9/30/10

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/21/study-merit-pay-teachers-doesnt-improve-student-test-scores/

Study: Merit pay for teachers doesn't improve student test scores.

This article basically states the idea of "giving" a teacher more money based on if his/her students are performing well on standardized tests. This may give a teacher an incentive to try to teach kids more effectively, but the kids ultimately control the outcome. If a student does not want to do well in school or do any work, the outcome is likely not going to change. In the study, it revealed that the idea of giving teachers higher bonuses based on student performance will not change test scores and that does not surprise me. 

It is also too narrow of a study because it does not show the work ethics of students or the influence their parents have and if it is a positive or negative one. "Teachers do their part to teach as best as they can, and students must do their part by reinforcing it," is a quote I have heard from another teacher. 

9/29/2010

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_16209321?nclick_check=1

This article basically says that the government is granting more money to schools, but its only certain schools that are getting the money. Including only 1 school system in California called " Aspire Public Schools." It is good that the national government is funding education a little more, but why only a few certain schools? Why should only a few select school systems be given millions of dollars in grants, while others are still suffering budget cuts and possible closure? This seems a bit biased to me, while many education systems are being cut in funding, the government somehow finds a way to give quite a sum of money to a few schools systems, while other schools get no benefits.

Summary of Discussion 9/22

Summary of the Discussion! :
In this discussion of Arizona's SB 1070, I tried to keep an open mind to everyone's thoughts and ideas. Even through the passionate stories that some go through, I probably cannot relate to them because I have not been in that situation nor any of my relatives. I did enjoy the amount of discussion that went on and that I was able to throw around a word or two once in awhile and cause some discussion myself. During most of the discussion, I was trying to formulate the two sides to every problem and story I heard and listing the argument against the one that was being discussed. However, because I did not have any emotional ties to the debate ( risk of losing family , etc. ) I probably could not show the passion that some could. I still believe what is illegal will be illegal no matter the situation you are in and the government probably will not care about situations or fears people have. I semi-wished that the discussion didn't have to be so emotional to people, but I know it can't be avoided and people will have emotional responses to topics, and I respect that, it just depends who and which topic it is.