Los Angeles school district to shift away from Apple's iPad to Windows, Chromebook

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 79
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    adonissmu wrote: »
    Most parents dont pay any taxes or dont pay their fair share. Here is a clue dont have kids you cant afford to support.
    runbuh wrote: »
    I think there may have been a missing /s in the post to which you are referring.

    However, it's all a matter of perspective. In the USA, if children are going to public schools, which are taxpayer funded, then many taxpaying parents of said children will claim that a K-12 education is a right. To the best of my knowledge, the Constitution does not state anything about education. However, many state constitutions do (if you believe what you read on the internets). For example, California states:

    http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch6
    The right to a public education in California is a fundamental right fully guaranteed and protected by the California Constitution

    Futhermore:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 9 EDUCATION

    SECTION 1. A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being
    essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the
    people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the
    promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural
    improvement.

    SEC. 5. The Legislature shall provide for a system of common
    schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each
    district at least six months in every year, after the first year in
    which a school has been established.

    SEC. 7.5. The State Board of Education shall adopt textbooks for
    use in grades one through eight throughout the State, to be furnished
    without cost as provided by statute.

    Most parents dont pay any taxes or dont pay their fair share. Here is a clue dont have kids you cant afford to support.

    Every person in America pays some kind of tax. The only possible exception would be someone that is homeless and never buys anything at all. Are you suggesting that most parents are homeless and never buy anything at all?

    In Texas the schools are primarily funded through property taxes. Only a person who lives in fully subsidized government housing doesn't pay any property tax (I really don't even know if we have that in Texas, but we probably do). Even then, those people pay sales tax on anything they buy that isn't food. I am sure you are thinking of the popular right-wing meme about 43% of the people not paying any federal income tax. I have no reason to doubt that number, but I have no idea what it has to do with school funding. Moreover, 43% is much less than half (or most).
  • Reply 62 of 79
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post





    Every person in America pays some kind of tax. The only possible exception would be someone that is homeless and never buys anything at all. Are you suggesting that most parents are homeless and never buy anything at all?



    In Texas the schools are primarily funded through property taxes. Only a person who lives in fully subsidized government housing doesn't pay any property tax (I really don't even know if we have that in Texas, but we probably do). Even then, those people pay sales tax on anything they buy that isn't food. I am sure you are thinking of the popular right-wing meme about 43% of the people not paying any federal income tax. I have no reason to doubt that number, but I have no idea what it has to do with school funding. Moreover, 43% is much less than half (or most).

    I said pay their fair share. Parents get tax money back from the government yet their families are using up more resources. It makes no sense for single people to subsidize other people's lifestyle choices. The decision to have a family should be made based on the fact that you can afford it without other people having to pay your bills.  

  • Reply 63 of 79
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

     
    I said pay their fair share. Parents get tax money back from the government yet their families are using up more resources. It makes no sense for single people to subsidize other people's lifestyle choices. The decision to have a family should be made based on the fact that you can afford it without other people having to pay your bills.  


    Ideally, society should be a balance of people contributing to the greater good but also receiving help when needed. There are so many different circumstances that case by case need is impossible determine. I think it is ok for a young couple to have a child or two while they are still of child bearing age even if they need a little help with their budget early on. They may start earning more money in a few years and they will continue to pay taxes even after the children have become adults and moved out. Things are supposed to even out over time.

     

    What I do find to be an obnoxious abuse of the welfare system is when illegal aliens sneak into the country, work for cash, don't pay any taxes, have a dozen kids to get more food assistance, leaving the taxpayers to finance all of their medical, housing, children's education, nutritional needs. That is just wrong and needs to be stopped. Anyone found illegally hiring workers and paying in cash should be fined severely or even jailed if they are repeat offenders.

  • Reply 64 of 79
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    adonissmu wrote: »
    wovel wrote: »
    Every person in America pays some kind of tax. The only possible exception would be someone that is homeless and never buys anything at all. Are you suggesting that most parents are homeless and never buy anything at all?


    In Texas the schools are primarily funded through property taxes. Only a person who lives in fully subsidized government housing doesn't pay any property tax (I really don't even know if we have that in Texas, but we probably do). Even then, those people pay sales tax on anything they buy that isn't food. I am sure you are thinking of the popular right-wing meme about 43% of the people not paying any federal income tax. I have no reason to doubt that number, but I have no idea what it has to do with school funding. Moreover, 43% is much less than half (or most).
    I said pay their fair share. Parents get tax money back from the government yet their families are using up more resources. It makes no sense for single people to subsidize other people's lifestyle choices. The decision to have a family should be made based on the fact that you can afford it without other people having to pay your bills.  

    Actually you said most pay nothing or don't pay their fair share. Seems like you left it up to the reader to pick one. Your argument seems to be against public education which I am fibe with. You just happen to make a lot of broad sweeping statements that aren't true. For example, families tend to pay higher property taxes than single people so they are in fact contributing more to public education.

    I have 3 kids (20, 18, and 5) and none of them have ever attended a public school. Still, I am good with the idea of public education. I think most school districts do it very, very badly, but I have no problem funding education. An educated society benefits everyone.

    If you want to argue that public schools aren't educating students, I am with you. If you want to argue public education should not exist, I will just think you are insane and very uninformed.

    I am not a teacher or proud graduate of the public school system. I have not been inside a public school since I was 13. I just think single people whining about paying school taxes are very naive.
  • Reply 65 of 79
    Wy don't they (LA Public School System) let the students decide?
  • Reply 66 of 79
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

     
     I just think single people whining about paying school taxes are very naive.


    Even couples without children whining about that. In California we have a lot of neighborhoods with what is called Melo-Roos where the developers of the homes are required to pay for building schools to support that development. Then the homebuyers pay a fee each month to finance the fund. Many of the home buyers may be empty nesters but they still have to pay the fee. That is how functioning societies work. You don't contribute in the amount that you use, you contribute in the amount that the society needs. When you are part of the society you receive all of the benefits.

  • Reply 67 of 79
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    I’m to understand that the concept of tenure in schools only allows for legal due process between the teacher and a claimant, and that removing this revokes the teacher’s right to present his or her argument at all–immediate firing, as it were.

    It appears I don't know how to post a reply. Wrong post.
  • Reply 68 of 79
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    Seems difficult to take this seriously when you can’t interact with the content of a paper textbook in any meaningful way.

    It's hard to take you seriously when you're the one who brought up the size comparison without any other points. Now you want to add points to your reply, which you originally made to wording cherry-picked from someone else's post. WTF? Your "Same size as a textbook, so no." post added nothing to the conversation at all.

    If you're going to make a comparison, then pick a topic and expand on it. Otherwise, take a clue from the advice that you give to so many others and shut up.

    How many times are you going to tell people to shut up? Doesn't it register with you that telling someone to shut up doesn't really work? Did all of these posts make you feel better or make the other person shut up (and go away)? Certainly not the latter. You have a brain. Use it.
  • Reply 69 of 79
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

    Your "Same size as a textbook, so no." post added nothing to the conversation at all.

     

    It refuted the point to which it was replying, so I hardly think so.

     

    If you're going to make a comparison, then pick a topic and expand on it.


     

    Okay. “The iPad is perfectly suitable as a replacement for static textbooks, as the added means of interaction and interactivity eschew any ‘visibility' differences between the formats.”

     

    How’s that? It’s what I said already.

     

    How many times are you going to tell people to shut up?


     

    I don’t tell users to shut up. If you’d actually read the post in question, you’d see where I use that line. You couldn’t care less about doing any research before coming to a conclusion, so I’d venture that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

     

    Doesn't it register with you that telling someone to shut up doesn't really work?


     

    I’d like to just outright ban them, but I can’t do that anymore. As we’ve already seen, I guess you’re perfectly fine with lies being spewed everywhere.

  • Reply 70 of 79
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    It refuted the point to which it was replying, so I hardly think so.
    No, it didn't.
    Okay. “The iPad is perfectly suitable as a replacement for static textbooks, as the added means of interaction and interactivity eschew any ‘visibility' differences between the formats.”

    How’s that? It’s what I said already.
    It's a step in the right direction.
    I don’t tell users to shut up. If you’d actually read the post in question, you’d see where I use that line. You couldn’t care less about doing any research before coming to a conclusion, so I’d venture that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
    If you had bothered to follow the link I posted (see that blue text - it's there for a reason - just like you tell other people), it's where you have posted over 400 times in reply to other people/users. Many of those posts from you are simply "shut up" or "shut up and go away" -- clearly directed to the person to whom you were replying. So - yes - you DO tell users to shut up.
    I guess you’re perfectly fine with lies being spewed everywhere.
    Where did I support lies being spewed everywhere? Your "Same size as a textbook, so no." lie? I don't support that, nor other lies. What I did do, was ask you to post using more thought than your idiotic "shut up" replies. You have a brain. Use it.
  • Reply 71 of 79
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by runbuh View Post

    No, it didn't.

     

    Okay. That’s your opinion.

     

    If you had bothered to follow the link I posted…


     

    I don’t need to. You already described what the link is, and have now done so twice. Unless you’re joking and the link is for something completely different, it doesn’t really matter what it says, as I have already explained how you are wrong and why I use that line.

     

    Where did I support lies being spewed everywhere?


     

    In your support of trolling users/posts.

     

    What I did do, was ask you to post using more thought than your idiotic "shut up" replies.


     

    No. You don’t comprehend this at all. I’m not wasting time on trolls. Deal with it. You, as a real user, capable of conscious, intelligent thought, and who is not being paid by any company to lie about another, deserves such treatment, and as such I have given it to you. I will not, however, waste my time repeating the rebuttal to arguments only a paid, insecure, nutcase, wholly devoid of self-respect would post. We all know the answer already. Or, rather, we do if we pay attention to the posts that are written instead of jumping to nonsensical conclusions.

  • Reply 72 of 79
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    No. You don’t comprehend this at all. I’m not wasting time on trolls. Deal with it. You, as a real user, capable of conscious, intelligent thought, and who is not being paid by any company to lie about another, deserves such treatment, and as such I have given it to you. I will not, however, waste my time repeating the rebuttal to arguments only a paid, insecure, nutcase, wholly devoid of self-respect would post. We all know the answer already. Or, rather, we do if we pay attention to the posts that are written instead of jumping to nonsensical conclusions.

    Ok. Got it. However, I'd suggest that you take your words above to heart, and truly quit wasting your time on trolls. "Shut up" posts accomplish nothing. They won't make trolls shut up, nor will they make them go away.
  • Reply 73 of 79
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    wovel wrote: »
    Actually you said most pay nothing or don't pay their fair share. Seems like you left it up to the reader to pick one. Your argument seems to be against public education which I am fibe with. You just happen to make a lot of broad sweeping statements that aren't true. For example, families tend to pay higher property taxes than single people so they are in fact contributing more to public education.

    I have 3 kids (20, 18, and 5) and none of them have ever attended a public school. Still, I am good with the idea of public education. I think most school districts do it very, very badly, but I have no problem funding education. An educated society benefits everyone.

    If you want to argue that public schools aren't educating students, I am with you. If you want to argue public education should not exist, I will just think you are insane and very uninformed.

    I am not a teacher or proud graduate of the public school system. I have not been inside a public school since I was 13. I just think single people whining about paying school taxes are very naive.
    Who was whining about funding schools? Im griping about the single people having to support lifestyle choices of everyone else. Whats wrong with parents supporting their lifestyle by paying their fair share?
  • Reply 74 of 79
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    mstone wrote: »
    Even couples without children whining about that. In California we have a lot of neighborhoods with what is called Melo-Roos where the developers of the homes are required to pay for building schools to support that development. Then the homebuyers pay a fee each month to finance the fund. Many of the home buyers may be empty nesters but they still have to pay the fee. That is how functioning societies work. You don't contribute in the amount that you use, you contribute in the amount that the society needs. When you are part of the society you receive all of the benefits.
    Im arguing that there should be no government subsidies at all for having kids. Everyone who makes the same salary pays the same rates regardless of their other responsibilities.
  • Reply 75 of 79
    smallwheelssmallwheels Posts: 584member

    The easiest and most capable machines for this school system will be Chromebooks. Google handles all of the updates. They have a powerwash function that can reset them to factory settings in just seconds. They have keyboards. There are touch screen versions available. Data can be stored in the cloud instead of on the devices. They cost much less than iPads plus keyboards. A couple of Chromebook manufacturers are making specialized education models that are built with sturdier shells. One of them even has a retractable handle.

     

    Anybody who has used a browser can use a Chromebook. Lessons can be put on specialized pages and every student can log on to those pages and do their work. If they could make the keyboards water resistant they would have great devices that will be better than any Surface tablet.

  • Reply 76 of 79
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,724member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post



    Who was whining about funding schools? Im griping about the single people having to support lifestyle choices of everyone else. Whats wrong with parents supporting their lifestyle by paying their fair share?

     

    And people who drive cars supporting their lifestyle by paying for the road maintenance & pollution management, people who smoke or eat unhealthy food paying for the extra healthcare infrastructure they use, people who are heavy power users (A/C, computers, etc) paying for the extra infrastructure needed, etc.

     

    And yes, you can argue that you do pay more if you use more power (for example), but that generally doesn't cover the cost of building out the infrastructure (more power generators, higher capacity lines, more lines, etc).  At a certain point, there are government subsidies involved whether you take the time to dig deep enough to see them or not.

     

    One could continue ad absurdum breaking down every part of our lives and coming up with a cost for supporting it.  But can you imagine the cost of the infrastructure needed to document and catalogue all of those little details? (I suppose Google could help out).  Or we can accept the fact that we live in a larger structure called a society and that it costs money to maintain the infrastructure to support the different ways in which we all choose to live our lives.  Schools, hospitals, roads, power/water/data lines, police, etc -- there's a reason why we emerged from caves and organized into groups.

  • Reply 77 of 79
    h2ph2p Posts: 329member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

     

    The easiest and most capable machines for this school system will be Chromebooks. Google handles all of the updates... They cost much less than iPads plus keyboards. A couple of Chromebook manufacturers are making specialized education models that are built with sturdier shells. One of them even has a retractable handle...


    You make very good and important points -- price, durability and physical keyboard, etc. ...but I object to Google co-owning my child's digital school life. No Thank You and "only do evil" Google is a poor model for tech companies.

  • Reply 78 of 79
    elehcdnelehcdn Posts: 388member

    As a technology aware parent from this school district, I think this is more an issue of trying to do too much too early with an IT department and teachers that really aren't aware or capable of understanding the paradigm shift that technology can usher in the classroom.

     

    This is not about teaching kids to be able to run word processors or spreadsheets. It isn't about providing a platform for standardized testing, although that is a lot of what the pilot program ended up being. It's about working in a collaborative environment. It's is only minimally about getting technology into the hands of kids that are too poor to own their own computers.

     

    I saw what some of the tech-savvy teachers were trying to do. This technology allowed them to have work on their computer/tablet projected to the whole class and allow them to interact with individuals. It allowed them to share the student's screen to allow them to collaborate as well.

     

    Unfortunately, there are only a small handful of teachers that can understand how to use this technology, and probably even less IT people within the district that can implement it. Considering that multi-million/billion dollar corporations are only beginning to understand how to implement collaborative software into their business practices, it's really not surprising.

     

    This could have risen above running Word on your PC laptop or Google apps on your ChromeBook, but the truth is that people aren't ready to understand this technology and while the aim to get students to be ready for it by prepping them in school, it isn't easy to implement with the structures that exist at a school district level. 

  • Reply 79 of 79
    hanmanhanman Posts: 11member
    Wow!!! These comments are so long! Must be teachers debating ;). Bottom line: battery life. Devices that can last longer, and have less attachments to fiddle with. The district should have waited as apple now has an applaudable device mgmt solution coming soon. I can see lots of time wasted in class rooms with frustrated teachers. The iPad in my experience has an amazing battery life.
Sign In or Register to comment.