Support Louis Pugliese for LAUSD School Board Seat # 3
Support a true friend of education Louie Pugliese in his quest to defeat Tamar Galatzan.Your thoughts..............
Scott Johnson in CD 14
Labels: LAUSD district 3, louis pugliese, tamar galatzan
Posted by Red Spot in CD 14 @ 1/21/2011 07:15:00 PM
15 Comments:
Uh oh.
Here comes Truhopian.
Or is it Hagopillo?
I don't know.
He said the other day in the debate that the way to get kids who don't speak English to do better is to have them in the same classes as the English speaking kids. Isn't that going to be holding back the kids who already know English? How is the teacher supposed to teach English and Math or Science or whatever at the same time? What do the kids who already know English do while that's going on?
I don't know, the more I'm hearing the less I'm liking.
He was speaking about language immersion-which is what the law mandates after bilingual education was outlawed in California. It is illegal to track kids all in the same class- yet the district continues to do it. He's right.
You're telling me it's against the law to put kids into classes based on what they know so that they can be taught and learn the same thing?
IT'S AGAINST THE LAW?
Will he be endorsed by a teacher's union?
I know it won't be Galatzan.
The only thing I like about her is the fact that the teacher unions hate her. Even though they derailed her cd2 campaign.
Brown vs Board of Education made it illegal to separate students on race, ethnic, or socioeconomic differences. Separating them by language ability effectively does just that.
Are you advocating to separate all or any struggling students from the mainstream with your argument? Learning disabilities? Lower ability/IQ? Emotional problems? Physical disabilities?
Why only language ability?
It's not simply a matter of "what they know." Foreign language kids can also be gifted and "know" more than an English speaking kid- then what?
Why not place these non English Students in English Classes for first six months or less, in order to focus on their English language skills first, and than put them in the main stream, however, continuing the support of English for another six months.The younger the student is, the faster he/she will adopt to the language.
I VOTED FOR TAMAR TO DEFEAT LAURENSEN BUT TAMAR HAS HIGHER AMBITIONS AND IS A TONY V. TOOL. I'M VOTING FOR LOUIS HE CARES ABOUT KIDS AND WANTS JUST THIS JOB. HE'S GOT MY VOTE.
Why am I focusing on Language, because Mr. Pugilese was talking about grouping kids who can and can't speak the language together.
I'm not advocating lumping them together by the color of their skin or financial worth, I'm saying that if you have a class full of kids who can add but not multiply then the teacher can focus on multiplication. If you have a class of kids who can write sentences but not paragraphs then the teacher can teach what they need.
It's not the job of the kids to teach the other kids, that's what I'm paying the teacher to do aren't I?
But you're telling me that the only logical way to group kids together is illegal.
This is a crazy world we live in.
Back to Mr. Pugilese, I'm not hearing the answer.
I VOTED FOR TAMAR TO DEFEAT LAURENSEN BUT TAMAR HAS HIGHER AMBITIONS AND IS A TONY V. TOOL. I'M VOTING FOR LOUIS HE CARES ABOUT KIDS AND WANTS JUST THIS JOB. HE'S GOT MY VOTE.
I was at that same meeting and I remember the question was about why it takes them so long to learn English, and why they are not encouraged to only speak English at school. In that context, Louis's analysis was spot on - they would learn English faster if they were truly immersed in the language- not segregated.
We didn't do that with the European immigrants in the 20's, or at least I don't remember ever hearing about immigrant kids all being put in Polish classes, or Italian classes, or German classes.
I get that immigrants who came before were immersed into society and have no problem with immersion, in fact I thought that's what we had. Wasn't there something on the ballot about 10 years ago saying that instruction was to be in English only?
What I'm asking is why my kid gets out of the deal. How does my kid benefit by having a teacher teach what he already knows because a lot of the kids around him don't know it.
This is insane. Kids should be grouped by what they know not by the color of their skin or what language they speak or their economic background. It is the teacher's job to teach the kids, not the kids job.
Or am I missing completely how this theory would work in practice?
We need Board Member who will encourage English speaking parents to teach their children english instead of their native language from the moment they are born. They want their Children to speak their hertitage language first and let the schools teach them English.
This is an additional burden on the entire community and puts their children as well as english speaking children at a disadvantage.
Candidates likes to talk about education reform, but none of them are discussing containing costs. If the LAUSD can't do that, you can kiss reform goodbye. Schools will close and there will be massive layoffs.
If the teachers don't agree to pay and benefit cuts, and administrators are allowed to heep their fat salaries, the system is going down.
So let's see who the unions endorse. Vote against their pick.
Reform?
How's this for reform?
In order to weed out the bad teachers and replace them with much better ones, we should cut teacher pay and benefits!
Reform!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home