My school = Extortionists

[deathstalker]

LMAO... your probably right, I doubt they have a license to publically broadcast that music, let alone for a fundraising event. Come to think of it, I would go to the principle and ask to see the licenscing agreement he has with the RIAA, Hanson, or its agents, that allows use of the music for fundraising activities.

Be careful what you wish for. Songs in the public domain are notoriously worse than anything Hanson could ever dream of.

[RogueFactoryKid]

Pshh, Hanson is the bomb.

[SCpoloRicker]

Yeah, thats really extortion Boo hoo.

Won't someone think of the children?!?!

[sabrefanpc]

[B.A.M.]

My school is ghetto, some kid stole my gas cap at school, I had to get a locking gas cap.

thats bout as low as you can go

[Duzzy]

As to the comments regarding sueing or legal action.

That has got to be the dumbest suggestion to date...

Sue the school system (most of which don't have enough money anyways) over a song? Would it go anywhere big? Maybe not.

But the potential of hurting someone else's chance at a decent education because you don't like a song is really low. In general suing schools for money is really low, most people that do it probably already have a decent education, taking that away from others is just plain wrong.

[Lohman446]

Me personally, I get so sick of teh school attitude. Let me say this before I go farther, I have had some outstanding teachers in my life, and my childrens teachers have generally been exceptional. Those who try, who work, and who succeed at teaching our children have my utmost respect

School administrators get paid good money - comparable to many mid to top level executives.

They work 10 months a year, with hours that are better than most white collar jobs.

They have no measure of success that they are held accountable for. No profits to worry about, no customers that have a choice to go somewhere else (for the most part) for the same cost or close as to what they offer.

They have gaurenteed funding.

They think they can ignore things because its for "education".

And they complain when anything about accountability is brought up, at least accountability of themselves.

There "customers" cannot argue wtih them. Ever try to argue with a principle, for all but a few people it doesn't go well.

There wrong, just because they educate does not mean they can ignore licensing agreements. It sets a bad example.

[deathstalker]

Wow. I think your view of school administrators is very skewed, and I'll preface this by stating I'm going back to school to be a teacher.

Administrators do not work 10 months of the year. Just as their pay is similar to the private sector, so are their hours and vacation. You will (should) rarely see a principal leave school when it lets out. Keep in mind that just because their leaving the school doesn't mean they're not on their way to a meeting or will work at home. Their responsibilities don't end just because the kids aren't at the school. Principals are there for summer school, extracurricular activities, and use the summer for continuing their own education. Other administrators, like the CEO of the Chicago Public Schools, work hours no different from any other businessman.

There are standards by which schools are measured and the organizations that develop, define, and test for these standards take their jobs very seriously. Public schools' funding depends very much on the results of these tests. In other areas, local taxes pay for the schools, so the taxpayers must be satisfied in order to vote "Yes" to increase taxes for schools. It's very possible your point could be related to different poulations, as I live in a city of millions with hundreds, if not thousands, of public schools. My parents live in a small town on the North Shore of Chicago, with just one elementary school and one junior high. When I was in college, my parents would make me come home to vote against things for the schools.

Although schools are generally thought of as not-for-profit, a better way of thinking about it is schools must do the best they can as cheap as they can (no different from the private sector). Schools must also deal with the beaureaucratic machine and oftentimes, an individual school has no say in particular matters (like choosing the company that provides the junk your child eats in the cafeteria).

Most of your points are difficult to debate without examples, but I'd like to make a few points of my own. It sounds like you've had a bad experience with schooling, either your own or your child's. It's not like that everywhere, especially in a private school. As for arguing with a principal, have you considered a different approach? You might also be confusing "accountability" with "liability". Not all school systems are perfect, but they're also not the same. Finally, if education is so high a priority that you get this worked up about it, consider moving so you are in a different district. I know it sounds easier than it is to do, but I know for sure my parents made plenty of sacrifices to make sure I received a quality education.

I close by saying, with all seriousness and no disrespect, that reading your post indicates there really IS a problem somewhere.

[Lohman446]

I don't have specific examples, and for the most part I was happy enough with my own education and am happier with my kids. And for six years I went to a private school. As a matter of fact, I have great respect for the vast majority of my teachers, and the administrators.

My problem is as much a political basis as anything else. This stance the public schools in MI have taken against change, and competition.

Let me say it like this. Public schools, in the beginning of this competition, should have had all the cards. They had the infastructure, the bussing, the maintenance divisions, the technology. The "charter" schools as proposed in MI would have been run by private companies, that would have had to dump risk capital into the system. They coudl have competed, but at considerable risk.

The schools, teh teachers.. resisted, until they got a toned down charter school system. No competition, no threat to there student counts and there funding. No threats to there jobs or the way they had grow accustomed to. No competition - a convenient system, I just have a hard time reconciling it in my mind with the captilastic society we have. Why is it that educators get a free pass on competition?