Tony Danza HATES Poor people and Minorities!

[Big Don]

Tony Danza: What I learned teaching your kids

USAWeekend.com EXCERPT:
There are at least two harder jobs thanacting — one is teaching and the other iswriting a book about teaching. I’ve nowdone both, having gone toe-to-toe with aclass of Philadelphia 10th-graders for anentire year and then written about it. And,let me tell you, when it comes to teaching,
perfection is elusive.
The question I still wrestle with is, “In the midst of a tough economy and continuous budget cutting, how do we send a message to students that being in school and making the most of their time there is important?”

Everyone knows we have a problem. By every education metric, we’re no longer No. 1 in the world. Dropout rates in many districts approach 50%, and someestimates put the number of dropouts atmore than 1 million a year. How do we sustain a great country with those
numbers? Education has become a nationalsecurity issue. If we don’t get our schools right, we won’t have the labor force or the
soldiers we’ll need in the future.
<<<SNIP>>>

If parents do nothing else, they should persuade their sons and daughters to take part in their own education. Kids shouldhear the message loud and clear: “You have one life, and this small part of it will make all the difference.”

I would tell my students that good behavior and hard work pays off— then these kids would go home and watch Jersey Shore and come back and tell me I had it wrong.
<<<SNIP>>>
We have to convince kids that, despite the formidable obstacles they often face, it’s imperative that they do well in school. As a society, we have to make it cool to be smart. And kids have to understand that it’s their responsibility to do well — no matter who their teacher is or the quality of their school.

The bottom line: Kids need to want it. We can’t want them to get an education more than they want it for themselves.

END EXCERPT
Uh oh, he's clearly advocating PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. He must be a dirty, racist, elitist, fascist, 1%er...

 

[Takai]

Uh oh, he's clearly advocating PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Now, Now. We can't let that happen. What would the world come to?

 

[elder999]

Uh oh, he's clearly advocating PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. He must be a dirty, racist, elitist, fascist, 1%er...

Hmmm. My parents advocated personal responsibility, and, as a parent, so did I.

I'd say that by implying one must be a racist to do so-even jokingly-one is, in fact, making a racist statement themselves.....

 

[WC_lun]

I don't get it. I thought personal responsibility was a good thing. On other news, Santa Claus is racist and slave driver, as well as a registered Republican. I figured as long as we're posting complete BS...

 

[Sukerkin]

Good article, Don. A worthwhile experiment by Mr. Danza too :nods:. The sad thing is that many children do not 'get' the need for education whilst they are at the age when they can most easily aquire it.

An example springs to mind of an article I read on the BBC the other day of a self-confessed 'failure' at school when she was young who went back to study ten years later when she had a purpose and a goal. She was a hairdresser and, after getting her 'A' levels, is now training to be a mid-wife and may well be on-track to pressing on further with her education and maybe getting a degree.

Motivation rather than inate intelligence is the key to education. Getting that motivation to take root in children who do not see the need for education, or for whom an academic environment is not suited, is no easy task.

 

[Tez3]

I don't know how it works in the US but one of the things here that sidetracks children from learning here is that they are expected to know very early on what they want 'to be' when they leave school. With our exam system they have to choose at 13 what subjects they want to take for the next three years so that they can take the exams in the subjects they need for the choice of job or profession when they leave full time education. All very well if they have harboured an ambition to be a doctor etc from a very early age but not many 13 year olds know what they really want to do later in life. Pushing them to take specific subjects that may not be of any use to them doesn't encourage students.
Then of course we have the situation this year where having studied hard for those three years and sitting their mock GCSEs the 16 year olds sat the real thing only to find that the Government minister for education had put pressure on the exam boards to mark the exams lower this year meaning that many students didn't have high enough grades to go on to further education or will have to resit. I can imagine the students low morale and it doesn't give them much hope does it?

 

[Steve]

Here's what frustrates me. We know that in certain areas, in certain demographics, there are children who are "at risk." We KNOW that if we don't reach them early, often, the results are predictable. We KNOW that certain programs work, and we STILL cut the funding for these programs!

Look at the Head Start program and other early childhood development programs. We've been allowing these programs to be GUTTED for over a decade now, and the results are predictable. The statistical evidence that outlines the huge ROI on early childhood programs is overwhelming. Here's one I found from just a quick google search, but it's literally not a debatable point. Getting kids, particularly "at risk" children, into early childhood education programs gets them the foundation they need to battle through tough situations and emerge with diplomas and without criminal records.

If the goal is to break the cycle of poverty, we know where it starts, and it starts WAY before the kids get to high school.

http://www.fightcrime.org/state/usa...arch-showing-high-quality-early-care-and-educ

But... that's WELFARE! Yes. And it's a perfect example of where cutting funding and slashing budgets just doesn't make sense.

 

[Tgace]

And it's a perfect example of where cutting funding and slashing budgets just doesn't make sense.

While I agree with the sentiment...we obvioulsy can't keep on paying for EVERYTHING we want to have. Everybody is going to have their pet "BUT NOT HERE" service they will want to save...the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere or we have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

 

[granfire]

While I agree with the sentiment...we obvioulsy can't keep on paying for EVERYTHING we want to have. Everybody is going to have their pet "BUT NOT HERE" service they will want to save...the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere or we have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

well, true, but there are programs that cost money but benefit the community and there a re programs that just enrich a few

 

[Steve]

While I agree with the sentiment...we obvioulsy can't keep on paying for EVERYTHING we want to have. Everybody is going to have their pet "BUT NOT HERE" service they will want to save...the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere or we have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

If it's a choice between paying for more teachers in order to keep kids in school while lowering drop out rates and crime rates among students OR paying for more cops to catch them as criminals on the back end, I'll take the teachers. I'd much rather pay for the 3 year old to go to a head start program if it keeps him from becoming a 15 year old gangster.

As I said before, there is a huge body of statistical evidence documenting the money that solid childhood ed programs SAVES a community.

By your logic, police departments are someone's pet project. If we're smart about it, we spend our money in solving problems instead of reacting to the mess our problems make by investing in programs that demonstrate observable, positive change.

 

[Tgace]

If it's a choice between paying for more teachers in order to keep kids in school while lowering drop out rates and crime rates among students OR paying for more cops to catch them as criminals on the back end, I'll take the teachers. I'd much rather pay for the 3 year old to go to a head start program if it keeps him from becoming a 15 year old gangster.

As I said before, there is a huge body of statistical evidence documenting the money that solid childhood ed programs SAVES a community.

By your logic, police departments are someone's pet project. If we're smart about it, we spend our money in solving problems instead of reacting to the mess our problems make by investing in programs that demonstrate observable, positive change.

No...but you said "head start programs"...which to a education is equivalent to the DARE program at many PD's. While there is some benefit to it and Id recommend keeping it if fiscally possible; if the money is running out I'm cutting DARE to keep cops on the street..vs cutting road officers to fund a special program.

BTW..since HS has been around for 47 years. Do you have any studies declaring that it has met its objectives? That we have gotten our moneys worth?

http://www.cato.org/research/education/articles/stopheadstart.html

In 1985 the Department of Health and Human Services undertook the first meta-analysis of Head Start research and shook the establishment with its dire findings: "In the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start." In other words, Head Start was a false start--the net gain to children was zero.

But the establishment has clung to the study's remnants: although gains were not maintained over time, some children had experienced short-term boosts. This, they argued, was Head Start's job. If schools couldn't maintain gains, that reflected a problem with the schools, not the program. That certainly sounds reasonable. But, it's also reasonable for people to question Head Start's utility. If students test the same with or without Head Start after a year or two, what's the point of sending them through the program in the first place?

In the long run..although some people of certain political leanings like to subscribe to the "government as family" meme. The plain fact is that HS, or any gvt program is NOT going to solve the educational problems presented by broken families or lack of parental involvement in a kids life.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

I didnt even know Tony Danza was still alive

 

[Tames D]

I didnt even know Tony Danza was still alive

Why would you think he is dead?

 

[Steve]

No...but you said "head start programs"...which to a education is equivalent to the DARE program at many PD's. While there is some benefit to it and Id recommend keeping it if fiscally possible; if the money is running out I'm cutting DARE to keep cops on the street..vs cutting road officers to fund a special program.

BTW..since HS has been around for 47 years. Do you have any studies declaring that it has met its objectives? That we have gotten our moneys worth?

http://www.cato.org/research/education/articles/stopheadstart.html



In the long run..although some people of certain political leanings like to subscribe to the "government as family" meme. The plain fact is that HS, or any gvt program is NOT going to solve the educational problems presented by broken families or lack of parental involvement in a kids life.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

There have been dozens of studies linking early childhood ed programs, such as Head Start, to decreases in both the drop out rate and in rate of delinquent crime. Here's one out of MIT that is comprehensive, provides citations and Appendix I is a list of Child Care Economic Impact Studies that have been conducted or are in progress in each of the 50 States.

http://web.mit.edu/workplacecenter/docs/Full%20Report.pdf

This one is a link to a State of Missouri fact sheet: http://mucenter.missouri.edu/preventcrime.pdf

Here's an article about Law Enforcement leadership emphasizing the importance of early childhood education programs as an investment that helps reduce crime: http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=14237397

The real point I'm driving at here is that our culture is typically to treat the symptoms and to ignore the disease. Have back pain? Take Oxycontin and do some physical therapy, but ignore the fact that your back hurts because you are obese. Crime rate increasing? Hire more cops and build more prisons. We've tried this, and as a result we have so many people in prison we're letting some of the "non-violent" criminals go, not because they've been good or we think they're rehabilitated, but because we don't have the money or the space.

So, while I like cops and have nothing but respect for the tough job you do, wouldn't it be better to invest in programs that reduce the number of criminals?

I understand that we can't pay for everything. I'm not suggesting that we do. But we can be smarter about this. As I said, we've seen ample evidence that hiring more cops and building more jails doesn't reduce crime rates. It's just reacting to increasing crime rates. More salve to the wound, and hope we can keep it from becoming infected.

 

[billc]

I have heard of that research as well. Head start has minimal benefits for those children in the most extreme of circumstances. From the study I remember hearing about, even if the kids didn't go through head start they would arrive at the same point. It seems Head Start is another program that feels good to support but uses a lot of money to achieve little or nothing of real value for those kids.

This may be the same source listed above, but here is another one...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa187.pdf

The pitch works, despite the fact that Head Start's major selling point--early intervention can prevent futuredependence and delinquency--rests on several shaky foundations. First, it assumes that policymakers can drawsweeping national conclusions from studies of a few unique (and non-Head Start) preschool programs. Second, it
assumes that children's futures are fundamentally malleable, that a brief outside intervention can make an indelibleimpact on most children's lives despite the continuing influence of both heredity and environment. And third, the HeadStart thesis assumes not only that successful early intervention is possible but that government is an appropriate andeffective provider of it.
All three of those propositions are false. Head Start's hucksters, all smiles and promises, have sold the public on ashiny prototype that bears little resemblance to what will actually be provided and, upon closer examination, is anempty shell with nothing under the hood. Before American policymakers sign anything, they'd better take a good lookat what they're getting.

Telling Head Start Whoppers
The efficacy of preschool programs hasn't been ignored by academic and government researchers. During the pastthree decades, researchers have published hundreds of studies on preschool programs nationwide. Over 200 of thosestudies focused on the Head Start program itself, though only about half of them provided detailed information aboutsamples and results.[5] The distinction between studies of Head Start and those of other preschool programs is crcial--all preschool programs are not created equal.
Policymakers have gotten the wrong impression about Head Start by listening to enthusiastic boosters who cite thesuccess of model preschool programs as though it proved the efficacy of Head Start. But you don't judge the quality ofa Ford Escort by test driving a Lincoln Continental. Similarly, Head Start must be judged on its own merits, not by asort of "fleet averaging" gimmick that hypes the successes of one or two unique projects that aren't Head Startprograms at all
Three De

cades

 

[Steve]

I have heard of that research as well. Head start has minimal benefits for those children in the most extreme of circumstances. From the study I remember hearing about, even if the kids didn't go through head start they would arrive at the same point. It seems Head Start is another program that feels good to support but uses a lot of money to achieve little or nothing of real value for those kids.

Seems like I've seen stats on crime rates rising in cities despite hiring more police officers. I guess that means that having police just isn't working out. Maybe we'd be better off just not having police, since it's one of those "feels good to support but uses a lot of money to achieve little or nothing of real value" programs? I don't think so. :mst:

 

[Tez3]

Seems like I've seen stats on crime rates rising in cities despite hiring more police officers. I guess that means that having police just isn't working out. Maybe we'd be better off just not having police, since it's one of those "feels good to support but uses a lot of money to achieve little or nothing of real value" programs? I don't think so. :mst:

If it had been Billi's party apparachiks that had introduced this programme you can be sure he'd have thought it a good idea and bombarded you with soundbites saying how good it was. I imagine it's easier to cut your nose off to spite your face than admit someone from another party could come up with a good idea.

 

[billc]

You would have to define "good idea." By "good idea," do you mean an idea that spends a lot of money and achieves nothing? Well, other than letting politicians claim credit for a program that doesn't seem to actually achieve anything, but insulates the politician by allowing them to claim they want to help the poor, all the while taking their cut of the tax dollars going into the program. Is that the "good idea," you like to support?

Numerous press accounts and public statements by Head Start boosters have made the claim that the program is "falling short" of its potential as the result of federal neglect and budget cuts.[2] It is certainly true that Congress has not appropriated the amount of funds authorized in 1990 Head Start legislation; the bill authorized $4.3 billion in Head Start spending in fiscal year 1992, whereas the actual appropriation was approximately $2.2 billion. Still, that 1992 figure represents a real increase of about 70 percent over Head Start's 1981 budget of $819 million.[3]
Although Head Start does serve poor children, one common stereotype of program beneficiaries--that they are mostly black children of single mothers--is untrue. Only about half of the children in Head Start come from single-parent families. A third of Head Start children are white, 38 percent are black, and 22 percent are Hispanic.[4]

Most, in fact, favor even more government spending on new "Head Start Plus" programs that would continue to provide special attention and services to youngsters throughout their school careers. For example, Newsweek--breaking a virtual "code of silence" among the major media--recently trumpeted the results of a new study on the long-term impact of Head Start with the headline "A Head Start Does Not Last."[19] The study was conducted by J. S. Fuerst of Chicago's Loyola University School of Social Work. Fuerst traced the performance of 684 Chicago kids who attended not only two years of preschool but also, during their elementary school years, two to seven additional years of what Fuerst calls "Head Start to the fourth power." While his initial study--published in 1974 when most of the students were age 13 and younger--found significant reading and math gains, his new study tells a different story. Only 62 percent of the participating students graduated from high school, compared to the national average of 80 percent. The graduation rate had improved relative to a control group of poor children, but the long-term impact of the intensive Chicago program was nevertheless disappointing.[20]
Fuerst himself contends that his results only prove the need for special education programs that last as long as nine years--which shatters the notion that a small early investment heads off bigger costs down the road. It also begs an obvious question: why not fix the school system itself, rather than devise new and expensive federal supplements to it?

 

[Steve]

You would have to define "good idea." By "good idea," do you mean an idea that spends a lot of money and achieves nothing? Well, other than letting politicians claim credit for a program that doesn't seem to actually achieve anything, but insulates the politician by allowing them to claim they want to help the poor, all the while taking their cut of the tax dollars going into the program. Is that the "good idea," you like to support?

I agree with the articles that you cited and said so earlier. Gutting these programs makes them less effective. Don't need a conservative propaganda website to tell me that.

I've also cited studies that outline the direct correlation between "at risk" youths, dropout rates, delinquency rates and early childhood education.

I could also, for what it's worth, continue to use your logic with the police:

In April the Los Angeles Police Department transferred approximately 50 officers to Central Division. Although police are now making about 100 more arrests per week, crime in the area is rising. Violent and property crime jumped 5% in May, the first 30-day period in which the additional officers were working in Central. There were 357 such incidents that month, compared to 340 in April. The crime uptick comes even as arrests for those types of offenses rose 62%.

I guess the police experiment can be considered a failure? Nah. I still think cops are a worthy investment.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...perhaps Los Angeles should relax concealed carry permit requirements, as other states have done, and that would lower the crime rate, which it has done in other states. That would actually generate revenue without increasing taxes or wasting money.