "deserves" a seat in a classroom; students earn the right to stay in school by conducting themselves in an appropriate manner. Those who cannot or will not conduct themselves in an appropriate manner lose the "right" (notice the quotation marks) to a free public education. The solution is not grabbing more jurisdiction and forcing more lower-middle class people to attend Hattiesburg schools.

Date: May 4, 2006

telephono wrote:

This discussion implicitly assumes that all individuals have a right to a free public education, which is a false assumption. Individuals have the right to have access to education, but nowhere in any legitimate document does it state that the government has a responsibility to provide free public education for all. Cossack and Mr. Wizard are touching on the issue, but I will address it directly. Until Hattiesburg gets a real Superintendant of Schools who will enforce discipline and tighten up on other problem issues, don't expect caring parents to allow their children to stay in the Hattiesburg system. Hattiesburg does not have the responsibility to cater to students who cannot follow rules regarding drugs, fighting, weapons, assaulting teachers (both physically and verbally), etc. However, many liberal-minded individuals espouse the belief that these individuals can be rehabilitated. While that may be true, it is the individual, not society, who decides whether or not he or she will be rehabilitated. Until the school system institutes some strict rules and follows them to the letter, the Hattiesburg system will not be a good place for education. No one "deserves" a seat in a classroom; students earn the right to stay in school by conducting themselves in an appropriate manner. Those who cannot or will not conduct themselves in an appropriate manner lose the "right" (notice the quotation marks) to a free public education. The solution is not grabbing more jurisdiction and forcing more lower-middle class people to attend Hattiesburg schools.

I agree with what you say here, Telephono. I just wish we all remember that in our present society an education is not optional. If we have many without at least a poor high school education, you can expect to see more crime and more generations of poor students. So it is a question of " Pay me now, or pay me later". Society will have to pay one way or the other. This, I believe, is the reason so many in authority bend over backwards to try to have "undeserving" kids remain in school. Is it best for this to stop and just build more prisons?

Date: May 4, 2006

Pay Later,

Crime is not due to lack of education, it is due to lack of punishment for bad behavior. If education were the issue, crime should have been much higher in the 1950's when a good chunk of the population in Mississippi did not finish high school. If you punish criminal behavior, you will have fewer criminals.

Date: May 4, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Pay Later, Crime is not due to lack of education, it is due to lack of punishment for bad behavior. If education were the issue, crime should have been much higher in the 1950's when a good chunk of the population in Mississippi did not finish high school. If you punish criminal behavior, you will have fewer criminals.

I agree, Cossack, that bad behavior must be punished. It the 50's there were many more jobs for people without a H.S. education and much less technology. Or maybe I should say today there are so many more opportunities for higher pay for the uneducated in the drug business and other crime. I don't think they are/will compete with and put the Mexicans and other immigrant laborers out of jobs.

Date: May 4, 2006

I agree, Cossack, that bad behavior must be punished. It the 50's there were many more jobs for people without a H.S. education and much less technology. Or maybe I should say today there are so many more opportunities for higher pay for the uneducated in the drug business and other crime. I don't think they are/will compete with and put the Mexicans and other immigrant laborers out of jobs.

If they were severely punished for criminal activity, they would have no income. If they have no income, they will not eat or have a place to live. They would resort to working. That is why people worked in the lesser paying jobs in the 1950's. This country now tolerates crime at a level that makes a goodly portion of the population live in fear. So long as most can avoid it, they do not care. Every time there is an effort to crack down on crime, there are complaints from many of those who are victims of crime, and well meaning liberals who believe punishment is not the solution. The fact that punishment has always been the solution historically does not convince them. Their solution is to take more of our money and put it into crime ridden schools with the dream that something will change. It doesn't, but then the complaint is that we did not put enough money into the process. It is all very depressing, but nothing will change until criminal activity is reduced and lower income people can live in safety and without fear. Then you will see progress. Meanwhile, one needs at least two guns (with the proper permits) in handy reach, particularly at night.

Date: May 4, 2006

Cossack wrote:

It the 50's there were many more jobs for people without a H.S. education and much less technology.

I'd wager a guess that the actual performance of most of the jobs people hold today do not require a high school education. It just makes us feel better to think that they do.

That is why people worked in the lesser paying jobs in the 1950's.

I'd wager a guess that there were fewer "lessing paying" jobs in the 1950's. For instance, there were no fast food chain restaurants. I recall my first McDonalds and my first Wendys. And that was even before one of our presidents declared ketchup to be counted as a vegetable in public school menus.

Date: May 4, 2006

If there were not lots of low paying jobs for uneducated people, we would not have millions of Mexican "immigrants" working in the U.S. and hundreds of thousands of people crossing the border in the desert every year. There is great demand for such labor.

Date: May 4, 2006

Straw Boss wrote:

If there were not lots of low paying jobs for uneducated people, we would not have millions of Mexican "immigrants" working in the U.S. and hundreds of thousands of people crossing the border in the desert every year. There is great demand for such labor.

Yes, it costs less to employ a "mexican" than to pay fair wages and offer benefits such as healthcare coverage to American Citizens. This is the modern slave-trade.

Date: May 4, 2006

Eagle wrote:

When I was a student in the Hattiesburg Public School system it was not a high poverty district. As long as the middle class continues to flee to Oak Grove and Petal the school system will suffer. By moving out of Hattiesburg they have cast a vote in favor of poor education for the city of Hattiesburg. They seem to be very comfortable in claiming the benefits of the community but not taking on the responsibilities.

So we Oak Grovians have to stay in the Hattiesburg district in order to keep it from becoming poor? Maybe we'd rather send our kids to a district that doesn't have a poor core. You blame the good students and good families for the failings of a district ripe with crime,drugs,and illegitimate children. All of which correlate with minorities.

Date: May 4, 2006

telephono wrote:

This discussion implicitly assumes that all individuals have a right to a free public education, which is a false assumption. Individuals have the right to have access to education, but nowhere in any legitimate document does it state that the government has a responsibility to provide free public education for all. Hattiesburg does not have the responsibility to cater to students who cannot follow rules regarding drugs, fighting, weapons, assaulting teachers (both physically and verbally), etc. However, many liberal-minded individuals espouse the belief that these individuals can be rehabilitated. While that may be true, it is the individual, not society, who decides whether or not he or she will be rehabilitated. Until the school system institutes some strict rules and follows them to the letter, the Hattiesburg system will not be a good place for education. No one "deserves" a seat in a classroom; students earn the right to stay in school by conducting themselves in an appropriate manner. Those who cannot or will not conduct themselves in an appropriate manner lose the "right" (notice the quotation marks) to a free public education.

Telephono,

I direct your attention to IDEA. Where the federal law states that all individuals, regardless of race, creed, color or disablility is ENTITLED to a Free and appropriate education. Which means that yes, the schools do have to let them attend. The school should have in its special ed department, a method in which to determine if a student's behaviors are part of his/her disablility. Now, most of the students I assume you speak of (and yes, I removed part of the post) are more than likely, I'd give 75 to 80% odds that they are lower socioeconomic status, parents don't give a rats fanny about what the kid does as long as they are out of the parents hair, the parents are probably also drug addicts or drunks and you expect those children to be angels????? I don't think so, but they do have the RIGHT to be in that classroom. All persons have a right to an education, whether we like it or not. I work with severely retarded students whom the school day is nothing more than a glorified babysitting service as they are so low functioning that learning doesn't take place, and yet they have the right to be there. Just remember that, they have the legal right to be in those classrooms.

Date: May 4, 2006

Patti wrote:

Telephono, I direct your attention to IDEA. Where the federal law states that all individuals, regardless of race, creed, color or disablility is ENTITLED to a Free and appropriate education. Which means that yes, the schools do have to let them attend. The school should have in its special ed department, a method in which to determine if a student's behaviors are part of his/her disablility. Now, most of the students I assume you speak of (and yes, I removed part of the post) are more than likely, I'd give 75 to 80% odds that they are lower socioeconomic status, parents don't give a rats fanny about what the kid does as long as they are out of the parents hair, the parents are probably also drug addicts or drunks and you expect those children to be angels????? I don't think so, but they do have the RIGHT to be in that classroom. All persons have a right to an education, whether we like it or not. I work with severely retarded students whom the school day is nothing more than a glorified babysitting service as they are so low functioning that learning doesn't take place, and yet they have the right to be there. Just remember that, they have the legal right to be in those classrooms.

Patti, I predict the response to this post will be that those "d*mn liberals" made that law and so the liberals are to blame for everything. But I may be wrong.