Workers Unite! All you'll lose is The Cartel
susupply
<<----------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES, July 25 (UPI) -- John Gardner is a formidable man. With his
shock of unruly gray hair, brawny forearms, massive fingers and deep voice,
he appears to be the very model of the old-fashioned working-class
organizer. And that's exactly what he's been during a long career on the
picket lines that included working with United Farm Worker leader Caesar
Chavez.
Yet, since being elected the at-large director of the Milwaukee School Board
in 1995, Gardner has come to be a leading advocate of various kinds of
school competition, such as vouchers and charter schools. He won re-election
in 1999 on the slogan "Stop complaining and start competing."
His latest endeavor is called the Pulaski Project, after the Milwaukee high
school where it is being pioneered. Angered by the presumption that there is
no hope for students who don't go on to academic universities, Gardner is
working to get disadvantaged students not to give up even if they suspect
that college wouldn't benefit them financially. As one option among several,
he helps them get them paying apprentice work in the skilled trades.
United Press International: As an old socialist, how did you come to decide
that the Milwaukee working class needed school competition?
Gardner: Socialism does not always mean being pro-monopoly. The socialist
tradition of the Great North (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan's Upper
Peninsula, Dakotas, northern Iowa) was profoundly cooperativist. The
cooperativists believed the way to make Borden pay dairy farmers good milk
prices was to develop market alternatives. They did, which explains why the
Great North has retained proportionately more family and small farms than
the rest of the nation, and still produces, in the age of the California
mega-dairies, so much milk and cheese.
Q: What are some of the values of the English socialist tradition that our
society has forgotten?
A: Cooperativism, pluralism, and the priority of excellent education for the
poor.
Q: Why is Milwaukee a hotbed of educational innovation?
A: Wisconsin has a long, proud tradition of educational excellence. Unlike
many states, Wisconsin has developed neither tolerance for, nor patience
with, the idea that racial minorities or poor people should not have, or
cannot attain, excellent education.
Wisconsin's progressive tradition is also profoundly anti-monopoly, whether
corporate or governmental. Unlike the political cultures in some states,
where "progressive" means pro-government and anti-business, Wisconsin
progressivism is anti-waste and anti-exploitation no matter where it's
found. Remember anti-bank Sen. Bill Proxmire's monthly "Golden Fleece" award
for federal waste?
Q: Is there a "Yale or jail" presumption in the educational establishment?
A: The entire "Educartel" is focused, almost exclusively, on getting
students into four-year colleges.
--------------------------------------------->>
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
>
MK. Discussion deleted (John Gardener interview)...
> Q: Is there a "Yale or jail" presumption in the educational establishment?
>
> A: The entire "Educartel" is focused, almost exclusively, on getting
> students into four-year colleges.
>
imagine that the college professor is the highers form of life on
Earth. They enthrall insecure legislators who buy intellectual
respectability, second-hand, with taxpayers' money. Thanks, Patrick,
for this use of "cartel".
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
Magi D. Shepley
Education policy is advanced by the politicians who are pushing college prep and
standardized testing. It wasn't like this 10 years ago when I graduated from
high school: students still had options including vocational preparation then.
Now, most VocEd programs have been gutted because its very difficult to manage a
trade/apprenticeship and still pass all the state tests required to get a
regular diploma!
Magi
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Herman Rubin
>MK. Discussion deleted (John Gardener interview)...
>> Q: Is there a "Yale or jail" presumption in the educational establishment?
>> A: The entire "Educartel" is focused, almost exclusively, on getting
>> students into four-year colleges.
More than this, the educartel is focused on keeping
children with their age groups, instead of allowing,
let alone encouraging, letting them learn as much
as they can.
So they put the village idiot in the classes for those
preparing for college. Clearly (to some of us) it is
not good for the idiot, but it is not good for the
college-bound either, who should be learning three
times as much.
>MK. Education policy is advanced by professors of Education, who
>imagine that the college professor is the highers form of life on
>Earth. They enthrall insecure legislators who buy intellectual
>respectability, second-hand, with taxpayers' money. Thanks, Patrick,
>for this use of "cartel".
Professors of Education have little to do with the
scholarly professors of academic subjects, especially in
the sciences. There are those professors who teach the
same drivel year in and year out, and some of these are
allied with the professors of education, but at least a
large proportion of the subject matter scholars would
close down the schools of education.
>Take care. Homeschool if you can.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Robert Vienneau
Sullivan (SUSUPPLY) might want to look at the comments to
Brad DeLong's web log:
<http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/Index.html/>
Especially, on Krugman's 7/21/02 column, "The Rhinoceros Effect".
Patrick called his host Brad a liar elsewhere. And in some
comments you can find Jim Glass (Grinch) going off on his
long-winded pointlessness.
DeLong is aware he has a problem of how to maintain standards in
his comments sections.
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Stephen J. Fromm
[snip!]
> Yet, since being elected the at-large director of the Milwaukee School Board
> in 1995, Gardner has come to be a leading advocate of various kinds of
> school competition, such as vouchers and charter schools. He won re-election
> in 1999 on the slogan "Stop complaining and start competing."
You won't get any argument from me about the various idiocies
committed by people in Education (meaning the people who teach
teachers what to teach---especially at colleges of ed at).
However, using vouchers to spark competition has two flaws that
voucher advocates never seem to address:
(1) Voucher plans (at least the ones I've read about) ask for no
accountability from the schools receiving the voucher money (in the
form of mandated testing, etc, that public schools must meet).
(2) Voucher plans allow schools receiving the $$ to cherry-pick
students, unlike public schools.
Anyway, there's some recent evidence that vouchers and similar
solutions to problems with education won't work, simply because
there's very little capacity in the system.
A much better solution is to forcibly integrate urban and suburban
school districts, pooling their finances and allowing urban students
to choose to attend suburban schools.
sjfromm
susupply
"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>
whose fevered brow has led him to make a connection between a socialist
advocate of vouchers and Brad DeLong's website,
wrote in message news:rvien-07EFFF....@news.dreamscape.com...
> Those wanting to see how people with taste respond to Patrick
> Sullivan (SUSUPPLY) might want to look at the comments to
> Brad DeLong's web log:
>
> <http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/Index.html/>
>
> Especially, on Krugman's 7/21/02 column, "The Rhinoceros Effect".
> Patrick called his host Brad a liar elsewhere. And in some
> comments you can find Jim Glass (Grinch) going off on his
> long-winded pointlessness.
But are we surprised to find that the fastidious Mr. Vienneau has it exactly
backwards? That the "people with taste" turn out to have been chastised by
Mr. DeLong for their resort to the cheapest (one might say, Vienneauian) ad
hominems (Lyndon LaRouche and Mein Kampf)?
That Mr. DeLong has agreed with Mr. Glass's "long-winded pointlessness"?
That I did NOT call him "a liar"?
> DeLong is aware he has a problem of how to maintain standards in
> his comments sections.
Which description would make Mario Savio turn over in his grave, coming as
DeLong does from the home of the Free Speech Movement? Of course, regular
readers of DeLong's website recognize this reference from the mendacious Mr.
Vienneau to an instance of Mr. DeLong not being able to handle even a
scintilla of the kind of criticism he had levelled at Antonin Scalia.
However, this still leaves Mr. Vienneau short of any relevant comment about
The Socialist and The Voucher. In these topsy turvy times it's good that
some things never change.
Grinch
Fromm) wrote:
>"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<ai3p8q$69g$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>[snip!]
>> Yet, since being elected the at-large director of the Milwaukee School Board
>> in 1995, Gardner has come to be a leading advocate of various kinds of
>> school competition, such as vouchers and charter schools. He won re-election
>> in 1999 on the slogan "Stop complaining and start competing."
>[snip!]
>
>You won't get any argument from me about the various idiocies
>committed by people in Education (meaning the people who teach
>teachers what to teach---especially at colleges of ed at).
>
>However, using vouchers to spark competition has two flaws that
>voucher advocates never seem to address:
Here are four addresses:
>
>(1) Voucher plans (at least the ones I've read about) ask for no
>accountability from the schools receiving the voucher money (in the
>form of mandated testing, etc, that public schools must meet).
Well, the idea is to improve accountability, not reduce it.
1) Here in NYC the "mandated testing" makes no sense, and even the
outgoing schools Chancellor is trying to get rid of it.
2) The claim is false. Real life voucher and charter school programs
do have all kinds of accountability measures and schools have been
closed down under them. E.g., here in NYC two privately run charter
schools were just closed -- and the staff now put out of work -- for
poor performance.
OTOH, no public school here has *ever* been closed and the staff
put out of work for even the most horrendous performance.
To the contrary, poor performance is always taken as a sign that
the school - and the system, of course - deserves *more* money to meet
its needs.
As even Mrs Crabapple said on the Simpsons: "Remember kids, the
worse you do on the standardized test the more money the school gets,
so don't knock yourself out.". It's part of American culture now.
So are you arguing that voucher schools should have the *same*
accountability as public schools? That everybody gets tenure no
matter how badly they do, and poor performance brings more money?
Or are you arguing that public schools should have the same
accountability as voucher and charter schools -- no tenure, do a bad
job and you're out of work?
>(2) Voucher plans allow schools receiving the $$ to cherry-pick
>students, unlike public schools.
Again wrong two ways:
3) Public schools don't "cherry pick"? You're kidding, right??
There are no magnet schools near you? They're popping up everywhere
else.
Here in NYC Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech have a long
tradition of "cream skimming" the very top students from the whole
city in very systematic way -- leaving the leftovers behind in
"regional" HSs. And the Board of Ed is very proud of how they do so.
It actually advertises the fact.
Then the same people at the Board of Ed damn vouchers with the
imaginary charge that they would lead to cream skimming. It's very
amusing.
One of my favorite editorials in the NY Times a while back first
condemned vouchers because they might lead to cream skimming and then
cited Stuyvesant as evidence that public schools could be so good that
vouchers just aren't needed. It was laugh-out-loud funny.
4) Do real life voucher programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida,
etc., actually "cream skim"? They are all highly targeted to the
most disadvantaged students. Where is evidence of cream skimming?
If you don't like cream skimming why do you not condemn public schools
for doing it, and applaud voucher schools for not doing it?
>Anyway, there's some recent evidence that vouchers and similar
>solutions to problems with education won't work, simply because
>there's very little capacity in the system.
If they don't promise (or threaten, depending in you point of view)
significant systemic change, why the vitriolic hatred of them and all
the money spent opposing them by the teachers' unions and school
boards? The "capacity in the system" is hardly a recent development
that people are discovering for the first time.
In any event, it's beside the point. Nobody is claiming that vouchers
are a "magic wand" cure for all the ills of public schools. (Although
voucher opponents have made the bogus dramatic argument that vouchers
would "destroy" public schools.)
The issue is just whether vouchers can help the students they are
meant to help.
On academic measures the data is sparse and subject to mixed
interpretations as to whether vouchers improve performance.
There's a simple solution to that problem: give vouchers a fair trial
on a sufficient scale to get more data -- which is, of course, what
the teachers unions and schools establishments virulently oppose.
( If the medical establishment had the same attitude towards testing
innovations that the public schools establishment does, we'd all still
be being treated with leeches.)
But by two other measures vouchers are unambiguously successful:
* Parents of voucher students report being much happier with their
children's schools. Surely this must count for something, if we
believe that parents are concerned about their children's welfare.
* Nobody accuses voucher students of performing more poorly
academically than if they had gone to public schools. And the voucher
programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland educate their students at a
fraction of the cost that the public schools there do.
At least as much success academically at a fraction of the price --
that's got to count for something too.
Bob LeChevalier
>3) Public schools don't "cherry pick"? You're kidding, right??
>One of my favorite editorials in the NY Times a while back first
>condemned vouchers because they might lead to cream skimming and then
>cited Stuyvesant as evidence that public schools could be so good that
>vouchers just aren't needed. It was laugh-out-loud funny.
The cherry picking argument is that the private schools benefit by
choosing the better students with two results
a) Better students are cheaper to educate to the same level, with the
result that the typical private school which has cherry-picked NEEDS
to spend less per student than the public school has to spend per
student, and furthermore by removing one end of the cost bell-curve,
actually raises the average cost for the remaining students.
This does not apply to magnet schools since district costs per student
are averaged over the whole district, and therefore segregation by
ability doesn't cause inherent shifts in the district-wide average.
b) By having only better students in their statistical universe,
private schools have high test averages. The public schools district
wide have the full range of students, so any skewing due to cherry
picking by magnet schools might show up in school by school
comparisons but not district-level comparisons.
>In any event, it's beside the point. Nobody is claiming that vouchers
>are a "magic wand" cure for all the ills of public schools.
One could swear that Patrick et. al. believes that "the market" is a
"magic wand" cure for everything.
>But by two other measures vouchers are unambiguously successful:
>
>* Parents of voucher students report being much happier with their
>children's schools. Surely this must count for something, if we
>believe that parents are concerned about their children's welfare.
Well, duh! If they weren't happier they would still be in the public
schools.
On the other hand, I have not heard any refutation of the claim that
the number of students in private schools in Milwaukee has dropped
since the implementation of vouchers, which suggests merely the truism
that those who use vouchers are specifically those happier in private
schools than public schools.
Now the question is, if the parents like them so much, how many of
these kids would be in private schools if there were no vouchers,
possibly with some of them using the private sector scholarship
programs that preceded vouchers?
lojbab
John Gilmer
>
> A much better solution is to forcibly integrate urban and suburban
> school districts, pooling their finances and allowing urban students
> to choose to attend suburban schools.
Oh yeah,. that will work. NOT!
It's been tried and has failed. It was called BUSSING.
Anyway, the GOOD schools now are safely insulated from the horrible "inner
city" schools by buffers of lower middle class suburbs.
Stephen J. Fromm
> On 30 Jul 2002 06:28:38 -0700, stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J.
> Fromm) wrote:
>
> >"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<ai3p8q$69g$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >[snip!]
> >> Yet, since being elected the at-large director of the Milwaukee School Board
> >> in 1995, Gardner has come to be a leading advocate of various kinds of
> >> school competition, such as vouchers and charter schools. He won re-election
> >> in 1999 on the slogan "Stop complaining and start competing."
> >[snip!]
> >
> >You won't get any argument from me about the various idiocies
> >committed by people in Education (meaning the people who teach
> >teachers what to teach---especially at colleges of ed at).
> >
> >However, using vouchers to spark competition has two flaws that
> >voucher advocates never seem to address:
>
> Here are four addresses:
> >
> >(1) Voucher plans (at least the ones I've read about) ask for no
> >accountability from the schools receiving the voucher money (in the
> >form of mandated testing, etc, that public schools must meet).
>
> Well, the idea is to improve accountability, not reduce it.
Huh??
> 1) Here in NYC the "mandated testing" makes no sense, and even the
> outgoing schools Chancellor is trying to get rid of it.
What I meant is that I've read that many voucher plans enable public
tax dollars to flow to private schools without accountability measures
being required of those schools.
> 2) The claim is false. Real life voucher and charter school programs
> do have all kinds of accountability measures and schools have been
> closed down under them. E.g., here in NYC two privately run charter
> schools were just closed -- and the staff now put out of work -- for
> poor performance.
Charter schools are a red herring. We're talking about vouchers.
Please stay on topic.
> OTOH, no public school here has *ever* been closed and the staff
> put out of work for even the most horrendous performance.
> To the contrary, poor performance is always taken as a sign that
> the school - and the system, of course - deserves *more* money to meet
> its needs.
> As even Mrs Crabapple said on the Simpsons: "Remember kids, the
> worse you do on the standardized test the more money the school gets,
> so don't knock yourself out.". It's part of American culture now.
>
> So are you arguing that voucher schools should have the *same*
> accountability as public schools? That everybody gets tenure no
> matter how badly they do, and poor performance brings more money?
I'm arguing that there should at least be measures in place. Again, I
read news reports that private schools will get public tax monies with
*no* measures in place. That means that not only can we not "fix" the
schools, we can't even gripe about it (as we can with public schools),
since we will have no information.
> Or are you arguing that public schools should have the same
> accountability as voucher and charter schools -- no tenure, do a bad
> job and you're out of work?
I'm saying there should be publically available information.
> >(2) Voucher plans allow schools receiving the $$ to cherry-pick
> >students, unlike public schools.
>
> Again wrong two ways:
>
> 3) Public schools don't "cherry pick"? You're kidding, right??
No. You mean to tell me that neighborhood schools can capriciously
deny admission to neighborhood students?
> There are no magnet schools near you? They're popping up everywhere
> else.
>
> Here in NYC Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech have a long
> tradition of "cream skimming" the very top students from the whole
> city in very systematic way -- leaving the leftovers behind in
> "regional" HSs. And the Board of Ed is very proud of how they do so.
> It actually advertises the fact.
I'm not speaking of magnet schools. I'm speaking of public schools in
general.
> Then the same people at the Board of Ed damn vouchers with the
> imaginary charge that they would lead to cream skimming. It's very
> amusing.
What percentage of high school students in NYC attend Stuyvesant,
Bronx Science, or Brooklyn Tech?
If only a small %age of students are accepted at private schools with
vouchers, there will be no cream-skimming, but then again private
schools won't be doing anything at a large scale to ameliorate
problems in education.
> One of my favorite editorials in the NY Times a while back first
> condemned vouchers because they might lead to cream skimming and then
> cited Stuyvesant as evidence that public schools could be so good that
> vouchers just aren't needed. It was laugh-out-loud funny.
Please give a quotation.
> 4) Do real life voucher programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Florida,
> etc., actually "cream skim"? They are all highly targeted to the
> most disadvantaged students. Where is evidence of cream skimming?
The question is: are schools that accept vouchers allowed to pick and
chose students?
> If you don't like cream skimming why do you not condemn public schools
> for doing it, and applaud voucher schools for not doing it?
Again, I don't think it's being done on a large basis by public
schools, except for the fact that urban kids can't go to suburban
schools.
> >Anyway, there's some recent evidence that vouchers and similar
> >solutions to problems with education won't work, simply because
> >there's very little capacity in the system.
>
> If they don't promise (or threaten, depending in you point of view)
> significant systemic change, why the vitriolic hatred of them and all
> the money spent opposing them by the teachers' unions and school
> boards? The "capacity in the system" is hardly a recent development
> that people are discovering for the first time.
Maybe because people don't know the numbers? Maybe they're stupid,
like most people?
> In any event, it's beside the point. Nobody is claiming that vouchers
> are a "magic wand" cure for all the ills of public schools.
Hmm...I thought free-market fundamentalists claim that a little
competition will cure anything, including problems in education.
> (Although voucher opponents have made the bogus dramatic argument that vouchers would "destroy" public schools.)
I think many people don't think vouchers *per se* will destroy public
education, but rather that many of those supporting voucher plans
*are* in favor of dismantling the public sphere as much as possible.
That's my concern. If the choice is the status quo, or some kind of
voucher scheme, I would support the latter, if only to give some hope
to a rather small number of students and their parents (given my
impression that there aren't that many private schools to send them
to). I think a better solution is to fully integrate urban and
suburban school districts, so that $$ and students can flow across
urban/suburban borders.
> The issue is just whether vouchers can help the students they are
> meant to help.
>
> On academic measures the data is sparse and subject to mixed
> interpretations as to whether vouchers improve performance.
>
> There's a simple solution to that problem: give vouchers a fair trial
> on a sufficient scale to get more data -- which is, of course, what
> the teachers unions and schools establishments virulently oppose.
> ( If the medical establishment had the same attitude towards testing
> innovations that the public schools establishment does, we'd all still
> be being treated with leeches.)
>
> But by two other measures vouchers are unambiguously successful:
>
> * Parents of voucher students report being much happier with their
> children's schools. Surely this must count for something, if we
> believe that parents are concerned about their children's welfare.
Selection bias is a danger here. Though it seems like a reasonable
claim. On the other hand, there isn't much capacity in the private
school system.
> * Nobody accuses voucher students of performing more poorly
> academically than if they had gone to public schools. And the voucher
> programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland educate their students at a
> fraction of the cost that the public schools there do.
That's true. Try scaling that up to any appreciable fraction of what
is spent/how many are taught in the public schools, and see if you can
keep costs contained. I wouldn't bet on it.
> At least as much success academically at a fraction of the price --
> that's got to count for something too.
Only at a small scale, which is meaningless (see above).
> >A much better solution is to forcibly integrate urban and suburban
> >school districts, pooling their finances and allowing urban students
> >to choose to attend suburban schools.
> >
> >sjfromm
Hmm...seems you shied away from this point, huh?
sjfromm
Stephen J. Fromm
> >(2) Voucher plans allow schools receiving the $$ to cherry-pick
> >students, unlike public schools.
>
> Again wrong two ways:
>
> 3) Public schools don't "cherry pick"? You're kidding, right??
>
> There are no magnet schools near you? They're popping up everywhere
> else.
I should add to my previous reply to this post to clarify what I meant
by cherry picking. I didn't mean to imply that schools will take only
the top 5% (say) of students with vouchers. What I meant was that
voucher programs, by virtue of their right to pick among applicants
(in the voucher programs I've heard of) have the right to *exclude
problem students*.
The public school system, on the other hand, is charged with educating
*everyone*. It's pretty easy to imagine that students with learning
disabilities and behavioral problems are more expensive to educate.
OTOH, since some data indicate that there's not much "capacity" in the
private school system for accepting large numbers of students (see my
previous post), it's not clear that it matters, though by the same
token it's unlikely that vouchers will do much for that many kids.
sjfromm
Stephen J. Fromm
Bob, thanks for your post; you made some of my points better than I
did (and unfortunately I just posted my clarification of "cherry
picking" before reading your post, which made it redundant).
Best,
sjfromm
Stephen J. Fromm
You're dead wrong. Notice I wrote "urban and suburban school
districts." Court cases held that segregation was permitted *between*
districts, if not within a district (see excerpt below). The other
difference was that bussing was mandatory, and typically was between
inner city schools and lower middle class schools. I'm referring to a
voluntary system whereby students could attend schools of their
choice, in which case we're talking about inner city kids *choosing*
those "GOOD schools" in the upper middle class suburbs. (I'm also
talking about ending this crazy system of local funding for schools.)
Excerpt from _Simple Justice_ (Richard Kluger): "In _Milliken v.
Bradley_, a closely divided Supreme Court decided on July 25, 1974,
that the broad metropolitan plan integrating inner-city and suburban
schoolchildren was not justified. Detroit would have to get as much
integration as it could by scrambling, sincerely, its rapidly
dwindling white pupil population among the city's blacks---a directive
certain to speed the white flight to suburbia."
sjfromm
Ray VT
> districts." Court cases held that segregation was permitted *between*
> districts, if not within a district (see excerpt below). The other
> difference was that bussing was mandatory, and typically was between
> inner city schools and lower middle class schools. I'm referring to a
> voluntary system whereby students could attend schools of their
> choice, in which case we're talking about inner city kids *choosing*
> those "GOOD schools" in the upper middle class suburbs.
In the Chicago metropolitan area this would put the inner-city kids on a 2
hour bus ride from inner Chicago to the far western suburbs. Plus another
2 hour bus ride back home in the afternoon.
> (I'm also
> talking about ending this crazy system of local funding for schools.)
>
> Excerpt from _Simple Justice_ (Richard Kluger): "In _Milliken v.
> Bradley_, a closely divided Supreme Court decided on July 25, 1974,
> that the broad metropolitan plan integrating inner-city and suburban
> schoolchildren was not justified. Detroit would have to get as much
> integration as it could by scrambling, sincerely, its rapidly
> dwindling white pupil population among the city's blacks---a directive
> certain to speed the white flight to suburbia."
>
> sjfromm
--
John Gilmer
>
> In the Chicago metropolitan area this would put the inner-city kids on a 2
> hour bus ride from inner Chicago to the far western suburbs. Plus another
> 2 hour bus ride back home in the afternoon.
That's right. And that's why it will not work.
The liberals ASSume that the black majority jurisdictions cannot teach their
kids. Perhaps they are right. But there is no point in dragging down the
public school systems that work.
IF a local black district has a few very bright kids that might benefit a
"richer" environment, it can be done with specilized schools within the
city.
I understand that several cities do this. But the BIG PROBLEM in "inner
city" schools it not whether their best and brightest can get to go to
Pennsylvania U. rather than Pennsylvania State U but that the majority of
their kids don't get what most of America considers to be a basic high
school education.
The problem is in the cities. It should be fixed in the cities. Making
"super" districts will not cure the problems in the cities but it may well
spread the disease.
Herman Rubin
John Gilmer <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>> In the Chicago metropolitan area this would put the inner-city kids on a 2
>> hour bus ride from inner Chicago to the far western suburbs. Plus another
>> 2 hour bus ride back home in the afternoon.
>That's right. And that's why it will not work.
>The liberals ASSume that the black majority jurisdictions cannot teach their
>kids. Perhaps they are right. But there is no point in dragging down the
>public school systems that work.
>IF a local black district has a few very bright kids that might benefit a
>"richer" environment, it can be done with specilized schools within the
>city.
It will not work. Only acceleration will, and also the
attitude that learning (NOT schooling) is important.
The present schools, no matter what is tried, will not
do much of a better job unless they abandon socialization.
For the schools which do poorly, it is most important that
the weaker students not hold down the better, at all levels.
This is more than it might seem.
The student who could do well in the "best" school and
comes from a poor district should be allowed to do it,
and this is not going to be accomplished by any form of
"integration". It can only be done by teaching to the
level of the individual. If the local school cannot
manage it, use electronic classes; physical presence is
not needed for most of education.
>I understand that several cities do this. But the BIG PROBLEM in "inner
>city" schools it not whether their best and brightest can get to go to
>Pennsylvania U. rather than Pennsylvania State U but that the majority of
>their kids don't get what most of America considers to be a basic high
>school education.
By attempting to give everyone a "basic high school
education", one ends up with few completing more than
what an average student should accomplish before
entering high school.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
>
BS!
>
> Education policy is advanced by the politicians who are pushing
college prep > and standardized testing. It wasn't like this 10 years
ago when I graduated > from high school: students still had options
including vocational preparation > then. Now, most VocEd programs have
been gutted because its very difficult to > manage a
trade/apprenticeship and still pass all the state tests required to >
get a regular diploma!
>
invariable, Magi. I recommend Diane Ravitch, "Left Back; A Century of
Failed School Reform" for a list of suspects (Dewey, Kilpatrick, and
the rest of the gang) and a description of the modus operandi.
>
Take care. Homeshool if you can.
Alan Lichtenstein
Why, Malcolm, we have something in which we find complete agreement. I
read two of Ravitch's works, the one you cited a little over a year
ago. Ravitch paints a sorry picture of the current educational reform
movement and its philosophical evolution. I don't know if you recall,
but I was roundly put upon by the more "enlightened" members of this NG
when I championed her views in this NG. Perhaps you came to her work
late and missed that.
FYI, the self-esteem movement is the latest mutation of this insidious
attack on education. May I recommend for your reading a work by Maureen
Stout, "The Feel-Good Curriculum-The Dumbing Down of America's Kids In
The Name of Self-Esteem," published by Perseus Books. What makes this
book so remarkable is that Dr. Stout is a Professor of Education, and
most of them usually have their heads up their asses.
I suggest you read it. If you read Ravitch, you'll recognize this as
the latest extension of "educational reform."
Alan
Magi D. Shepley
was inconsistent and elusive, putting the blame on people who have been
dead for half a century.
Magi
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Radical1
school, has always attended Christian schools. It is beyond my
understanding why any parent who loves his child can send them to a
public school in my district.
> (1) Voucher plans (at least the ones I've read about) ask for no
> accountability from the schools receiving the voucher money (in the
> form of mandated testing, etc, that public schools must meet).
My son's school, which I presume would be considered a potential
"benefactor" of any voucher system, has infinitly greater
accountablilty than any public school with which I have had
experience. Every year, we have met with his teachers and discussed in
detail his SAT-9 test performnce. Public school SAT-9 scores are
published in the local paper, so the community has a very good idea of
just how badly their children do on these tests. Publishing private
school tests results would only make them angrier. Accountability is
not an issue at my son's school. "Accountability" only becomes an
issue when things are really screwed up, then people look for someone
to blame! This is called "accountability".
BTW, my son gets 1-2 hours of home work EVERY NIGHT. Most public
school students I see get 1-2 hours of home work per TERM (which they
generally refuse to do anyway). My son's teacher sends her lesson plan
to the parents of her students EVERY WEEK. Many public school teachers
with whom I have contact apparently don't know what a lesson plan is!
Accountability? Give me a break! The public school's teachers union
would never stand for it!
> (2) Voucher plans allow schools receiving the $$ to cherry-pick
> students, unlike public schools.
>
I have recently had contact with 3 private high schools in my city.
All of them offer scholarships and tuition assistance to low income
families. I have met a number of students who have benefited from
out-reach programs offered by these schools. I have been told by
admissions officials in 2 private high schools that they actively
solicit applications from families with students with physical or
learning disabilities. I have no personal experience with this aspect
of their program, but I have no reason to believe they were lying to
me.
> Anyway, there's some recent evidence that vouchers and similar
> solutions to problems with education won't work, simply because
> there's very little capacity in the system.
>
I would tend to agree with this point. Our city has voted down
vouchers on several occassions. My informal interpretation of voting
patterns seems to indicate that voters in the relatively more affluent
neighborhoods (middle class and upper middle class) consistently voted
against vouchers. I would guess that the rationale for this behavior
was that the benefit of having the voucher money was more than off-set
by the desire to avoid additional competition for limited seats in the
local Christian private schools.
> A much better solution is to forcibly integrate urban and suburban
> school districts, pooling their finances and allowing urban students
> to choose to attend suburban schools.
If you think about this from a parents perspective, I believe you
might conclude that this is highly unlikely. Before the great bussing
experiment, the grandparents of these suburban childen used to live in
these inner cities. For many parents (admittedly not all), the welfare
of their children is a primary consideration in where they choose to
live, and where they send their children to be educated. It may seem
logical that bussing urban kids to suburban schools would benefit the
kids now in our inner-city institutions of non-education, but I very
much doubt it. I have some experience with the social culture of
inner-city schools. Bussing these kids to the suburbs is not going to
change the attitudes, habits and culture that they have learned in the
inner-city. The first day that little Bobbie Suburban comes home and
tells mom and dad that Jose Homeboy told him to "Fuck off or I'll
smash your white mouth" will be the day the Mister Suburban moves the
family to the more distant suburbs, or, Mrs. Suburban gets a job to
pay for Christian school tuition. Social engineers also seem to forget
that those benighted folks in the 'burbs also vote in large numbers.
No, bussing just ain't gonna happen.
What's the answer. well, in my city, charter schools are popping up
like flowers in the Spring. Charter schools are voucher schools in
every respect except name. Charter schools are doing a better job for
less money.
Magi D. Shepley
Radical1 wrote:
> I teacher in an inner city high school, but my son, now entering high
> school, has always attended Christian schools. It is beyond my
> understanding why any parent who loves his child can send them to a
> public school in my district.
If you dislike the public school system so very much, and don't believe
there is any accountability, aren't you part of the problem? Why not
teach in one of the private schools that you say have more accountability
and want to provide you with lesson plans each week? Surely the children
in your class deserve what your son gets?
> > (1) Voucher plans (at least the ones I've read about) ask for no
> > accountability from the schools receiving the voucher money (in the
> > form of mandated testing, etc, that public schools must meet).
>
> My son's school, which I presume would be considered a potential
> "benefactor" of any voucher system, has infinitly greater
> accountablilty than any public school with which I have had
> experience. Every year, we have met with his teachers and discussed in
> detail his SAT-9 test performnce. Public school SAT-9 scores are
> published in the local paper, so the community has a very good idea of
> just how badly their children do on these tests. Publishing private
> school tests results would only make them angrier. Accountability is
> not an issue at my son's school. "Accountability" only becomes an
> issue when things are really screwed up, then people look for someone
> to blame! This is called "accountability".
Why don't you explain why the students in your class do so badly on the
SAT-9 to their parents?
> BTW, my son gets 1-2 hours of home work EVERY NIGHT. Most public
> school students I see get 1-2 hours of home work per TERM (which they
> generally refuse to do anyway).
Why do you only give your students 1-2 hours of homework each term? Why
do you allow them to refuse to do the homework? Students in my classroom
who do not do their homework suffer a negative impact in terms of homework
grades, and test scores (they can't pass the test, because they didn't do
the homework. I don't give study guides that detail the entire test for
them to do in class
> My son's teacher sends her lesson plan
> to the parents of her students EVERY WEEK. Many public school teachers
> with whom I have contact apparently don't know what a lesson plan is!
Do you send your lesson plans home to the parents of your students? Or is
it that you don't know what a lesson plan is? Do you think that what your
son's teacher does is true for every teacher in every private Christian
school in every state in this country?
> Accountability? Give me a break! The public school's teachers union
> would never stand for it!
Neither would a lot of private schools.
> > (2) Voucher plans allow schools receiving the $$ to cherry-pick
> > students, unlike public schools.
> >
> I have recently had contact with 3 private high schools in my city.
> All of them offer scholarships and tuition assistance to low income
> families. I have met a number of students who have benefited from
> out-reach programs offered by these schools. I have been told by
> admissions officials in 2 private high schools that they actively
> solicit applications from families with students with physical or
> learning disabilities. I have no personal experience with this aspect
> of their program, but I have no reason to believe they were lying to
> me.
They are lying to you. They don't solicit applications from students with
learning disabilities, and many private schools, ESPECIALLY those that are
church run, aren't even accessible due to older buildings and structure.
I'd like to give them some of the students in my class... bet they run
away screaming when they read the application! They certainly aren't
soliciting applicants from my LD or MR classes, nor from my PD students
(even those that are cognitively normal!) None of the private schools in
3 states (2 inner city schools, one suburban low-income school in a
wealthy county) have EVER wanted the kids from my classes!
> > Anyway, there's some recent evidence that vouchers and similar
> > solutions to problems with education won't work, simply because
> > there's very little capacity in the system.
> >
> I would tend to agree with this point. Our city has voted down
> vouchers on several occassions. My informal interpretation of voting
> patterns seems to indicate that voters in the relatively more affluent
> neighborhoods (middle class and upper middle class) consistently voted
> against vouchers.
If you're a teacher, you're in the middle class whether you want to admit
it or not. You're hardly low-income as a teacher, despite the fact that
most teachers aren't paid for what their education and the number of hours
they spend on the job are.
> I would guess that the rationale for this behavior
> was that the benefit of having the voucher money was more than off-set
> by the desire to avoid additional competition for limited seats in the
> local Christian private schools.
Uh-huh. Interesting thought. As if everybody who votes for vouchers
wants to send their child to a Christian school.
> > A much better solution is to forcibly integrate urban and suburban
> > school districts, pooling their finances and allowing urban students
> > to choose to attend suburban schools.
>
> If you think about this from a parents perspective, I believe you
> might conclude that this is highly unlikely. Before the great bussing
> experiment, the grandparents of these suburban childen used to live in
> these inner cities. For many parents (admittedly not all), the welfare
> of their children is a primary consideration in where they choose to
> live, and where they send their children to be educated. It may seem
> logical that bussing urban kids to suburban schools would benefit the
> kids now in our inner-city institutions of non-education, but I very
> much doubt it. I have some experience with the social culture of
> inner-city schools. Bussing these kids to the suburbs is not going to
> change the attitudes, habits and culture that they have learned in the
> inner-city. The first day that little Bobbie Suburban comes home and
> tells mom and dad that Jose Homeboy told him to "Fuck off or I'll
> smash your white mouth" will be the day the Mister Suburban moves the
> family to the more distant suburbs, or, Mrs. Suburban gets a job to
> pay for Christian school tuition. Social engineers also seem to forget
> that those benighted folks in the 'burbs also vote in large numbers.
> No, bussing just ain't gonna happen.
>
Well, at least you got one part of the post right. I was beginning to
really think you might be one of the public school teachers that Gary
Schnabl or some of the others know so very much about. The kind that
shoots of their mouth without really knowing anything!
> What's the answer. well, in my city, charter schools are popping up
> like flowers in the Spring. Charter schools are voucher schools in
> every respect except name. Charter schools are doing a better job for
> less money.
Less money? Not bloody likely, dear. They get the same amount per child
as the public school does. They are, in fact, a public school within the
district. They just don't have to follow the same rules that the public
school has to follow. They don't have to use state curriculum, and in
some cases, they don't provide services to students with special needs.
Magi
Herman Rubin
Magi D. Shepley <ma...@concentric.catsincyberspace.net> wrote:
>I read about all of Ravitch that I could stomach. It wasn't much. She
>was inconsistent and elusive, putting the blame on people who have been
>dead for half a century.
John Dewey and his followers deserve a great deal of the
blame. The more recent ones have essentially continued
the sect, and have added more of their doctrines.
Stephen J. Fromm
> In article <b4cc5e7c.0207...@posting.google.com>,
> stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J. Fromm) wrote:
> > You're dead wrong. Notice I wrote "urban and suburban school
> > districts." Court cases held that segregation was permitted *between*
> > districts, if not within a district (see excerpt below). The other
> > difference was that bussing was mandatory, and typically was between
> > inner city schools and lower middle class schools. I'm referring to a
> > voluntary system whereby students could attend schools of their
> > choice, in which case we're talking about inner city kids *choosing*
> > those "GOOD schools" in the upper middle class suburbs.
>
> In the Chicago metropolitan area this would put the inner-city kids on a 2
> hour bus ride from inner Chicago to the far western suburbs. Plus another
> 2 hour bus ride back home in the afternoon.
Note that my original post (to which you, admittedly, were not
replying), stated:
"A much better solution is to forcibly integrate urban and suburban
school districts, pooling their finances and allowing urban students
to choose to attend suburban schools."
Note the reference "pooling their finances," not just allowing urban
students freedom to attend suburban schools.
Besides, the original thread was in the context of vouchers. My point
is that, in that context, if one (e.g. Grinch) wants to allow "school
choice," why not extend the choice to the entire region?
sjfromm
Stephen J. Fromm
> >
> > In the Chicago metropolitan area this would put the inner-city kids on a 2
> > hour bus ride from inner Chicago to the far western suburbs. Plus another
> > 2 hour bus ride back home in the afternoon.
>
> That's right. And that's why it will not work.
That's one example.
My original post was in the context of a discussion of voucher plans.
My argument is simply that if choice is good, why not allow inner city
students even broader choice?
> The liberals ASSume that the black majority jurisdictions cannot teach their
> kids. Perhaps they are right. But there is no point in dragging down the
> public school systems that work.
And how would allowing some inner city kids to attend suburban schools
"drag them down"?
> IF a local black district has a few very bright kids that might benefit a
> "richer" environment, it can be done with specilized schools within the
> city.
>
> I understand that several cities do this. But the BIG PROBLEM in "inner
> city" schools it not whether their best and brightest can get to go to
> Pennsylvania U. rather than Pennsylvania State U but that the majority of
> their kids don't get what most of America considers to be a basic high
> school education.
>
> The problem is in the cities. It should be fixed in the cities. Making
> "super" districts will not cure the problems in the cities but it may well
> spread the disease.
That doesn't address the issue I raised in my post: there is no
rational reason to fund schools locally.
sjfromm
Stephen J. Fromm
[snip]
> The student who could do well in the "best" school and
> comes from a poor district should be allowed to do it,
> and this is not going to be accomplished by any form of
> "integration". It can only be done by teaching to the
> level of the individual. If the local school cannot
> manage it, use electronic classes; physical presence is
> not needed for most of education.
What's the evidence that electronic education is effective? My own
experience with teaching via computers wasn't a rosy one. I'm
inclined to disbelieve that it will work with young children---though
of course I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary.
[snip]
sjfromm
Herman Rubin
Magi D. Shepley <ma...@concentric.catsincyberspace.net> wrote:
>Radical1 wrote:
>> I teacher in an inner city high school, but my son, now entering high
>> school, has always attended Christian schools. It is beyond my
>> understanding why any parent who loves his child can send them to a
>> public school in my district.
>If you dislike the public school system so very much, and don't believe
>there is any accountability, aren't you part of the problem? Why not
>teach in one of the private schools that you say have more accountability
>and want to provide you with lesson plans each week? Surely the children
>in your class deserve what your son gets?
You are assuming that he is in a position to do this.
In the public schools, with rare exceptions, such as athletic
coaches, teachers have to teach to the level of those in the
classroom, and to otherwise keep within school policy. Not
all can get away with what Jaime Escalante managed; I have
seen attempts to dismiss teachers who taught stronger courses
than were "expected".
Herman Rubin
Stephen J. Fromm <stephe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>us...@mot.com (Ray VT) wrote in message news:<user-31070...@145.1.173.127>...
>> In article <b4cc5e7c.0207...@posting.google.com>,
>> stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J. Fromm) wrote:
>> > You're dead wrong. Notice I wrote "urban and suburban school
>> > districts." Court cases held that segregation was permitted *between*
>> > districts, if not within a district (see excerpt below). The other
>> > difference was that bussing was mandatory, and typically was between
>> > inner city schools and lower middle class schools. I'm referring to a
>> > voluntary system whereby students could attend schools of their
>> > choice, in which case we're talking about inner city kids *choosing*
>> > those "GOOD schools" in the upper middle class suburbs.
>> In the Chicago metropolitan area this would put the inner-city kids on a 2
>> hour bus ride from inner Chicago to the far western suburbs. Plus another
>> 2 hour bus ride back home in the afternoon.
>Note that my original post (to which you, admittedly, were not
>replying), stated:
>"A much better solution is to forcibly integrate urban and suburban
>school districts, pooling their finances and allowing urban students
>to choose to attend suburban schools."
>Note the reference "pooling their finances," not just allowing urban
>students freedom to attend suburban schools.
Pooling finances will do nothing. Throwing money at the
problem may even make it worse.
>Besides, the original thread was in the context of vouchers. My point
>is that, in that context, if one (e.g. Grinch) wants to allow "school
>choice," why not extend the choice to the entire region?
Vouchers would allow those who believe in education in ways
other than the failed ones of the public schools to set up
affordable schools not requiring commutes.
Herman Rubin
[snip]
Electronic classes does not mean teaching via computers.
It means having the class assembled electronically, rather
than by physical presence.
I agree that teaching via computers is likely to be a
very bad idea. Computers are superfast subimbeciles.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
> Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
> > "Magi D. Shepley" wrote:...
>
>
> > MK. I never claimed that professors of Education were consistent and
> > invariable, Magi. I recommend Diane Ravitch, "Left Back; A Century of
> > Failed School Reform" for a list of suspects (Dewey, Kilpatrick, and
> > the rest of the gang) and a description of the modus operandi.
>
> read two of Ravitch's works, the one you cited a little over a year
> ago. Ravitch paints a sorry picture of the current educational reform
> movement and its philosophical evolution. I don't know if you recall,
> but I was roundly put upon by the more "enlightened" members of this NG
> when I championed her views in this NG. Perhaps you came to her work
> late and missed that.
>
the teacher component of this discussion group agrees with neither you
nor Ravitch. Adminstrators' interests and teachers' interests overlap
(both are employees of the system) but are not parallel (else, what
are unions for?). Administrators do not represent the public when
they cave to unions. An administrator devoted to children or voters
will often find himself in conflict with the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.
>
> FYI, the self-esteem movement is the latest mutation of this insidious
> attack on education. May I recommend for your reading a work by Maureen
> Stout, "The Feel-Good Curriculum-The Dumbing Down of America's Kids In
> The Name of Self-Esteem," published by Perseus Books. What makes this
> book so remarkable is that Dr. Stout is a Professor of Education, and
> most of them usually have their heads up their asses.
>
"Privatization and Educational Choice").
>
> I suggest you read it. If you read Ravitch, you'll recognize this as
> the latest extension of "educational reform."
>
True Reform, parent control.
>
Magi wrote:...
>
> >I read about all of Ravitch that I could stomach. It wasn't much. She
> >was inconsistent and elusive, putting the blame on people who have been
> >dead for half a century.
>
to me. I don't see that Ravitch was inconsistent. "Elusive", I don't
understand, unless you refer to her forebearance in not making her
preferences and recommendations more clear. But she's a historian,
after all, and her personality was not her subject. "Putting the blame
on people who have been dead for half a century" is a funny way to put
it. It's --history--. What do you expect?
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
Bob LeChevalier
>I teacher in an inner city high school, but my son, now entering high
>school, has always attended Christian schools. It is beyond my
>understanding why any parent who loves his child can send them to a
>public school in my district.
And you say this as a teacher? Why do you take the money if you are
not doing the job?
>BTW, my son gets 1-2 hours of home work EVERY NIGHT. Most public
>school students I see get 1-2 hours of home work per TERM (which they
>generally refuse to do anyway).
Are you one of those teachers who only gives 1-2 hours per TERM? If
so, then why do you complain about others for doing what you do
yourself?
If the kids truly refuse to do the homework, why would they benefit
from being assigned 1-2 hours every night? How would a private school
help a kid who refuses to work?
>> (2) Voucher plans allow schools receiving the $$ to cherry-pick
>> students, unlike public schools.
Which you in effect confirm. The private schools, when faced with a
kid who refused to do homework, would likely kick him out. They
cherry pick the kids who are willing to work, leaving the public
school to figure out what to do with the rest whose parents don't seem
to care as much.
>I have recently had contact with 3 private high schools in my city.
>All of them offer scholarships and tuition assistance to low income
>families. I have met a number of students who have benefited from
>out-reach programs offered by these schools. I have been told by
>admissions officials in 2 private high schools that they actively
>solicit applications from families with students with physical or
>learning disabilities. I have no personal experience with this aspect
>of their program, but I have no reason to believe they were lying to
>me.
Of course not. They cherry pick the kids who are (in the vernacular)
Uncle Tom enough to do what The Man tells them to do.
>I have some experience with the social culture of
>inner-city schools. Bussing these kids to the suburbs is not going to
>change the attitudes, habits and culture that they have learned in the
>inner-city. The first day that little Bobbie Suburban comes home and
>tells mom and dad that Jose Homeboy told him to "Fuck off or I'll
>smash your white mouth" will be the day the Mister Suburban moves the
>family to the more distant suburbs, or, Mrs. Suburban gets a job to
>pay for Christian school tuition. Social engineers also seem to forget
>that those benighted folks in the 'burbs also vote in large numbers.
>No, bussing just ain't gonna happen.
So instead you want taxpayer money to pay for parents to run away from
the problems to voucher schools, without having to move further away.
How does that solve the problems? It doesn't.
>What's the answer. well, in my city, charter schools are popping up
>like flowers in the Spring. Charter schools are voucher schools in
>every respect except name. Charter schools are doing a better job for
>less money.
Evidence? In Washington DC they look like further ways to rip off the
taxpayer with Enron-style accounting coupled with fad-of-the-month
educational techniques.
lojbab
Magi D. Shepley
as perpetuating what she believed to be a crime. History or not, the people she bnotes are dead,
and have no further input into the issue. Things are NOT the same as they were during the periods
of time she discusses, and I find that what she does make clear (not a whole lot), isn't
interested in anything but passing the buck.
Magi
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Magi wrote:...
> >
> > >I read about all of Ravitch that I could stomach. It wasn't much. She
> > >was inconsistent and elusive, putting the blame on people who have been
> > >dead for half a century.
> >
> MK. Her subjects were inconsistent; that was one of her points, seemed
> to me. I don't see that Ravitch was inconsistent. "Elusive", I don't
> understand, unless you refer to her forebearance in not making her
> preferences and recommendations more clear. But she's a historian,
> after all, and her personality was not her subject. "Putting the blame
> on people who have been dead for half a century" is a funny way to put
> it. It's --history--. What do you expect?
Remove all space cats to email.
Magi D. Shepley
response.
Magi
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
John Gilmer
>
> That doesn't address the issue I raised in my post: there is no
> rational reason to fund schools locally.
Well, there is no rational reason not to!
The $/kid in the nasty city systems is close to the top of the scale.
If "they" truly insist upon "uniform" funding then there will be a
bureaucratic funding mess that makes the present system look positive
liberterian.
Would, say, the DC schools be inproved if "they" took away money from
Fairfax County (which has good schools) and gave it to the District?
>
> sjfromm
John Gilmer
> Electronic classes does not mean teaching via computers.
> It means having the class assembled electronically, rather
> than by physical presence.
That's one approach.
OR, the kids could individually be sent to "play" with the computer.
But if you have enough computers then many "classes" just would not have any
true function.
>
> I agree that teaching via computers is likely to be a
> very bad idea. Computers are superfast subimbeciles.
Please!
Computers effectively replicate the personalities put into them by the
programmers. Relative to small children, they are hardly "subimbeciles."
The computers are about as smart as the average "teacher."
John Gilmer
>
> Note the reference "pooling their finances," not just allowing urban
> students freedom to attend suburban schools.
Well, sport, let us say that the DC schools would "pool their finances" with
the suburban schools. If the money were to be allocated on a per student
basis the DC schools would likely get about the same or LESS money.
The problem is not the lack of money in the cities; the problem is that the
cities waste the money on silly credentials and bureaucrats.
>
John Gilmer
>
> If you dislike the public school system so very much, and don't believe
> there is any accountability, aren't you part of the problem?
Nonsense!
Teaching is just another way to make a living. It has its PLUSSES and
MINUSES like any other job.
If an individual has the 'certification" to teach why shouldn't he make as
much money as he can?
Magi D. Shepley
Fairfax give their money back to the state to fund the poorer schools in
Richmond and the rural parts of Virginia.
Magi
John Gilmer wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Magi D. Shepley
behind the keyboard, John? How can a computer be smart? What can the computer
do... that somebody hasn't programmed it to do? Very few computers show
artificial intelligence currently.
John Gilmer wrote:
> Please!
>
> Computers effectively replicate the personalities put into them by the
> programmers. Relative to small children, they are hardly "subimbeciles."
> The computers are about as smart as the average "teacher."
Remove all space cats to email.
Magi D. Shepley
Anderson to lie about the financial statements at Enron and Worldcom, because
they were certified accountants, and out to make as much money as they could.
Magi
John Gilmer wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Donna Metler
"Magi D. Shepley" <ma...@concentric.catsincyberspace.net> wrote in message
news:3D4D10FE...@concentric.net...
> The state of Virginia already requires that the richer counties like
> Fairfax give their money back to the state to fund the poorer schools in
> Richmond and the rural parts of Virginia.
>
> Magi
I just did a 2 week grad class in VA, with several Fairfax County teachers,
and according to them, the actual state funding and budget for Fairfax
county at the school level really isn't all that great-at least not in fine
arts. There still are problems with basic supplies, books, etc. The
difference is that Fairfax is affluent enough that parents and PTAs pick up
the slack.
When comparing school-provided budgets, mine was the lowest ($275/yr, for
800 kids and 3 subjects (Orff, Band, Choir)). Most of the VA public schools
were about $500/yr-and this didn't really matter as to whether you taught in
Fairfax County, Va Beach, Richmond, Roanoke, or Rural Augusta county.
Private schools were the highest-about $2500/yr, but generally there was no
distinction made between school-provided funding and PTA funding.
The difference was that the "rich" schools could generally count on several
thousand dollars a year from parents (one teacher had been able to have her
parents bankroll a $10,000 recording project last year), while the poor
school teachers either made do with what they had, bought their own
materials, instruments, etc, or wrote lots of grants.
And, since DC and Fairfax County are separate governmental agencies, there
would be no rational reason to take money from VA or Maryland and apply it
to DC schools.
Donna Metler
shouldn't be there. If this teacher thinks that the problem with their inner
city school is that standards aren't set high enough and that not enough
homework is given, it is their responsibility to change this in their
classroom. Period. I don't set my standards based on what the rest of the
school or district does, except to make sure I'm meeting the minimums. I set
it based on where my students are and what they need to accomplish to have a
reasonable chance to succeed at the next level, plus additional material if
they are capable of handling it. This is always over the state mandated
level. And I get it, too-even in an inner city school.
>
>
John Gilmer
> You've never heard the saying that the computer is only as smart as the
nut
> behind the keyboard, John? How can a computer be smart? What can the
computer
> do... that somebody hasn't programmed it to do? Very few computers show
> artificial intelligence currently.
In a narrow context a computer can be MUCH smarter than any person.
People can "think outside the box" but if you stay inside the box and the
box isn't too big, even a cheap PC is smarter than most people.
A typical box might be, say, the game of chess. Clearly the computer is
better at chess than all but a few high school students.
John Gilmer
> It doesn't work that way, John. Its like saying that its okay for Arthur
> Anderson to lie about the financial statements at Enron and Worldcom,
because
> they were certified accountants, and out to make as much money as they
could.
What?
Nonsense! A "certified" teacher wants to earn a living and the only job he
can get is in a third rate system. He takes the job. NOTHING wrong with
that. (We assume that the teacher does his job.) The teacher may HATE
the system where he works.
The teacher has a kid. The teacher wants the best for that kid and does
what is necessary to put the kid into a first rate school system. NOTHING
wrong with that, either.
Magi D. Shepley
because the county is considered to be so wealthy. According to the teachers
that I know, the state regularly decreases the amount that the county is given,
and another friend of mine at one point had sent me an article that talked about
how proud the Superintendent was to be able to give so much money back, and
still fund the schools well.
The problem is that Fairfax County isn't uniformly wealthy and does not
uniformly have PTA groups that can fund programs. I would hazard a guess that
most of the eastern part of the County (the parts closer to Alexandria,
Arlington, and DC) are less wealthy than those farther out. I know for a fact
that the parts along the US Route 1 corridor are definitely not wealthy, because
I have met Red Cross responders who tell me about people living in hotels and
camp-sites along the area... this part also includes Fort Belvoir, and
generally, military employees aren't wealthy. This isn't always the case, of
course, because many military people who work at the Pentagon make more, and
Fort Meade looks like a better base than some others (Fort Meade isn't in VA,
though, its in Maryland).
I would also guess that wherever the transient populations are, in terms of
immigrants, it'd be near public transit... that means Metro, and I don't think
the Metro goes any farther out than the Falls Church/Fairfax area? I can't
remember, its been a while since I took the metro anywhere.
And now I'm told that Fairfax County has a serious budget deficit that has
resulted in all kinds of program cuts... the things that stayed were the things
that had squeaky wheel parents... foreign language immersion (important to many
parents because of the number of non-native Americans who may speak English at
home, but want their children to know both their language and English, or who
want to give them a jumpstart), some music programs. But things that are
important to me, but not necessarily things that parents would squeak over were
cut, like assistive technology, and career services for students with
disabilities.
Magi
Magi D. Shepley
allows it to be better. If the computer hadn't been programmed to play chess,
then the high school student would win, hands down.
Magi
John Gilmer wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Magi D. Shepley
John Gilmer wrote:
> "Magi D. Shepley" <ma...@concentric.catsincyberspace.net> wrote in message
> news:3D4D11A8...@concentric.net...
> > It doesn't work that way, John. Its like saying that its okay for Arthur
> > Anderson to lie about the financial statements at Enron and Worldcom,
> because
> > they were certified accountants, and out to make as much money as they
> could.
>
> What?
>
> Nonsense! A "certified" teacher wants to earn a living and the only job he
> can get is in a third rate system. He takes the job. NOTHING wrong with
> that. (We assume that the teacher does his job.) The teacher may HATE
> the system where he works.
They can work in a private school. There are some few that pay the same as
public schools or nearly. And whether or not you hate the system you work in,
you're bound to do the best job you have in you to do. If you can't/won't/don't
do the job, you need to be replaced.
> The teacher has a kid. The teacher wants the best for that kid and does
> what is necessary to put the kid into a first rate school system. NOTHING
> wrong with that, either.
No, there isn't anything wrong with that, but if the teacher wants the best for
their child, why can they not provide the best for the people in their care?
Would you go to a doctor that followed this philosophy?
Magi
susupply
"Bob--Hip Hop-- LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org>
be dissin' another poster when he
wrote in message news:6froku48jl82pqshl...@4ax.com...
> jwgr...@yahoo.com (Radical1) wrote:
> >I teacher in an inner city high school, but my son, now entering high
> >school, has always attended Christian schools. It is beyond my
> >understanding why any parent who loves his child can send them to a
> >public school in my district.
>
> And you say this as a teacher? Why do you take the money if you are
> not doing the job?
Whuzzup wit dis? Where he say he ain't d' man?
N m'ber YO STORY, s'da hommies fault, not da teachers.
[snip]
> >I have recently had contact with 3 private high schools in my city.
> >All of them offer scholarships and tuition assistance to low income
> >families. I have met a number of students who have benefited from
> >out-reach programs offered by these schools. I have been told by
> >admissions officials in 2 private high schools that they actively
> >solicit applications from families with students with physical or
> >learning disabilities. I have no personal experience with this aspect
> >of their program, but I have no reason to believe they were lying to
> >me.
>
> Of course not. They cherry pick the kids who are (in the vernacular)
> Uncle Tom enough to do what The Man tells them to do.
Keep playin' that funky music, White Boy. Ya know, the kind that completely
reverses the meaning of what the poster actually wrote.
> >I have some experience with the social culture of
> >inner-city schools. Bussing these kids to the suburbs is not going to
> >change the attitudes, habits and culture that they have learned in the
> >inner-city. The first day that little Bobbie Suburban comes home and
> >tells mom and dad that Jose Homeboy told him to "Fuck off or I'll
> >smash your white mouth" will be the day the Mister Suburban moves the
> >family to the more distant suburbs, or, Mrs. Suburban gets a job to
> >pay for Christian school tuition. Social engineers also seem to forget
> >that those benighted folks in the 'burbs also vote in large numbers.
> >No, bussing just ain't gonna happen.
>
> So instead you want taxpayer money to pay for parents to run away from
> the problems to voucher schools, without having to move further away.
> How does that solve the problems? It doesn't.
Ah! Finally we learn what it is about learnin' da econ dat Bobby Le don'
wan' nuttin' to do wit. It be actin' white to compare costs and bennies.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
>
School Reform" elusive?)...
>
> Elusive: She clearly had no solution nor anything but blame for the
CURRENT > people in the schools as perpetuating what she believed
have no further input into the > issue. Things are NOT the same
as they were during the periods of time she > discusses, and I find
that what she does make clear (not a whole lot), isn't > interested
in anything but passing the buck.
>
major difference here.a) A small matter: since Ravitch brings the
discussion up to the current debate over "standards", her discussion
mentions people still living. b) Ravitch establishes that "experts"
led the retreat from a rigorous classical (History, Math, Latin,
Greek, etc.) curriculum. This was not the work of parents. c) I
disagree with her (implied) assumption that all children --should--
study a rigorous calssical "liberal" education, but it's silly to
dispute this in a discussion of a history book. Would you quarrel with
a Marxist historian's --facts-- if you really disagreed with the
conclusion, for example?
>
MK. This point raises the larger matter that relates to the three (or
four, counting Alan) cornered dispute here. Ravitch seems to advocate
a classical "liberal" education for all students. The professors and
other reformers she discusses have other recommendations. My
disagreement with all of them is the (implicit) assumption that
"experts" should determine what other people's children should study.
>
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to
feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not
interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they
are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." -
T.S. Eliot, 1950.
>
"I'm sorry I have so much rage, but you put it in me." --Dylan Klebold
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.educationpolicy.org
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=289
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
A guard could work at Auschwitz in good conscience, and try to make
some suffering Jews a bit more comfortable in their last days. Someone
will do the job in any case, and one has rent to pay and a family to
feed. Further, "Radical" must consider his/her value as an inside,
informed, critic. Radical's word caries more weight than that of a
parochial school teacher, whom cartel shills would accuse of defending
his/her material interest in defending vouchers. That is why defenders
of the system, like Magi, must use rhetorical tactics, suggesting that
insiders are hypocrites. Note that she does not dispute Radical's
factual assertions.
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It
might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they
pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the
poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expense of
those who have no one else to pay for them."
-- J.S. Mill, On Liberty
Radical1
> jwgr...@yahoo.com (Radical1) wrote:
> >I teacher in an inner city high school, but my son, now entering high
> >school, has always attended Christian schools. It is beyond my
> >understanding why any parent who loves his child can send them to a
> >public school in my district.
>
> And you say this as a teacher? Why do you take the money if you are
> not doing the job?
Bob,Bob,Bob. Please try to resist the temptation to kill the
messenger. In response to what I believe is your question, I am not a
regular classroom teacher, I'm a substitute teacher. I really do try
to practice in the classroom what I preach in this NG. I did take a
teaching position at an inner city high school in for Summer School
2001. Classes were 2 hours long. I had the kids take turns reading
aloud essays from the literature text book for the first hour. After
break, I had them write essays. I graded and made detailed comments on
an average of 40 essays, 4-5 nights a week for the six weeks of Summer
School.
This past Summer School I was a substitute teacher. This year the
classes were, and you may not believe this, THREE hours long! Now, you
must know that the kids who are in summer school are the ones who got
D's and F's during the regular school year; the ones who cut class and
were consistently late for school during the regular school year; the
kids who got the office referrals for disrupting the class; the kids
who... well, I think you get the picture. These are the kids for whom
our District geniuses of school administration scheduled for two 3
hour classes in the middle of summer! Because of the extended class
day, they were able to compress Summer School into 20 class days. The
bad news is, the first 3 days were a total loss because students were
standing in line registering for summer school! Pre-registration is a
lost concept in our District. But wait, there's more: in the middle of
the Summer School kids were taken out of class for 3 days to re-take
(i.e. re-fail) the State High School Exit Exam! Just what they needed,
more time out of the classroom. Now, the coup-de-grace: Summer School
ended on a Friday, but our District Geniuses (here after referred to
as "DG"'s) ordered all teachers to have final grades in by first thing
Wednesday morning so the grades could be processed by the end of
Summer School! As a result, the last 3 days of school were a total
loss. Most teachers resorted to showing movies or letting the kids
play board games. Many of them bailed out and let the subs cleanup the
mess. I was assigned to a class for 2 days after the teacher stopped
showing up. There were NO text books, but the "teacher" was kind
enough to leave what passes for a lesson plan in our District. To wit:
"the movie TRAINING DAY is in my desk, show it to the kids". IMO 98
percent of Hollywood movies have no place in the classroom, but
"Training Day" is one of the worst pieces of racist, violent and
profane crap to come out of the Hollywood exploitation cesspools in
recent years. Bob, what was the lesson to be learned here?
As far as taking their money: subs in our District are paid less than
half what our local garbage collectors are paid. A day-to-day sub, as
I am, earns no paid vacation, no sick leave, no health benefits, no
paid training, no retirement, and has no job security. As you might
expect, it is not unusual for a sub to have 3-4 clases in the school
auditorium because there aren't enough subs to cover the teacher
vacancies and absenses. Yes, I take the money because I know I've
earned it!
>
> >BTW, my son gets 1-2 hours of home work EVERY NIGHT. Most public
> >school students I see get 1-2 hours of home work per TERM (which they
> >generally refuse to do anyway).
>
> Are you one of those teachers who only gives 1-2 hours per TERM? If
> so, then why do you complain about others for doing what you do
> yourself?
>
> If the kids truly refuse to do the homework, why would they benefit
> from being assigned 1-2 hours every night? How would a private school
> help a kid who refuses to work?
----------------------------------------
I believe these kids would do homework, if they thought they were
really expected to. Can one teacher give home work while 5 other
teachers that a kid has do not. It wouldn't be easy. It seems to be a
dirty little secret in many of our schools, but in a lot of
classrooms, the teacher is not really in control, the kids are. The
school can have policies aabout food in the classroom, or CD players,
or dress, or use of profanity, but if the rules are only spratically
enforced, the kids get the message. They know the teachers and
administration aren't serious. The kids will keep the pressure on
until some teachers weaken (and let them eat snacks in class for
example), and then the domnoes start to fall. Can one teacher enforce
what other teachers and the administration refuses to enforce.
Teachers with strong feelings about ruseness, profanity, dis-respect,
disruption, etc. more often than not end up teaching in other
Districts. Kids will do homework and will act properly in class when
teachers and administartors take back control of the culture at the
school.
>
> >> (2) Voucher plans allow schools receiving the $$ to cherry-pick
> >> students, unlike public schools.
>
> Which you in effect confirm. The private schools, when faced with a
> kid who refused to do homework, would likely kick him out. They
> cherry pick the kids who are willing to work, leaving the public
> school to figure out what to do with the rest whose parents don't seem
> to care as much.
-----------------------------------------------
So what about the parents who do "care so much"? What are they
supposed to do. Wait for the schools to change? What would YOU do in
their situation. If your child were in a failed inner city high
school, and someone offered you a voucher to go to a school that might
give your child a better chance to succeed, would you really say: "No
that wouldn't be right for me to take the money because the voucher
school might be "cherry picking" in chosing my child, and I'm afraid
that the failed school might loose some of the community support it
needs to continue mal-educating the kids who are left behind"? Would
you really risk YOUR child's future to maintain the principle you
espose in this NG?
>
> >I have recently had contact with 3 private high schools in my city.
> >All of them offer scholarships and tuition assistance to low income
> >families. I have met a number of students who have benefited from
> >out-reach programs offered by these schools. I have been told by
> >admissions officials in 2 private high schools that they actively
> >solicit applications from families with students with physical or
> >learning disabilities. I have no personal experience with this aspect
> >of their program, but I have no reason to believe they were lying to
> >me.
>
> Of course not. They cherry pick the kids who are (in the vernacular)
> Uncle Tom enough to do what The Man tells them to do.
------------------------------------------------
Bob, that remark is really beneath you.
> >I have some experience with the social culture of
> >inner-city schools. Bussing these kids to the suburbs is not going to
> >change the attitudes, habits and culture that they have learned in the
> >inner-city. The first day that little Bobbie Suburban comes home and
> >tells mom and dad that Jose Homeboy told him to "Fuck off or I'll
> >smash your white mouth" will be the day the Mister Suburban moves the
> >family to the more distant suburbs, or, Mrs. Suburban gets a job to
> >pay for Christian school tuition. Social engineers also seem to forget
> >that those benighted folks in the 'burbs also vote in large numbers.
> >No, bussing just ain't gonna happen.
>
> So instead you want taxpayer money to pay for parents to run away from
> the problems to voucher schools, without having to move further away.
> How does that solve the problems? It doesn't.
----------------------------------------------
Yes, it does for those parents. Ok, you can deny inner city families
your precious "taxpayer money", but they'll get it eventually anyway.
When your car insurance goes up due to high theft rates, that's a tax
too; when you have to commute for an hour each way to find a safe
place to live, that's a tax too; when these kids with no education and
a bad attitude become incarcerated adults costing $30-40,000 a year,
that's a tax too. And that's not even considering the impact on the
quality of life of everyone who has any contact with our inner cities
(which our educational system has effectively helped to destroy). Pay
now or pay later, Bob.
>
> >What's the answer. well, in my city, charter schools are popping up
> >like flowers in the Spring. Charter schools are voucher schools in
> >every respect except name. Charter schools are doing a better job for
> >less money.
>
> Evidence? In Washington DC they look like further ways to rip off the
> taxpayer with Enron-style accounting coupled with fad-of-the-month
> educational techniques.
---------------------------------------------------
Gee, that's just the kind of criticisms I hear directed at my local
school District. People with the money have a choice, can't we give a
litle choice to people who don't have much of anything else?
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<6froku48jl82pqshl...@4ax.com>...
>> jwgr...@yahoo.com (Radical1) wrote:
>> >I teacher in an inner city high school, but my son, now entering high
>> >school, has always attended Christian schools. It is beyond my
>> >understanding why any parent who loves his child can send them to a
>> >public school in my district.
>>
>> And you say this as a teacher? Why do you take the money if you are
>> not doing the job?
>---------------------------------------
>Bob,Bob,Bob. Please try to resist the temptation to kill the
>messenger. In response to what I believe is your question, I am not a
>regular classroom teacher, I'm a substitute teacher. I really do try
>to practice in the classroom what I preach in this NG.
Then obviously kids that you teach have more than 1-2 hours homework
per term, unless you only teach them one day.
I did take a
>teaching position at an inner city high school in for Summer School
>2001. Classes were 2 hours long. I had the kids take turns reading
>aloud essays from the literature text book for the first hour. After
>break, I had them write essays. I graded and made detailed comments on
>an average of 40 essays, 4-5 nights a week for the six weeks of Summer
>School.
>
>This past Summer School I was a substitute teacher. This year the
>classes were, and you may not believe this, THREE hours long!
Lord have mercy!
How easy your district is on the kids.
Fairfax County summer school courses for high school are ONE class
from 745 AM to 230 PM. Middle schoolers take two classes at a time.
A high schooler who needs to retake more than one class a year doesn't
graduate in 4 years.
If a kid goofs off all year, then summer school is a punishment, and
it should be. It takes 6 hours a day for 30 days (6 weeks) to match
the clock time of a school year class of 36 weeks at an hour a day.
BTW, parents have to pay for summer school here (and transportation -
the summer school is seldom at the closest school), though it is
discounted up to 90% for those qualifying for free lunches.
>Now, you
>must know that the kids who are in summer school are the ones who got
>D's and F's during the regular school year; the ones who cut class and
>were consistently late for school during the regular school year; the
>kids who got the office referrals for disrupting the class; the kids
>who... well, I think you get the picture.
Yes I get the picture. Sounds like here. They played around all
year, and they get to work through summer.
>The
>bad news is, the first 3 days were a total loss because students were
>standing in line registering for summer school! Pre-registration is a
>lost concept in our District.
They have preregistration here, but since kids may not find out until
just before summer school starts that they flunked and need to take a
course, there is some amount of last-minute stuff.
But wait, there's more: in the middle of
>the Summer School kids were taken out of class for 3 days to re-take
>(i.e. re-fail) the State High School Exit Exam! Just what they needed,
>more time out of the classroom. Now, the coup-de-grace: Summer School
>ended on a Friday, but our District Geniuses (here after referred to
>as "DG"'s) ordered all teachers to have final grades in by first thing
>Wednesday morning so the grades could be processed by the end of
>Summer School! As a result, the last 3 days of school were a total
>loss.
Here they do the same, but the last two days are given over to
(re)taking the state SOL test in the subject.
>IMO 98
>percent of Hollywood movies have no place in the classroom, but
>"Training Day" is one of the worst pieces of racist, violent and
>profane crap to come out of the Hollywood exploitation cesspools in
>recent years. Bob, what was the lesson to be learned here?
That the teacher left you holding the bag.
>As far as taking their money: subs in our District are paid less than
>half what our local garbage collectors are paid. A day-to-day sub, as
>I am, earns no paid vacation, no sick leave, no health benefits, no
>paid training, no retirement, and has no job security. As you might
>expect, it is not unusual for a sub to have 3-4 clases in the school
>auditorium because there aren't enough subs to cover the teacher
>vacancies and absenses. Yes, I take the money because I know I've
>earned it!
If you showed the movie, you didn't earn any more than they paid you.
>> >BTW, my son gets 1-2 hours of home work EVERY NIGHT. Most public
>> >school students I see get 1-2 hours of home work per TERM (which they
>> >generally refuse to do anyway).
>>
>> Are you one of those teachers who only gives 1-2 hours per TERM? If
>> so, then why do you complain about others for doing what you do
>> yourself?
>>
>> If the kids truly refuse to do the homework, why would they benefit
>> from being assigned 1-2 hours every night? How would a private school
>> help a kid who refuses to work?
>----------------------------------------
>I believe these kids would do homework, if they thought they were
>really expected to. Can one teacher give home work while 5 other
>teachers that a kid has do not.
My kids have had teachers that did so.
>It wouldn't be easy. It seems to be a
>dirty little secret in many of our schools, but in a lot of
>classrooms, the teacher is not really in control, the kids are. The
>school can have policies aabout food in the classroom, or CD players,
>or dress, or use of profanity, but if the rules are only spratically
>enforced, the kids get the message. They know the teachers and
>administration aren't serious. The kids will keep the pressure on
>until some teachers weaken (and let them eat snacks in class for
>example), and then the domnoes start to fall. Can one teacher enforce
>what other teachers and the administration refuses to enforce.
Yes. Not with as much success as they might otherwise have.
>Teachers with strong feelings about ruseness, profanity, dis-respect,
>disruption, etc. more often than not end up teaching in other
>Districts. Kids will do homework and will act properly in class when
>teachers and administartors take back control of the culture at the
>school.
Which has to start with the individuals on the front line.
>> Which you in effect confirm. The private schools, when faced with a
>> kid who refused to do homework, would likely kick him out. They
>> cherry pick the kids who are willing to work, leaving the public
>> school to figure out what to do with the rest whose parents don't seem
>> to care as much.
>-----------------------------------------------
>So what about the parents who do "care so much"?
They save their money so that they can afford choice. They move to
districts that have better schools. Why should the public pay for
this?
>If your child were in a failed inner city high
>school, and someone offered you a voucher to go to a school that might
>give your child a better chance to succeed, would you really say: "No
>that wouldn't be right for me to take the money because the voucher
>school might be "cherry picking" in chosing my child, and I'm afraid
>that the failed school might loose some of the community support it
>needs to continue mal-educating the kids who are left behind"?
Hey, if someone offered me a voucher to send my kids to a better
school, I probably would consider it. But why should the public be
offering vouchers, instead of fixing the schools.
>Would
>you really risk YOUR child's future to maintain the principle you
>espose in this NG?
My daughter attends a high school whose kids consider it a "ghetto
school". It isn't really inner city, but rather serves a high
minority (mostly Hispanic and Asian) area in a wealthy suburb. It has
many of the problems you describe, though probably not as serious. My
daughter still attends there, and the primary reason I would consider
moving her is NOT for a better academic environment, but because the
school is almost 5 miles from my house, and is the 4th or 5th closest
high school, due to weirdness in the school boundaries.
>> Of course not. They cherry pick the kids who are (in the vernacular)
>> Uncle Tom enough to do what The Man tells them to do.
>------------------------------------------------
>Bob, that remark is really beneath you.
Sorry for putting it undiplomatically, but private schools do not want
problem kids. The majority of kids you describe would not get
accepted in a private school, and if they were, they'd be kicked out
within a quarter. The public schools have no choice.
And the Washington Post has reported that inner city kids put pressure
on their peers to not cooperate, using words not unlike what I used.
>> So instead you want taxpayer money to pay for parents to run away from
>> the problems to voucher schools, without having to move further away.
>> How does that solve the problems? It doesn't.
>----------------------------------------------
>Yes, it does for those parents.
It doesn't solve the problem for SOCIETY, and we are talking about
spending SOCIETY's (tax) money, not the parents' money.
>Ok, you can deny inner city families
>your precious "taxpayer money", but they'll get it eventually anyway.
>When your car insurance goes up due to high theft rates, that's a tax
>too; when you have to commute for an hour each way to find a safe
>place to live, that's a tax too; when these kids with no education and
>a bad attitude become incarcerated adults costing $30-40,000 a year,
>that's a tax too. And that's not even considering the impact on the
>quality of life of everyone who has any contact with our inner cities
>(which our educational system has effectively helped to destroy). Pay
>now or pay later, Bob.
Hey, I use that argument myself. But helping the 10% of kids who
would and could benefit from a voucher, and who probably are also the
kids who will make it in the public school as well (because their
parents care enough to be involved), does not solve the problem for
the rest, and may not really help the kids who would have succeeded
anyway.
>> Evidence? In Washington DC they look like further ways to rip off the
>> taxpayer with Enron-style accounting coupled with fad-of-the-month
>> educational techniques.
>---------------------------------------------------
>Gee, that's just the kind of criticisms I hear directed at my local
>school District. People with the money have a choice, can't we give a
>litle choice to people who don't have much of anything else?
Let them earn choice. I had to earn the choices I have.
I'm often accused of being a "liberal" by the right wing extremists
because I firmly believe in a social safety net. But I don't believe
that the safety net has to be one with luxuries, and choice is a
luxury.
lojbab
Herman Rubin
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>jwgr...@yahoo.com (Radical1) wrote:
.................
>Which you in effect confirm. The private schools, when faced with a
>kid who refused to do homework, would likely kick him out. They
>cherry pick the kids who are willing to work, leaving the public
>school to figure out what to do with the rest whose parents don't seem
>to care as much.
Now why should those parents whose children are willing to
do what it takes to learn the material have their children
put up with those who are not willing to do so, and thus
slow down the class? They should not be in the same class,
and they should not receive the same credit.
If the public schools treated students according to what
they know and can do, and not by age, which they did to
a considerable extent before the educationists destroyed
the academic aspects, we would not need vouchers. At this
time, the damage cannot even be undone in the public schools.
Magi D. Shepley
suggesting that it could learn to play chess given the appropriate setting?
Magi
Alberto Moreira wrote:
> "Magi D. Shepley" <ma...@concentric.catsincyberspace.net> said:
>
> >The computer is only better at chess because somebody gave it a algorithm that
> >allows it to be better. If the computer hadn't been programmed to play chess,
> >then the high school student would win, hands down.
>
> But Magi, it goes well beyond the algorithm. A chess program learns,
> and it also involves a number of meta-algorithms. Besides, the
> algorithms are not deterministic.
>
> Alberto.
Magi D. Shepley
job of the parents. I can and do offer input based on what I see, but I
don't program for the child. If Ravitch is intended to be a history book
(which is NOT how it was presented on this group until you joined the
discussion), then that is fine. She is writing about history. Slightly
revisionist history, but that isn't unusual. Many people take her works
and cite her as being the end-all-be-all of education reform. I also
highly disagree with the notion that all people need a complete classical
education. I don't think that type of education fits in the modern era.
Magi
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Magi D. Shepley
they are simply commentary based on her experience in her school. I could make
the same things, and note that the kids in MY class do their homework, and bring
it back. The kids in MY class know how to read and know how to write. Are my
assertions factual? Maybe.
Magi
Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
John Gilmer
> The computer is only better at chess because somebody gave it a algorithm
that
> allows it to be better. If the computer hadn't been programmed to play
chess,
> then the high school student would win, hands down.
Yeah. So what?
The computer can be thus programmed and can beat the high school student.
We are not particularly close to the point where rooms of PCs will replace
classroom teachers but we certainly are where particular students would
often better spend their time with a PC than a conventional classroom.
Magi D. Shepley
Magi
John Gilmer wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Herman Rubin
Alberto Moreira <junk...@moreira.mv.com> wrote:
>stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J. Fromm) said:
..............
>You see, the reason why suburban schools show better results isn't
>because they're necessarily better. The real reason is the
>socio-economic setting within which those schools operate, and the
>support kids get at home. The issues of an insufficient schooling
>experience mustn't be addressed at school, but at home !
It is the attitude, and the opportunity.
>And even if we ignore that, at what cost we get choice ? Take my own
>offspring, for example: straight A students, Amherst and Columbia
>material. Do you really think a urban kid from a less-favored
>environment can face the same level of intellectual pressure ?
It certainly can be done, if the doors are opened. I can
say that because I did it. Ability, encouragement, and
opportunity are what counts.
I
>frankly don't think so. Therefore, either that kid won't make it, or
>he or she will cause the school to slow down to a level of quality
>compatible with the kid - in which case, much of the benefit will have
>been gone, and the more advanced students will pay for it.
>>And how would allowing some inner city kids to attend suburban schools
>>"drag them down"?
>See above.
Nobody learns on a school bus. They should "attend"
suburban schools by remote classes.
>>That doesn't address the issue I raised in my post: there is no
>>rational reason to fund schools locally.
>On the contrary, there's no reason not to. Why should Nashua schools
>worry about paying for schooling other communities ? Why should a
>South Nashua school have to cater for North Nashua students ? Schools
>should be funded locally so that locals have more power and more say
>on what goes on at school. If we don't fund schools locally, people's
>say is diluted, and that's bad for everyone. The way I see it is,
>school systems and their funding should be strongly decentralized, and
>under the control of the local community's vote.
This is a reason for having non-public schools, and without
physical presence. I went to public schools, but what I
learned there I could have just as easily learned from books
with little contact with teachers. My parents could not help
beyond the primary level, and the teachers did not.
Herman Rubin
John Gilmer <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>> Electronic classes does not mean teaching via computers.
>> It means having the class assembled electronically, rather
>> than by physical presence.
>That's one approach.
>OR, the kids could individually be sent to "play" with the computer.
I learned much from undirected reading with library books;
we could not afford books at home. The school would not
even consider advancing with directed reading.
>But if you have enough computers then many "classes" just would not have any
>true function.
So what? It is learning which counts.
>> I agree that teaching via computers is likely to be a
>> very bad idea. Computers are superfast subimbeciles.
>Please!
>Computers effectively replicate the personalities put into them by the
>programmers.
Hardly. However, it depends on what is being taught;
computers can do a rather good job of teaching the
trivial pursuit which seems to be the main concern.
Certainly, they can do as well as books, if augmented
with books. Computer screens are totally incapable of
displaying enough material.
Relative to small children, they are hardly "subimbeciles."
>The computers are about as smart as the average "teacher."
That may be, but you have seen my comments about the
amount of mathematics and linguistic structure understood
by elementary school teachers.
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <6froku48jl82pqshl...@4ax.com>,
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>jwgr...@yahoo.com (Radical1) wrote:
>>Which you in effect confirm. The private schools, when faced with a
>>kid who refused to do homework, would likely kick him out. They
>>cherry pick the kids who are willing to work, leaving the public
>>school to figure out what to do with the rest whose parents don't seem
>>to care as much.
>
>Now why should those parents whose children are willing to
>do what it takes to learn the material have their children
>put up with those who are not willing to do so, and thus
>slow down the class?
Because they choose to live in the same country (and the same town in
the same country in fact) with those other kids.
>If the public schools treated students according to what
>they know and can do, and not by age, which they did to
>a considerable extent before the educationists destroyed
>the academic aspects,
Proof by unsupported assertion.
The only place this happened was in the one-room schoolhouse, which
was by necessity ungraded (and since one-room schoolhouse teachers
taught only the "3 R's", "acceleration" if it existed was extremely
limited - probably if you learned all that the teacher had to teach in
less than 8 years, it was up to the parents to figure out what to do
with you). Age segregation and grade levels seem to have been the
first "reforms" put in place when schools became large enough that
grades were possible, and this seems to have significantly predated
Dewey. I've seen no particular evidence that acceleration (skipping)
was any more prevalent early in this century or late in the last
century than it is now.
lojbab
Herman Rubin
Magi D. Shepley <ma...@concentric.catsincyberspace.net> wrote:
>It doesn't work that way, John. Its like saying that its okay for Arthur
>Anderson to lie about the financial statements at Enron and Worldcom, because
>they were certified accountants, and out to make as much money as they could.
I see no evidence that the job was done any worse than others
would have done it.
If an artist can make more for house painting than for producing
art, we should not criticize his house painting for not being
works of art because he does it.
>Magi
>John Gilmer wrote:
>> > If you dislike the public school system so very much, and don't believe
>> > there is any accountability, aren't you part of the problem?
>> Nonsense!
>> Teaching is just another way to make a living. It has its PLUSSES and
>> MINUSES like any other job.
>> If an individual has the 'certification" to teach why shouldn't he make as
>> much money as he can?
Herman Rubin
Donna Metler <nospam_...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
>news:3d4cfed6$0$25...@dingus.crosslink.net...
>> > If you dislike the public school system so very much, and don't believe
>> > there is any accountability, aren't you part of the problem?
>> Nonsense!
>> Teaching is just another way to make a living. It has its PLUSSES and
>> MINUSES like any other job.
>> If an individual has the 'certification" to teach why shouldn't he make as
>> much money as he can?
>If an individual, no matter the job, cannot do the job competently, they
>shouldn't be there. If this teacher thinks that the problem with their inner
>city school is that standards aren't set high enough and that not enough
>homework is given, it is their responsibility to change this in their
>classroom.
This is assuming it can be done within the limitations of
the system. If the school system says that so much homework
can be given in a given class, the teacher may possibly be
able to raise the level, but CANNOT give more; there is a
limited amount of time available to the students.
Period. I don't set my standards based on what the rest of the
>school or district does, except to make sure I'm meeting the minimums. I set
>it based on where my students are and what they need to accomplish to have a
>reasonable chance to succeed at the next level, plus additional material if
>they are capable of handling it. This is always over the state mandated
>level. And I get it, too-even in an inner city school.
In some subjects, you can do this. In others, no.
Those who pass the prospective schoolteachers with junk are
meeting the standards of those courses as stated, and are
fully aware that, if the faculty maintained the standards
which they believe, these prospective teachers will not be
taught by this faculty, but by those who do not even try to
get them to understand.
When someone hands you a lemon, make lemonade. Until we set
up a major affordable alternative to the present schools, many
will be in the situation where the best they can do is to make
a slight improvement in the lemonade.
Herman Rubin
John Gilmer <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
A more descriptive box would be arithmetic. The computer is
probably better at arithmetic than any person. However, this
does not mean that the computer has the slightest idea about
what it means. It is not being smarter, it is being so much
faster that the lack of brains does not show up.
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> Alan Lichtenstein <alicht...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3D49E0...@erols.com>...
> > Malcolm Kirkpatrick wrote:
> > > "Magi D. Shepley" wrote:...
> >
> >
> > > MK. I never claimed that professors of Education were consistent and
> > > invariable, Magi. I recommend Diane Ravitch, "Left Back; A Century of
> > > Failed School Reform" for a list of suspects (Dewey, Kilpatrick, and
> > > the rest of the gang) and a description of the modus operandi.
> >
> > Why, Malcolm, we have something in which we find complete agreement. I
> > read two of Ravitch's works, the one you cited a little over a year
> > ago. Ravitch paints a sorry picture of the current educational reform
> > movement and its philosophical evolution. I don't know if you recall,
> > but I was roundly put upon by the more "enlightened" members of this NG
> > when I championed her views in this NG. Perhaps you came to her work
> > late and missed that.
> >
> MK. I must have missed the entire thread. It does not suprise me that
> the teacher component of this discussion group agrees with neither you
> nor Ravitch. Adminstrators' interests and teachers' interests overlap
> (both are employees of the system) but are not parallel (else, what
> are unions for?). Administrators do not represent the public when
> they cave to unions. An administrator devoted to children or voters
> will often find himself in conflict with the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.
Malcolm, now you get yourself in trouble characterizing group behavior
and then making sweeping generalizations based on group membership.
Reveals more of your personal bias and prejudice rather than
objectivity. FYI, I happen to be in the "group" that you would
characterize as administrators( an assistant principal ). And for the
record, I find that, aside from work rules and the supervisory aspects
of the daily performance of tasks, both teachers and administrators
generally share a common belief in their mutual desire to educate their
charges as best as they can, and that they truly want the best for their
students. And additionally for the record, most administrators share
their belief in self-esteem, as do the teachers, placing their
educational philosophies at odds with reality. I find myself in the
minority on that issue. The fact that the leadership of the
NEA/AFT/AFSCME might have the same frames of reference has more to do
with the venue in which they received their training than anything else.
> > FYI, the self-esteem movement is the latest mutation of this insidious
> > attack on education. May I recommend for your reading a work by Maureen
> > Stout, "The Feel-Good Curriculum-The Dumbing Down of America's Kids In
> > The Name of Self-Esteem," published by Perseus Books. What makes this
> > book so remarkable is that Dr. Stout is a Professor of Education, and
> > most of them usually have their heads up their asses.
> >
> MK. Thanks, Alan. I will (as soon as I finish Myron Lieberman's
> "Privatization and Educational Choice").
> >
> > I suggest you read it. If you read Ravitch, you'll recognize this as
> > the latest extension of "educational reform."
> >
> MK. I see most "reform" proposals as attempts to distract from the One
> True Reform, parent control.
Your reform will only come about when government decides to get out of
the educational business althgether and just let the parents provide for
and PAY for education. Since that's not likely to occur, as under that
scenario, only the wealthy will have access to more than a rudimentary
education, it will be obvious that government will have to provide for a
floor in the instructional service, as is now. That being the case,
that service that government provides will have to be uniform in nature
for all the citizenry. That is why government services cannot be
provided cafeterial style, where each member of the citizenry chooses
how to spend their money.
Of course, government never REQUIRED anyone to use the provided service,
and those opting out always had the right to choose their own service
provider, but under those circumstances, they then had to PAY for their
choice.
THAT Malcolm, was, is and always will be the issue in vouchers. You
would do well to recognize that as such.
Alan
( remainder of post snipped-follow thread )
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> Elusive: She clearly had no solution nor anything but blame for the CURRENT people in the schools
> and have no further input into the issue. Things are NOT the same as they were during the periods
> of time she discusses, and I find that what she does make clear (not a whole lot), isn't
> interested in anything but passing the buck.
Magi, Diane Ravitch is probably THE foremost educational historian of
our time. As a historian, she does not have to, nor should she, propose
a solution. She is not suggesting a method or philosophy based on
learning theory, or other reasearch. She is simply doing the job of a
historian; citing what has occurred, and reporting on its effects. That
can hardly be described as being elusive. Her work is NOT one
professing a theory, but rather reporting on the effectiveness, as borne
out by the record, of those who, in the past, did.
And as far as your criticism about things not being as they were in the
past, Ravitch does indeed take us up to speed in the present in her
book. In point of fact, had she published her work after Dr. Stout did
with hers on self-esteem, Ravitch most certainly would have recognized
this insidious movement is the lastest incarnation of educational
reform, and a logical evolution of the last reform movement she cited.
Malcolm's comments to you about the nature of Ravitch's work are well
founded.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> Experts don't determine what other people's children study. That is the
> job of the parents.
Sorry, Magi, but you're wrong. Experts do indeed determine what
people's children study. Experts do indeed develop curriculum; experts
do indeed develop graduation requirements. Experts do indeed develop
different types of instructional programs that children( and by
extension, parents, ) can "opt" into. If certain programs are sold as
"better meeting the needs of children" as they often are, then the soft
sell is indeed in. Clearly, Ravitch does indeed make the distinction
between education and training, a powerful point, which I believe you
overlooked.
I can and do offer input based on what I see, but I
> don't program for the child. If Ravitch is intended to be a history book
> (which is NOT how it was presented on this group until you joined the
> discussion), then that is fine.
Magi, I made the original citation, and I NEVER attributed anything to
Ravitch other than that she was likely the foremost educational
historian with credentials in that area of the highest level. If I
erred in assuming members of the group understood the difference between
a theorist/researcher and a historian, then that was my shortcoming.
However, I never presented her otherwise.
She is writing about history. Slightly
> revisionist history, but that isn't unusual.
Education contains no revisionist school, or at least has never been
characterized in that way. Nobody is attempting to revise
interpretations based on the facts( as does the revisionist school of
the Pearl Harbor attack ). Ravitch simply reports facts and outcomes,
not conclusions.
Many people take her works
> and cite her as being the end-all-be-all of education reform.
No one takes her works as educational reform. Her works are those of a
historian. Now if the results she catalogues are embarrassing to the
so-called reformers, then perhaps it is THEY who should take stock of
THEIR reforms.
I also
> highly disagree with the notion that all people need a complete classical
> education.
If they're going to be educated they do. If they're going to be trained
ir indoctrinated, then they don't. That distinction is clearly
demonstrated when on reads Ravitch.
I don't think that type of education fits in the modern era.
Funny, that's what every reformer over the past hundred years claimed.
John Gilmer
> Can you cite any research for this assumption, John?
>
> Magi
Just my personal observations.
John Gilmer
>
> Hardly. However, it depends on what is being taught;
> computers can do a rather good job of teaching the
> trivial pursuit which seems to be the main concern.
Hey, don't knock "trivial pursuit."
Doing well at trivial pursuit (at least the original version) usually comes
from having a good education and reading a lot.
>
> Certainly, they can do as well as books, if augmented
> with books. Computer screens are totally incapable of
> displaying enough material.
>
True. Any when folks try the make computer replacement for books the
results, at best, are silly.
Computers are good at being "teaching machines" and at implementing
"programmed instruction." (duh!)
They can provide questions (and answers) to kids such that their reach is
just beyond their grasp. This may not be the best approach for all kids
but I believe many kids would benefit if a significant (say, 1/3) portion of
classroom "instruction" was replaced by one-on-one with the computer.
> Relative to small children, they are hardly "subimbeciles."
> >The computers are about as smart as the average "teacher."
>
> That may be, but you have seen my comments about the
> amount of mathematics and linguistic structure understood
> by elementary school teachers.
Come, on. I was just pulling the legs of some of the posters here.
Obviously, almost any teacher can out smart almost any kid in the 2nd grade.
There are all kinds of techniques used in teaching. It would amaze me if
at least some of them could not be done better with a machine than even a
one-on-one interaction with a teacher. Real teaches don't have infinite
(ok, not infinite, but LOTS and LOTS of) patience, for example. Machines
do.
John Gilmer
>
> This is assuming it can be done within the limitations of
> the system. If the school system says that so much homework
> can be given in a given class, the teacher may possibly be
> able to raise the level, but CANNOT give more; there is a
> limited amount of time available to the students.
A LONG TIME AGO I did a little substitute "teaching." The ONE thing I
learned was there there are "teaching" situation where "they" don't want you
to teach; "they" just want you the keep the classroom noise level down to
where I cannot be heard in the hallway (or in some case, the main office.)
Like it or not, some "inner city" classrooms are operated on this very same
basis. I just don't believe there is anything an individual teacher can do
to change this. Maybe the administration with the right can of help from
parents could change it, but not the individual teacher.
The "teacher" in this situation will simply mark time until has "experience"
sets him up for a better school and/or a better system.
John Gilmer
> I've seen no particular evidence that acceleration (skipping)
> was any more prevalent early in this century or late in the last
> century than it is now.
"Early in this century?"
You mean, WAY WAY back to 2001?
Herman Rubin
Magi D. Shepley <ma...@concentric.catsincyberspace.net> wrote:
>Experts don't determine what other people's children study. That is the
>job of the parents.
It is not just "experts", but even those who are unqualified,
who do. There is essentially no parental choice in the first
few years of school.
I can and do offer input based on what I see, but I
>don't program for the child.
You are teaching music, I believe. For those learning language
or mathematics, this is very definitely NOT done. The children
are plunked in a classroom for administrative convenience,
are given lessons almost entirely on a prearranged schedule,
and little, if anything, is available otherwise.
Herman Rubin
Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>hru...@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>>In article <6froku48jl82pqshl...@4ax.com>,
>>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>jwgr...@yahoo.com (Radical1) wrote:
>>>Which you in effect confirm. The private schools, when faced with a
>>>kid who refused to do homework, would likely kick him out. They
>>>cherry pick the kids who are willing to work, leaving the public
>>>school to figure out what to do with the rest whose parents don't seem
>>>to care as much.
<>Now why should those parents whose children are willing to
<>do what it takes to learn the material have their children
<>put up with those who are not willing to do so, and thus
<>slow down the class?
>Because they choose to live in the same country (and the same town in
>the same country in fact) with those other kids.
What you are saying is that those who have ability and are
willing to work MUST be denied this because they live in
the same country with those who do not and are not.
Herman Rubin
John Gilmer <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote:
>> Hardly. However, it depends on what is being taught;
>> computers can do a rather good job of teaching the
>> trivial pursuit which seems to be the main concern.
>Hey, don't knock "trivial pursuit."
>Doing well at trivial pursuit (at least the original version) usually comes
>from having a good education and reading a lot.
From having a large collection of facts, maybe. But
the important part is the "big picture", and even more
so, the concepts which often make knowing the facts
unnecessary.
>> Certainly, they can do as well as books, if augmented
>> with books. Computer screens are totally incapable of
>> displaying enough material.
>True. Any when folks try the make computer replacement for books the
>results, at best, are silly.
>Computers are good at being "teaching machines" and at implementing
>"programmed instruction." (duh!)
>They can provide questions (and answers) to kids such that their reach is
>just beyond their grasp. This may not be the best approach for all kids
>but I believe many kids would benefit if a significant (say, 1/3) portion of
>classroom "instruction" was replaced by one-on-one with the computer.
>> Relative to small children, they are hardly "subimbeciles."
>> >The computers are about as smart as the average "teacher."
>> That may be, but you have seen my comments about the
>> amount of mathematics and linguistic structure understood
>> by elementary school teachers.
>Come, on. I was just pulling the legs of some of the posters here.
>Obviously, almost any teacher can out smart almost any kid in the 2nd grade.
We have much evidence to the contrary. We can teach 2nd grade
children mathematical concepts; the evidence seems to be that
the teachers can no longer learn them.
>There are all kinds of techniques used in teaching. It would amaze me if
>at least some of them could not be done better with a machine than even a
>one-on-one interaction with a teacher.
Some of them can definitely be done better with a machine.
Real teaches don't have infinite
>(ok, not infinite, but LOTS and LOTS of) patience, for example. Machines
>do.
But machines do not have the intelligence to know when repeating
the material in the same way is counterproductive. Unfortunately,
too many teachers are like that as well. A good teacher should
be able to consider approaches to explain something which were
not taught.
Bob LeChevalier
>Magi D. Shepley wrote:
>> Elusive: She clearly had no solution nor anything but blame for the CURRENT people in the schools
>> as perpetuating what she believed to be a crime. History or not, the people she bnotes are dead,
>> and have no further input into the issue. Things are NOT the same as they were during the periods
>> of time she discusses, and I find that what she does make clear (not a whole lot), isn't
>> interested in anything but passing the buck.
>
>Magi, Diane Ravitch is probably THE foremost educational historian of
>our time.
Nonsense. She is an educational reform advocate with credentials in
history. She is only "foremost" among those who share her political
program.
>Her work is NOT one
>professing a theory, but rather reporting on the effectiveness, as borne
>out by the record, of those who, in the past, did.
http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/arts/29-08/donato04.htm
indicates that there are two competing schools of educational
historical thought. Ravitch is merely one of several supporting one
of the two schools, which this cite accurately notes has made some
"overblown" criticisms of the other school.
>As a historian, she does not have to, nor should she, propose
>a solution.
But she does!
http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/arts/29-08/donato09.htm
>For all its dilemmas, a small number of educational historians have
> been applying their scholarship to provide insights and, on occasion,
> policy direction to contemporary issues. The most prominent of these
> have been Maris Vinovskis (1999), Diane Ravitch (1995, 2000), and
> Ravitch and Vinovskis (1995). Ravitch, in particular, has often drawn
> upon her historical analysis of "failed school reform" to show how
> reformers have undermined the schools' capacities to achieve quality
> education for all students and to suggest what kinds of reform
> efforts are more likely to achieve that goal.
>And as far as your criticism about things not being as they were in the
>past, Ravitch does indeed take us up to speed in the present in her
>book.
Whereas bona fide historians avoid attempting to analyze the time
period in which they live. Again from the same cite:
http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/arts/29-08/donato09.htm
>In terms of directly shaping policy, such efforts appear to have
> little impact, except insofar as they give evidence to policymakers
> already decided upon their goals. History's power in the policymaking
> arena tends to be directly proportional to its ability to strengthen
> existing advocacy positions. This situation makes historians nervous
> and apprehensive about the misuses of educational history. The more
> historians seek to shape the policy field, the more the "policy tail"
> can wag the "historical dog" (Rury, tape 5, p. 26), with policymakers
> prescribing or dictating the foci of educational history, the issues
> to be studied, and the political lenses and ideologies that inform
> the scholarship.
>
>One way out is to hold fast to the notion that educational historians
> offer "historical perspectives," keeping a kind of arm's length
> distance from the policy process as a way of protecting the
> authenticity of the past. As one Spencer conference participant
> suggested, educational historians need to be careful about their
> involvement in the policy arena because they often become advocates
> of specific reforms, are likely to distort the past in the process,
> and run the risk of trying to become what they are not, "policy
> analysts . . . political scientists, anthropologists, sociologists,
> [or] whatever it is that is needed" (conference participant, tape 13,
> p. 23). By remaining historians and letting the questions arise from
> the past rather than from present dilemmas, educational historians
> may be less attractive to policymakers but more substantial
> contributors to the discipline of history.
Ravitch is the foremost member of those educational historians that
have become "advocates of specific reforms", "distort[ing] the past in
the process".
lojbab
Magi D. Shepley
school houses did, in fact, have "grades". Students worked on different
texts and different spelling words. Check out the biographies of L.M.
Montgomery (Anne of Green Gables author), and Laura Ingalls Wilder.
Magi
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Proof by unsupported assertion.
>
> The only place this happened was in the one-room schoolhouse, which
> was by necessity ungraded (and since one-room schoolhouse teachers
> taught only the "3 R's", "acceleration" if it existed was extremely
> limited - probably if you learned all that the teacher had to teach in
> less than 8 years, it was up to the parents to figure out what to do
> with you). Age segregation and grade levels seem to have been the
> first "reforms" put in place when schools became large enough that
> grades were possible, and this seems to have significantly predated
> Dewey. I've seen no particular evidence that acceleration (skipping)
> was any more prevalent early in this century or late in the last
> century than it is now.
>
> lojbab
Remove all space cats to email.
Magi D. Shepley
proof by "what John has seen".
Magi
John Gilmer wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Bob LeChevalier
>>Come, on. I was just pulling the legs of some of the posters here.
>>Obviously, almost any teacher can out smart almost any kid in the 2nd grade.
>
>We have much evidence to the contrary. We can teach 2nd grade
>children mathematical concepts; the evidence seems to be that
>the teachers can no longer learn them.
I quote your post from 2 hours after this one:
>At one of the schools I taught, a woman who had no mathematics
>in high school started with a speeded-up remedial algebra course,
>and continued through the strong undergraduate courses which
>prepared for graduate work, doing so well that she shared the
>prize for best undergraduate.
This seems to counter your claim about the ability of teachers or
other adults to learn mathematical concepts. Care to stop
contradicting yourself?
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier
>In article <ud3sku0eq4t6v7809...@4ax.com>,
>Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
><>Now why should those parents whose children are willing to
><>do what it takes to learn the material have their children
><>put up with those who are not willing to do so, and thus
><>slow down the class?
>
>>Because they choose to live in the same country (and the same town in
>>the same country in fact) with those other kids.
>
>What you are saying is that those who have ability and are
>willing to work MUST be denied this because they live in
>the same country with those who do not and are not.
I suggest rereading the statement, which used the word "should" rather
than "must", and then recollect using your superb understanding of the
English subjunctive based on your study of Spanish, that usage of the
word "should" in that manner could be either as an indication of
obligation or it could be subjunctive.
Then notice that in my response I used neither "should" nor "must",
but merely stated in the indicative the fact that we all live in the
same country, and therefore have no choice but to "put up with those
who are not willing to do so" because school is but a fraction of our
daily lives even as children.
Any kid who has ability and who wants to work has access to the public
library, and thus is "denied" nothing. They may have to work harder
than someone whose parents have the money to pay for personalized
services, but that's life in the capitalist paradise.
lojbab
Donna Metler
Actually, for a self-motivated teacher who is willing to work with what
he/she gets, this is about ideal-because no one is telling you that you must
use method "Y" because it is the flavor of the week. This sort of admin
doesn't give any support, but also doesn't give any interference. Actually,
I prefer this-and make more progress with my students in this sort of
atmosphere-than I do when there is a canned, scripted, micromanaged program.
The latter is unfortunately very common in inner city schools.
Bottom line-the teacher can still teach, even in horrible situations with no
support. I've been there, I've done it, and I've seen a lot of other
teachers do it, too-some amazingly well. Its not easy, but neither is a lack
of support and bad conditions an excuse for sitting back and ignoring the
tasks at hand.
>
>
>
John Gilmer
> At least you're honest enough to admit it is unfounded assumption based on
> proof by "what John has seen".
No, no, no.
Nothing "unfounded" at all!
I am a very observant person. If I hear of a "study" that contradicts my
personal observations I doubt the "study."
There is a LOT of nonsense out there. If you refuse to bring your own
common sense to the table then you AND your students are lost.
But, hey!
Go ahead and live in your own little dream world 100% supported by "studies"
and 0% support by your own experience and your own common sense!
John Gilmer
>
> Bottom line-the teacher can still teach, even in horrible situations with
no
> support. I've been there, I've done it, and I've seen a lot of other
> teachers do it, too-some amazingly well. Its not easy, but neither is a
lack
> of support and bad conditions an excuse for sitting back and ignoring the
> tasks at hand.
If you actually managed to "teach" under such circumstance I take my hat off
to you.
Magi D. Shepley
your own set of colored glasses. They may be rose colored, blue, pink, purple,
whatever... you're still not seeing them in an unbiased manner. Without the
ability to see both sides of the issues (in other words, only seeing what you
agree with!), then there is no point in trying to have a discussion with you.
Magi
John Gilmer wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Magi D. Shepley
teachers do it. They write grants to get materials, they spend their own money,
and lots of their own sweat to make things work for these kids.
Magi
John Gilmer wrote:
Remove all space cats to email.
Donna Metler
city Memphis. I write grants, buy a lot of my own materials based on what my
students need, and generally close my door and TEACH. I also handle about
99% of my own discipline in my own classroom. I'm on my 4th principal so
far-and while each has differed, none has been "ideal" (although my current
one is actually pretty good).
As far as whether I teach, you're welcome to come in at any time and draw
your own conclusions.
>
Magi D. Shepley
not the person who responded in kind to try and make him understand otherwise.
Magi
Alberto Moreira wrote:
> "Magi D. Shepley" <ma...@concentric.catsincyberspace.net> said:
>
> >But the person I'm discussing this with didn't specify "program", he specified
> >"computer". There is a difference.
>
> Still, the metaphor is wrong. Since you're not interacting with a
> computer, you're not interacting with an idiot savant. You're rather
> interacting with an abstraction of a set of ideas, laid out by
> programmers from the best factual science and technology they could
> reach. The machine is there just to interpret the program, nothing
> else. And a program can be as intellectually sophisticated as our
> brains can make it be.
>
> Alberto.
susupply
"Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
whose six-figure paycheck comes from the NYC public schools, many of whose
students attend schools so overcrowded that classes are held in hallways and
closets,
wrote in message news:3D52D4...@erols.com...
> I regret that you fail to see the true
> underlying reasons for support of vouchers. The movement began with the
> Southern Fundamentalists who had the dual purpose of maintaining their
> segregated, religious schools, in the face of increasing costs, at
> government expense. Then, after this "noisy minority" became more
> vocal, the well-to-do saw this as yet another tax break for them as
> well. To be sure, certain poor parents who did indeed take an interest
> in their children's education saw an opportunity to play the race card
> and get their share of the pie and otherwise escape( at least for their
> children ) the physical neighborhoods with the negative conditions that
> poverty tends to breed. Add to this group that group of individuals who
> wants the government to legislate economic equality, and you round out
> the players. Thus, a group of very strange bedfellows saw a commonality
> of end product in their embracing of vouchers, albeit for a number of
> very different reasons.
The history of vouchers in this country goes back at least to 1869 New
England. In England, at least to Mill's "On Liberty" of 1850-something.
The voucher movement we see epitomized by Milwaukee and Cleveland, is the
product of an atheistic Jewish economist who applied the tools of his trade
to education (about 1962), with the clear purpose of getting better
opportunities for the poor stuck in lousy public schools.
The PUBLIC SCHOOLS in this country, were established in the wake of bigotry.
Among their most ardent supporters have been the Know Nothings and the Ku
Klux Klan. It is not any coincidence that Brown v. Board of Education was a
lawsuit against PUBLIC SCHOOLS. (It wasn't Brown v. St Mary's).
[snip]
> Unfortunately, Malcolm, that's the way our economy and country works.
> You can only purchase those goods and services that you can afford. As
> far as compulsory attendance laws, you know that the only reason for
> those was to insure that the labor movement was able to obtain decent
> wages for their members. And due to the shortage of jobs today, we need
> the schools to warehouse the children for longer periods of time and
> delay as much as possible, their entry into the workforce. I'm
> surprised you don't realize that.
Alan's economics is every bit as sound as his history.
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> "Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
>
> whose six-figure paycheck comes from the NYC public schools, many of whose
> students attend schools so overcrowded that classes are held in hallways and
> closets,
Jealous again, aren't we?
> wrote in message news:3D52D4...@erols.com...
>
> > I regret that you fail to see the true
> > underlying reasons for support of vouchers. The movement began with the
> > Southern Fundamentalists who had the dual purpose of maintaining their
> > segregated, religious schools, in the face of increasing costs, at
> > government expense. Then, after this "noisy minority" became more
> > vocal, the well-to-do saw this as yet another tax break for them as
> > well. To be sure, certain poor parents who did indeed take an interest
> > in their children's education saw an opportunity to play the race card
> > and get their share of the pie and otherwise escape( at least for their
> > children ) the physical neighborhoods with the negative conditions that
> > poverty tends to breed. Add to this group that group of individuals who
> > wants the government to legislate economic equality, and you round out
> > the players. Thus, a group of very strange bedfellows saw a commonality
> > of end product in their embracing of vouchers, albeit for a number of
> > very different reasons.
>
> The history of vouchers in this country goes back at least to 1869 New
> England. In England, at least to Mill's "On Liberty" of 1850-something.
There is a difference between ideas expressed in essays in intellectual
forums as opposed to political movements. The history of the voucher
movement, in its present form( having the government use tax money to
pay for "individual choice" ) does not reach as far back as you would
like it.
> The voucher movement we see epitomized by Milwaukee and Cleveland, is the
> product of an atheistic Jewish economist who applied the tools of his trade
> to education (about 1962), with the clear purpose of getting better
> opportunities for the poor stuck in lousy public schools.
So? Did I not assert that such individuals, who held the misguided
belief that the school had primary responsibility for educational
success, were numbered among those strange bedfellows?
> The PUBLIC SCHOOLS in this country, were established in the wake of bigotry.
> Among their most ardent supporters have been the Know Nothings and the Ku
> Klux Klan. It is not any coincidence that Brown v. Board of Education was a
> lawsuit against PUBLIC SCHOOLS. (It wasn't Brown v. St Mary's).
So? What has this got to do with my assertion below as to the
composition of voucher supporters? Or do you just like to post to see
your inane comments in print?
> [snip]
>
> > Unfortunately, Malcolm, that's the way our economy and country works.
> > You can only purchase those goods and services that you can afford. As
> > far as compulsory attendance laws, you know that the only reason for
> > those was to insure that the labor movement was able to obtain decent
> > wages for their members. And due to the shortage of jobs today, we need
> > the schools to warehouse the children for longer periods of time and
> > delay as much as possible, their entry into the workforce. I'm
> > surprised you don't realize that.
>
> Alan's economics is every bit as sound as his history.
Well then, Patrick, you need to review your history of the labor
movement. The prime supporters of child labor laws and compulsory
school attendance were the unions, and for very good reason. If you
eliminate the availability of workers, you can obviously press your
demands more successfully. And I am surprised, that one who prides
himself on his economic knowledge did not understand this.
Alan
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
>
MK. Discussion deleted...
>
> > > As far as compulsory attendance laws, you know that the only reason for
> > > those was to insure that the labor movement was able to obtain decent
> > > wages for their members. And due to the shortage of jobs today, we need
> > > the schools to warehouse the children for longer periods of time and
> > > delay as much as possible, their entry into the workforce. I'm
> > > surprised you don't realize that.
>
> > Alan's economics is every bit as sound as his history.
>
> Well then, Patrick, you need to review your history of the labor
> movement. The prime supporters of child labor laws and compulsory
> school attendance were the unions, and for very good reason. If you
> eliminate the availability of workers, you can obviously press your
> demands more successfully. And I am surprised, that one who prides
> himself on his economic knowledge did not understand this.
>
unions, but as a "compulsory attendance law" it --barely-- qualifies.
Myron Lieberman ("Privatization and Educational Choice") agrees
substantially with Alan about the relation between unions, child labor
laws, and compulsory attendance laws. Joel Spring ("The American
School") finds teacher organizations promoting compulsory attendance
and child labor laws. So it works both ways.
>
MK. Lieberman disagrees with Alan about the prospects for unions,
compulsory attendance laws, and child labor laws. Lieberman suggests
that the relation between years spent in school and later income is
weak, for many students. Those would be better off (as would
taxpayers) if they joined the workforce earlier. Lieberman suggests
that the aging US population will contribute to a shift in this
direction since a) seniors are more hostile to schol expenditures, and
b) the pension obligations of social security will require more
employees.
>
"I'm sorry I have so much rage, but you put it in me." --Dylan Klebold
>
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
>
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.educationpolicy.org
http://www.adamsmith.org
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:...
> >
> MK. Discussion deleted...
> >
> > > > As far as compulsory attendance laws, you know that the only reason for
> > > > those was to insure that the labor movement was able to obtain decent
> > > > wages for their members. And due to the shortage of jobs today, we need
> > > > the schools to warehouse the children for longer periods of time and
> > > > delay as much as possible, their entry into the workforce. I'm
> > > > surprised you don't realize that.
> >
> > > Alan's economics is every bit as sound as his history.
> >
> > Well then, Patrick, you need to review your history of the labor
> > movement. The prime supporters of child labor laws and compulsory
> > school attendance were the unions, and for very good reason. If you
> > eliminate the availability of workers, you can obviously press your
> > demands more successfully. And I am surprised, that one who prides
> > himself on his economic knowledge did not understand this.
> >
> MK. This is not all on one side. The "Old Deceiver Satan act" predates
> unions, but as a "compulsory attendance law" it --barely-- qualifies.
> Myron Lieberman ("Privatization and Educational Choice") agrees
> substantially with Alan about the relation between unions, child labor
> laws, and compulsory attendance laws. Joel Spring ("The American
> School") finds teacher organizations promoting compulsory attendance
> and child labor laws. So it works both ways.
To be sure, it is in the interests of teacher organizations to promote
compulsory education laws, and for obvious reasons of self-interest.
The public rationale is that their position( whatever it may be ) is
good for the children, but isn't that the position that EVERY proponent(
including voucher enthusiasts ) of EVERY educational issue uses to
rationalize and otherwise legitimize their position? To be sure it is,
and I am certain, that somewhere in a hierarchy of prioritizing those
rationales for their positions, the good of the children can be found.
But my original assertion deals with self-interest, and I assert that it
is self-interest that occupies the highest priority on that scale.
> MK. Lieberman disagrees with Alan about the prospects for unions,
> compulsory attendance laws, and child labor laws. Lieberman suggests
> that the relation between years spent in school and later income is
> weak, for many students. Those would be better off (as would
> taxpayers) if they joined the workforce earlier. Lieberman suggests
> that the aging US population will contribute to a shift in this
> direction since a) seniors are more hostile to schol expenditures, and
> b) the pension obligations of social security will require more
> employees.
I have recently read in my local newspaper a study by The Bureau of
labor Statistics revealing differences in lifetime income when compared
with education. The differences are hardly weak. But since the
workforce does not have the jobs available, it becomes necessary to
delay, as long as possible, the entry into the workforce of the
population. And with increased credentialing due to increased
schooling, the individual is "qualified" for a higher level job. This
serves a dual purpose, as those lower level jobs have now been exported
overseas.
As far as your assertion of seniors being increasingly hostile towards
school expenditures, I am forced to concur. Due to poor retirement
planning, these individuals, many of whom are outliving the annuity
factors of the life insurance tables as a consequence of improved health
care, among other things, now find themselves with fixed incomes, which,
as time marches on, become increasingly unable to provide them with the
ability to purchase the level of goods and services they require in
order to sustain what their preceive as their lifestyles. The only
direct expenditure over which they have a modicum of control is their
property taxes, school taxes in particular, as these budgets are subject
to local annual approval.
With regard to social security, the simple fact is that it attempts to
act like an annuity, but is not funded like one, a direct contradiction
in cause and effect resulting in the problem which we now face. It has
been referred to as a legal Ponzi scheme, which given current factors,
it certainly does resemble. In its inception, it was never intended to
substitute for retirement planning, however, many of those seniors you
cite above are using it as such, due to their own poor retirement
planning. But regardless, social security was funded on the basis of
current workers paying for retired worker benefits, a sound plan
assuming that mortality tables would never change from those of the
early part of the last century, and that the population would always
increase. Unfortunately, both of these assumptions proved unsound and
faulty, resulting in the current circumstances. The President's
Commission has indicated a number of possible plans to counter these
negative effects, however, given the general ignorance of the population
with respect to retirement planning, there is little pressure on
Congress to place any immediacy on the required changes. Congress( both
Republicans and Democrats ), being what it is, would prefer to defer the
problem to when it becomes a crisis, poor thinking and certainly poor
planning. The President is no better, except he has an excuse. He can
plead ignorance, which he certainly has in abundance.
Alan
susupply
"Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
so engrossed in counting his money, he forgot to Google a search of
"vouchers" and "1869",
wrote in message news:3D57BC...@erols.com...
> susupply wrote:
> > The history of vouchers in this country goes back at least to 1869 New
> > England. In England, at least to Mill's "On Liberty" of 1850-something.
>
> There is a difference between ideas expressed in essays in intellectual
> forums as opposed to political movements. The history of the voucher
> movement, in its present form( having the government use tax money to
> pay for "individual choice" ) does not reach as far back as you would
> like it.
As usual Alan has just made a complete fool of himself. In Vermont, in
1869, vouchers were being used to pay tuition for students:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp67.pdf
> > The voucher movement we see epitomized by Milwaukee and Cleveland, is
the
> > product of an atheistic Jewish economist who applied the tools of his
trade
> > to education (about 1962), with the clear purpose of getting better
> > opportunities for the poor stuck in lousy public schools.
>
> So? Did I not assert that such individuals, who held the misguided
> belief that the school had primary responsibility for educational
> success, were numbered among those strange bedfellows?
Nice try, pal. Your claim was:
> > > The movement began with
the
> > > Southern Fundamentalists who had the dual purpose of maintaining their
> > > segregated, religious schools, in the face of increasing costs, at
> > > government expense.
[back to my:]
> > The PUBLIC SCHOOLS in this country, were established in the wake of
bigotry.
> > Among their most ardent supporters have been the Know Nothings and the
Ku
> > Klux Klan. It is not any coincidence that Brown v. Board of Education
was a
> > lawsuit against PUBLIC SCHOOLS. (It wasn't Brown v. St Mary's).
>
> So? What has this got to do with my assertion below as to the
> composition of voucher supporters? Or do you just like to post to see
> your inane comments in print?
As we both know, I like to expose your inane and inaccurate statements. The
reason I set the record straight about which schools were racially
segregated, is your mendacious claim:
> > > The movement began with the
> > > Southern Fundamentalists who had the dual purpose of maintaining their
> > > segregated, religious schools, in the face of increasing costs, at
> > > government expense.
[snip]
> Well then, Patrick, you need to review your history of the labor
> movement. The prime supporters of child labor laws and compulsory
> school attendance were the unions, and for very good reason. If you
> eliminate the availability of workers, you can obviously press your
> demands more successfully. And I am surprised, that one who prides
> himself on his economic knowledge did not understand this.
At the time most compulsory attendance laws were passed, the overwhelming
majority of child labor was on farms. Not in unionized factories. Not to
mention that the current unemployment rate is still under 6%, so
"warehousing" children to keep them out of the work force is a joke.
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> "Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
>
> so engrossed in counting his money, he forgot to Google a search of
> "vouchers" and "1869",
Still Jealous, aren't we?
> wrote in message news:3D57BC...@erols.com...
> > susupply wrote:
>
> > > The history of vouchers in this country goes back at least to 1869 New
> > > England. In England, at least to Mill's "On Liberty" of 1850-something.
> >
> > There is a difference between ideas expressed in essays in intellectual
> > forums as opposed to political movements. The history of the voucher
> > movement, in its present form( having the government use tax money to
> > pay for "individual choice" ) does not reach as far back as you would
> > like it.
>
> As usual Alan has just made a complete fool of himself. In Vermont, in
> 1869, vouchers were being used to pay tuition for students:
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp67.pdf
As usual, Patrick continues to give us the truth, but only HALF( in this
case, maybe a quarter ) of the truth, and nothing but that portion of
the truth he wants us to hear( conveniently leaving out that portion
which defeats his position ), and spins what are facts through omission
to present an out of issue out of perspective. With respect to Vermont,
vouchers were indeed issued, but only because of the unavailability of
public schools in a given jurisdiction. So in order to provide for the
State provided service, individuals living in districts which did not
have schools, had to be given funds to pay other districts.
Obviously, this came about due to the method of taxation which supported
the schools, in that citizens in a given jurisdiction were taxed for the
schools in that jurisdiction. If a student who did not live in the
jurisdiction of the school were to attend, then he/she would have to
pay.
This is precisely the situation which exists in NY today. Most school
districts( save the large ones, such as NYC ) do not run specialized
vocational training schools, obviously being too small to absorb the
cost. The State, recognizing this shortcoming, set up regional sites,
called BOCES centers, where students wishing that training could
attend. Since BOCES is a separate school district, each sending school
district pays for each student who attends BOCES. The method is not
uncommon, and as in Vermont, merely permits the students to take
advantage of services to which they are entitled but are unavailable in
the taxing jurisdiction in which the happen to live. You spin the
situation in that you liken them to vouchers. They are not.
Nice try, Patrick, but your jealousy, dishonesty and ignorance precede
you. Always have and always will.
> > > The voucher movement we see epitomized by Milwaukee and Cleveland, is
> the
> > > product of an atheistic Jewish economist who applied the tools of his
> trade
> > > to education (about 1962), with the clear purpose of getting better
> > > opportunities for the poor stuck in lousy public schools.
> >
> > So? Did I not assert that such individuals, who held the misguided
> > belief that the school had primary responsibility for educational
> > success, were numbered among those strange bedfellows?
>
> Nice try, pal. Your claim was:
>
> > > > The movement began with
> the
> > > > Southern Fundamentalists who had the dual purpose of maintaining their
> > > > segregated, religious schools, in the face of increasing costs, at
> > > > government expense.
No, Patrick, the claim which supported the above was:
Thus, a group of very strange bedfellows saw a commonality
of end product in their embracing of vouchers, albeit for a number of
very different reasons.
Yes, I am certain that there are a few well-intentioned individuals who
support vouchers, but these are individuals who blind themselves to the
FACT that the school in reality has far less effect on education than
they believe, and that the learner is in reality, the master of their
own fate.
Nice try, yourself, Pal, but you must learn to read.
> [back to my:]
> > > The PUBLIC SCHOOLS in this country, were established in the wake of
> bigotry.
> > > Among their most ardent supporters have been the Know Nothings and the
> Ku
> > > Klux Klan. It is not any coincidence that Brown v. Board of Education
> was a
> > > lawsuit against PUBLIC SCHOOLS. (It wasn't Brown v. St Mary's).
> >
> > So? What has this got to do with my assertion below as to the
> > composition of voucher supporters? Or do you just like to post to see
> > your inane comments in print?
>
> As we both know, I like to expose your inane and inaccurate statements. The
> reason I set the record straight about which schools were racially
> segregated, is your mendacious claim:
So far, Patrick, your definition of "exposing" statements is to
selectively use portions of information giving false impressions. I
believe we call that dishonesty.
And as far as schools being racially segregated, the existence of those
"academies" in the South is a matter of record.
But of course, you use innuendo and personal insult to refute assertion
instead of evidence. May work well for you shallow ego, but it don't
hold up in court. As usual for you.
> > > > The movement began with the
> > > > Southern Fundamentalists who had the dual purpose of maintaining their
> > > > segregated, religious schools, in the face of increasing costs, at
> > > > government expense.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Well then, Patrick, you need to review your history of the labor
> > movement. The prime supporters of child labor laws and compulsory
> > school attendance were the unions, and for very good reason. If you
> > eliminate the availability of workers, you can obviously press your
> > demands more successfully. And I am surprised, that one who prides
> > himself on his economic knowledge did not understand this.
>
> At the time most compulsory attendance laws were passed, the overwhelming
> majority of child labor was on farms. Not in unionized factories. Not to
> mention that the current unemployment rate is still under 6%, so
> "warehousing" children to keep them out of the work force is a joke.
Even your buddy Malcolm concedes this point in his assertion. Why don't
you bother to read HIS statement? After all, HE'S on your side. Bob,
who is certainly no friend of yours also agrees as well. Now if
everyone, on both sides of the issue, agrees on this point, except YOU,
what does that suggest to YOU, my arrogant, jealous and dishonest
friend?
Alan
susupply
"Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
trying to emulate one of the other Wunderkinds of misc.ed,
wrote in message news:3D5A47...@erols.com...
> > > susupply wrote:
> >
> > > > The history of vouchers in this country goes back at least to 1869
New
> > > > England. [snip]
> > >
> > > There is a difference between ideas expressed in essays in
intellectual
> > > forums as opposed to political movements. The history of the voucher
> > > movement, in its present form( having the government use tax money to
> > > pay for "individual choice" ) does not reach as far back as you would
> > > like it.
> >
> > As usual Alan has just made a complete fool of himself. In Vermont, in
> > 1869, vouchers were being used to pay tuition for students:
> > http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp67.pdf
>
> As usual, Patrick continues to give us the truth,
You said it, pal, and it's a full time job keeping up with you guys.
> but only HALF( in this
> case, maybe a quarter ) of the truth, and nothing but that portion of
> the truth he wants us to hear( conveniently leaving out that portion
> which defeats his position ), and spins what are facts through omission
> to present an out of issue out of perspective.
Can you say all that without taking a breath?
There is no fraction of the truth. Only the truth, and nothing but the
truth in this case. Alan made a flat out false statement, and I
demonstrated it was false. Vouchers were not merely "essays in an
intellectual forums", in 1869 Vermont. They were in use.
End of question. Alan is wrong. As usual.
[snip]
> Nice try, Patrick, but your jealousy, dishonesty and ignorance precede
> you. Always have and always will.
But the fact remains that it was Alan who was wrong about vouchers not going
back to 1869. Now he's just mumbling and mumbling and mumbling, hoping to
bore everyone into forgetting he was a fool. Which trope he has to continue
in the next topic:
> > > > The voucher movement we see epitomized by Milwaukee and Cleveland,
is
> > the
> > > > product of an atheistic Jewish economist ....(about 1962....
> > > So? Did I not assert that such individuals, who held the misguided
> > > belief that the school had primary responsibility for educational
> > > success, were numbered among those strange bedfellows?
> >
> > Nice try, pal. Your claim was:
> >
> > > > > The movement began
with
> > the
> > > > > Southern Fundamentalists who had the dual purpose of maintaining
their
> > > > > segregated, religious schools, in the face of increasing costs, at
> > > > > government expense.
>
> No, Patrick, the claim which supported the above was:
>
> Thus, a group of very strange bedfellows saw a commonality
> of end product in their embracing of vouchers, albeit for a number of
> very different reasons.
Mumble, mumble, mumble, mumble....
In fact, Friedman specifically endorsed racial "non discrimination" clauses
in any voucher legislation, thus having nothing to do with any segregation
academies. BTW, in Virginia they simply eliminated public schools
altogether, they didn't use vouchers. Alan's feeble attempt to link
vouchers to Southern racial prejudice has blown up in his face.
> Yes, I am certain that there are a few well-intentioned individuals who
> support vouchers, but these are individuals who blind themselves to the
> FACT that the school in reality has far less effect on education than
> they believe, and that the learner is in reality, the master of their
> own fate.
>
> Nice try, yourself, Pal, but you must learn to read.
Try reading the above with your six-figure salary in mind, buddy. If "the
school...has far less effect on education", then you can kiss your overpaid
position good-bye. It makes economic sense to hire a bunch of baby sitters
at minimum wage to do what your school is doing. The students would really
be masters of their own fate.
> And as far as schools being racially segregated, the existence of those
> "academies" in the South is a matter of record.
>
> But of course, you use innuendo and personal insult to refute assertion
> instead of evidence. May work well for you shallow ego, but it don't
> hold up in court. As usual for you.
The PUBLIC SCHOOLS were, by law, segregated by race. That's a "matter of
record". That's the real story of public schools. You can't handle the
truth.
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> "Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
>
> trying to emulate one of the other Wunderkinds of misc.ed,
>
> wrote in message news:3D5A47...@erols.com...
>
> > > > susupply wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The history of vouchers in this country goes back at least to 1869
> New
> > > > > England. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > There is a difference between ideas expressed in essays in
> intellectual
> > > > forums as opposed to political movements. The history of the voucher
> > > > movement, in its present form( having the government use tax money to
> > > > pay for "individual choice" ) does not reach as far back as you would
> > > > like it.
> > >
> > > As usual Alan has just made a complete fool of himself. In Vermont, in
> > > 1869, vouchers were being used to pay tuition for students:
> > > http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp67.pdf
> >
> > As usual, Patrick continues to give us the truth,
>
> You said it, pal, and it's a full time job keeping up with you guys.
The truth according to Patrick is really a revision of reality in his
own mind.
> > but only HALF( in this
> > case, maybe a quarter ) of the truth, and nothing but that portion of
> > the truth he wants us to hear( conveniently leaving out that portion
> > which defeats his position ), and spins what are facts through omission
> > to present an out of issue out of perspective.
>
> Can you say all that without taking a breath?
Note the failure to refute the assertion.
> There is no fraction of the truth. Only the truth, and nothing but the
> truth in this case. Alan made a flat out false statement, and I
> demonstrated it was false. Vouchers were not merely "essays in an
> intellectual forums", in 1869 Vermont. They were in use.
>
> End of question. Alan is wrong. As usual.
When the explanation is conveniently snipped, all that it does indeed
demonstrate is that the charge of dishonesty levied against you is
valid.
FYI, I repost the original explanation which you snipped, no doubt for
convenience.
With respect to Vermont, vouchers were indeed issued, but only because
of the unavailability of public schools in a given jurisdiction. So in
order to provide for the State provided service, individuals living in
districts which did not have schools, had to be given funds to pay other
districts.
Obviously, this came about due to the method of taxation which supported
the schools, in that citizens in a given jurisdiction were taxed for the
schools in that jurisdiction. If a student who did not live in the
jurisdiction of the school were to attend, then he/she would have to
pay.
This is precisely the situation which exists in NY today. Most school
districts( save the large ones, such as NYC ) do not run specialized
vocational training schools, obviously being too small to absorb the
cost. The State, recognizing this shortcoming, set up regional sites,
called BOCES centers, where students wishing that training could
attend. Since BOCES is a separate school district, each sending school
district pays for each student who attends BOCES. The method is not
uncommon, and as in Vermont, merely permits the students to take
advantage of services to which they are entitled but are unavailable in
the taxing jurisdiction in which the happen to live. You spin the
situation in that you liken them to vouchers. They are not.
> [snip]
>
> > Nice try, Patrick, but your jealousy, dishonesty and ignorance precede
> > you. Always have and always will.
>
> But the fact remains that it was Alan who was wrong about vouchers not going
> back to 1869. Now he's just mumbling and mumbling and mumbling, hoping to
> bore everyone into forgetting he was a fool. Which trope he has to continue
> in the next topic:
The so-called voucher that you cite in 1869 was NOT a voucher in the
sense that it is desired to be used today. What you cited in Vermont,
and what exists even today in NY are NOT vouchers to allow for
unfettered "free choice," but in reality, given to insure that the
Government provided service of education, is available to all. Period.
> > > > > The voucher movement we see epitomized by Milwaukee and Cleveland,
> is
> > > the
> > > > > product of an atheistic Jewish economist ....(about 1962....
>
> > > > So? Did I not assert that such individuals, who held the misguided
> > > > belief that the school had primary responsibility for educational
> > > > success, were numbered among those strange bedfellows?
> > >
> > > Nice try, pal. Your claim was:
> > >
> > > > > > The movement began
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > Southern Fundamentalists who had the dual purpose of maintaining
> their
> > > > > > segregated, religious schools, in the face of increasing costs, at
> > > > > > government expense.
> >
> > No, Patrick, the claim which supported the above was:
> >
> > Thus, a group of very strange bedfellows saw a commonality
> > of end product in their embracing of vouchers, albeit for a number of
> > very different reasons.
>
> Mumble, mumble, mumble, mumble....
If you cannot refute the facts, try, try to obfuscate.
> In fact, Friedman specifically endorsed racial "non discrimination" clauses
> in any voucher legislation, thus having nothing to do with any segregation
> academies. BTW, in Virginia they simply eliminated public schools
> altogether, they didn't use vouchers. Alan's feeble attempt to link
> vouchers to Southern racial prejudice has blown up in his face.
Alan cites a number of "strange bedfellows," of which southern racists
are but one segment. Strange that you ignore the other groups.
But then again, you have made a legacy of selective use of information.
> > Yes, I am certain that there are a few well-intentioned individuals who
> > support vouchers, but these are individuals who blind themselves to the
> > FACT that the school in reality has far less effect on education than
> > they believe, and that the learner is in reality, the master of their
> > own fate.
> >
> > Nice try, yourself, Pal, but you must learn to read.
>
> Try reading the above with your six-figure salary in mind, buddy. If "the
> school...has far less effect on education", then you can kiss your overpaid
> position good-bye.
Patrick continues to allow his jealousy to substitute for reasoned
thought.
But then again, reasoned thought is something Patrick cannot be accused
of exhibiting.
It makes economic sense to hire a bunch of baby sitters
> at minimum wage to do what your school is doing. The students would really
> be masters of their own fate.
Under your voucher scheme, that's exactly what would occur.
> > And as far as schools being racially segregated, the existence of those
> > "academies" in the South is a matter of record.
> >
> > But of course, you use innuendo and personal insult to refute assertion
> > instead of evidence. May work well for you shallow ego, but it don't
> > hold up in court. As usual for you.
>
> The PUBLIC SCHOOLS were, by law, segregated by race. That's a "matter of
> record".
Yes they were, but until those laws were declared unconstitutional,
there was no hue and cry from this crowd for vouchers.
That's the real story of public schools. You can't handle the
> truth.
No, Patrick. I can handle the truth quite well, because I don't engage
in selective use of information, as do you. In point of fact, your own
words apply with even greater force to YOU, as evidenced by your
continual ignoring of truths which apparently you can't handle.
And for the record, I repost my last rejoinder, to which you apparently
ignored:
Even your buddy Malcolm concedes this point in his assertion. Why don't
you bother to read HIS statement? After all, HE'S on your side. Bob,
who is certainly no friend of yours also agrees as well. Now if
everyone, on both sides of the issue, agrees on this point, except YOU,
what does that suggest to YOU, my arrogant, jealous and dishonest
friend?
Why no reply, Patrick? Can't you handle the truth?
Alan
susupply
"Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
demonstrating his gift for self-absorption, as well as omission of facts,
wrote in message news:3D5B8B...@erols.com...
> FYI, I repost the original explanation which you snipped, no doubt for
> convenience.
>
> With respect to Vermont, vouchers were indeed issued, but only because
> of the unavailability of public schools in a given jurisdiction.
First, note that Alan concedes again that he was wrong to claim that
vouchers were only "essays in intellectual forums". Now it's: "vouchers
were indeed issued". Since Alan just loves to read his excuses, so he
repeats one for his own pleasure.
However, he's not telling the WHOLE TRUTH. Because vouchers were also used
when the public schools in Vermont couldn't handle all the students
available (take note, students who attend class in closets, hallways, and
shower rooms in NYC).
And Vermont towns have closed public schools and substituted vouchers, as
the article said:
<<... in 1998 the
town of Winhall voted to close its public
school, open a private one in its place, and
become a tuition [i.e. voucher] town. By the fall of 1999, an
independent school named Mountain
School had leased the former school building
and opened its doors to students.
<< Such
transformations occurred as early as 1870
when taxpayers in rural St. Johnsbury realized
they were spending $70 per pupil to
send local students to the public high school,
whereas tuition at the nearby private school,
St. Johnsbury's Academy, was only half as
much. Within three years, the town turned
the public high school into a combination
elementary and middle school, and the town
paid tuition for its high school students to
attend the private academy. >>
[Back to Alan making excuses for his error:]
> So in
> order to provide for the State provided service...
Nice syntax. What Alan means is that the state and town combined to pay,
with tax money, for schooling at the school of the parents' choice.
"Provided" either by government operated schools or privately operated ones.
> ... individuals living in
> districts which did not have schools, had to be given funds to pay other
> districts.
Or pay PRIVATE schools to educate the children, including those for whom
there was not sufficient room in the district's public schools.
> Obviously, this came about due to the method of taxation which supported
> the schools, in that citizens in a given jurisdiction were taxed for the
> schools in that jurisdiction. If a student who did not live in the
> jurisdiction of the school were to attend, then he/she would have to
> pay.
Alan keeps forgetting, it seems, that private schools educated some of these
kids. Just an innocent mistake, I'm sure.
> This is precisely the situation which exists in NY today. Most school
> districts( save the large ones, such as NYC ) do not run specialized
> vocational training schools, obviously being too small to absorb the
> cost.
Umm, Alan, I fear your reputation for honesty may be being tarnished here.
We aren't talking about "specialized vocational training schools", but
standard educations.
> The State, recognizing this shortcoming, set up regional sites,
> called BOCES centers, where students wishing that training could
> attend. Since BOCES is a separate school district, each sending school
> district pays for each student who attends BOCES. The method is not
> uncommon, and as in Vermont, merely permits the students to take
> advantage of services to which they are entitled but are unavailable in
> the taxing jurisdiction in which the happen to live. You spin the
> situation in that you liken them to vouchers. They are not.
"Spin" indeed! I'm curious though, does New York issue vouchers to students
that can be used at private training centers (as Vermont did)?
> The so-called voucher that you cite in 1869 was NOT a voucher in the
> sense that it is desired to be used today. What you cited in Vermont,
> and what exists even today in NY are NOT vouchers to allow for
> unfettered "free choice," but in reality, given to insure that the
> Government provided service of education, is available to all. Period.
Guess what, buddy? They're very close to my supermarket model, and to J.S.
Mill's suggestion that government simply pay the costs and let the parents
find their own schools.
[snip]
> It makes economic sense to hire a bunch of baby sitters
> > at minimum wage to do what your school is doing. The students would
really
> > be masters of their own fate.
>
> Under your voucher scheme, that's exactly what would occur.
Since it has not happened in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Vermont, Maine or
anywhere else vouchers are (or were) used, I conclud Alan is talking though
his hat. However, since Alan claims the school has nothing to do with the
student learning, he should be happy to accept the most efficient method of
providing schooling without regard for outcomes.
Unless it's simply a matter of his being greedy.
[snip]
> No, Patrick. I can handle the truth quite well, because I don't engage
> in selective use of information, as do you. In point of fact, your own
> words apply with even greater force to YOU, as evidenced by your
> continual ignoring of truths which apparently you can't handle.
As opposed to your ignoring that Vermont paid tax money to private schools
to educate its children?
>
> And for the record, I repost my last rejoinder, to which you apparently
> ignored:
>
> Even your buddy Malcolm concedes this point in his assertion. Why don't
> you bother to read HIS statement? After all, HE'S on your side. Bob,
> who is certainly no friend of yours also agrees as well. Now if
> everyone, on both sides of the issue, agrees on this point, except YOU,
> what does that suggest to YOU, my arrogant, jealous and dishonest
> friend?
>
> Why no reply, Patrick? Can't you handle the truth?
"Everyone" being Malcolm, Bob and Alan?
Alan Lichtenstein
>
> "Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
>
> demonstrating his gift for self-absorption, as well as omission of facts,
>
> wrote in message news:3D5B8B...@erols.com...
>
> > FYI, I repost the original explanation which you snipped, no doubt for
> > convenience.
> >
> > With respect to Vermont, vouchers were indeed issued, but only because
> > of the unavailability of public schools in a given jurisdiction.
Once again, Patrick continues his demonstration of his dishonesty by
misquoting. Par for the course for him. For the record, the original
sentence which Patrick doctors up reads:
"There is a difference between ideas expressed in essays in intellectual
forums as opposed to political movements."
As it is evidently clear, there is no contradiction between anything
that was said. Patrick fails to see the difference between a voucher
which was issued as a result of a political movement and a philosophical
position having little force of politics.
> First, note that Alan concedes again that he was wrong to claim that
> vouchers were only "essays in intellectual forums". Now it's: "vouchers
> were indeed issued". Since Alan just loves to read his excuses, so he
> repeats one for his own pleasure.
As can be demonstrated by the reposted material, there is no
contradiction, nor is there any concession. Both statements were
originally posted.
Patrick's example not only supports what was asserted, but additionally
supports the notion of concept of government providing for the same
service in the same fashion. The fact that a jurisdiction closes its
schools and then pays a private school to provide the same service, is
not a voucher in the sense that current advocates want. In point of
fact, there have been a number of instances where public entities
contracted out the services to private organizations. What Patrick
cites are not vouchers, but government paying for the service.
Paying a private firm to provide the same service to all students is NOT
the same as a voucher given to parents to spend as they choose. In his
zeal to quote some item of preceived authority, Patrick neglects this
very important distinction.
Once again, Patrick, you must learn to read a bit more critically.
> [Back to Alan making excuses for his error:]
>
> > So in
> > order to provide for the State provided service...
>
> Nice syntax. What Alan means is that the state and town combined to pay,
> with tax money, for schooling at the school of the parents' choice.
> "Provided" either by government operated schools or privately operated ones.
wrong, Patrick. What was meant was that government allowed payment to
the alternative school district not in the taxing jurisdiction which was
unable to provide its residents with the educational service.
> > ... individuals living in
> > districts which did not have schools, had to be given funds to pay other
> > districts.
>
> Or pay PRIVATE schools to educate the children, including those for whom
> there was not sufficient room in the district's public schools.
When that occurred, it was done EN MASSE, and NOT through individual
choice, as YOU so clearly have documented. That is NOT the same as
vouchers you advocate. In fact, it's almost EXACTLY like the situation
cited to you in NY with regard to school districts and BOCES.
> > Obviously, this came about due to the method of taxation which supported
> > the schools, in that citizens in a given jurisdiction were taxed for the
> > schools in that jurisdiction. If a student who did not live in the
> > jurisdiction of the school were to attend, then he/she would have to
> > pay.
>
> Alan keeps forgetting, it seems, that private schools educated some of these
> kids. Just an innocent mistake, I'm sure.
Never forgot it. It just wasn't done through vouchers the way you said
it was. And when it was, was on a very limited scale, NOT to promote
individual choice, but due to expediency.
> > This is precisely the situation which exists in NY today. Most school
> > districts( save the large ones, such as NYC ) do not run specialized
> > vocational training schools, obviously being too small to absorb the
> > cost.
>
> Umm, Alan, I fear your reputation for honesty may be being tarnished here.
> We aren't talking about "specialized vocational training schools", but
> standard educations.
Umm yourself, genius( and I use the term prejoratively ). The situation
which occurs in NY today, the payment to one school district by another,
is exactly the same situation which occurs in Vermont, the only
exception being that in Vermont, you cited one instance of a private
firm receiving the money. But this was not uncommon. In the past,
Baltimore, New Haven and more recently Philadelphia have contracted with
private firms. Edison is in business for that purpose, dummy( despite
the fact that the private firm was SOOOO successful, that it was
recently reported that it actually lost money ). It is NOT a voucher
when there is NO individual choice.
If you knew a bit more you would understand that the concept of one
school district paying another for services is in reality, quite common,
and because money changes hands, does NOT make it voucher in the sense
that you advocate.
Or, perhaps, you are now changing your position?
> > The State, recognizing this shortcoming, set up regional sites,
> > called BOCES centers, where students wishing that training could
> > attend. Since BOCES is a separate school district, each sending school
> > district pays for each student who attends BOCES. The method is not
> > uncommon, and as in Vermont, merely permits the students to take
> > advantage of services to which they are entitled but are unavailable in
> > the taxing jurisdiction in which the happen to live. You spin the
> > situation in that you liken them to vouchers. They are not.
>
> "Spin" indeed! I'm curious though, does New York issue vouchers to students
> that can be used at private training centers (as Vermont did)?
Exactly spin. You quote partial clips of paragraphs, claim things
occurred which never did and when you can't reply, substitute what you
think are witty sarcastic remarks.
FYI, NY does NOT issue vouchers to individuals to pay for their personal
choices. Money is transferred from district to district.
> > The so-called voucher that you cite in 1869 was NOT a voucher in the
> > sense that it is desired to be used today. What you cited in Vermont,
> > and what exists even today in NY are NOT vouchers to allow for
> > unfettered "free choice," but in reality, given to insure that the
> > Government provided service of education, is available to all. Period.
>
> Guess what, buddy? They're very close to my supermarket model, and to J.S.
> Mill's suggestion that government simply pay the costs and let the parents
> find their own schools.
Guess what, dummy, NY is a far cry from your supermarket model, as well
as Mill's ideas because parents don't get the money and the state
determines where it can be spent.
> [snip]
>
> > It makes economic sense to hire a bunch of baby sitters
> > > at minimum wage to do what your school is doing. The students would
> really
> > > be masters of their own fate.
> >
> > Under your voucher scheme, that's exactly what would occur.
>
> Since it has not happened in Milwaukee, Cleveland, Vermont, Maine or
> anywhere else vouchers are (or were) used, I conclud Alan is talking though
> his hat.
Since Patrick doesn't know that it hasn't happened, a rational person
can also conclude that his hat is just as thick.
However, since Alan claims the school has nothing to do with the
> student learning, he should be happy to accept the most efficient method of
> providing schooling without regard for outcomes.
Patrick continues to spin and distort. For the record, I have always
asserted that while the student has primacy for responsibility for
mastery of what has been taught, someone obviously has to do the
teaching. Apparently that concept went over Patrick's head( as do a
great many things ).
However, while efficiency of process is important, it is similarly
important to understand that once government has decided to provide a
service that it be provided to all those affected in a uniform and
therefore fair manner. Doing so protects both the texpayers as well as
the recipients. Vouchers defeat the provision of service in a uniform
and therefore fair manner, and certainly defeat the concept of society
determing how it spends its own money.
Points which have been made a number of times to patrick and his ilk,
which they ignore.
> Unless it's simply a matter of his being greedy.
I would rather think that the greed is situated in your position. After
all, since your position results in blatently unfair treatment, in order
for you to be in favor of it there can be no other reason other than
greed.
And I am being kind by not accusing you of wanting the mass population
to pay for religious education in your religion, even if it is not
theirs.
> [snip]
>
> > No, Patrick. I can handle the truth quite well, because I don't engage
> > in selective use of information, as do you. In point of fact, your own
> > words apply with even greater force to YOU, as evidenced by your
> > continual ignoring of truths which apparently you can't handle.
>
> As opposed to your ignoring that Vermont paid tax money to private schools
> to educate its children?
Never did ignore it. You need to read a bit better what YOU have posted
to understand the difference. Pity you do not.
> > And for the record, I repost my last rejoinder, to which you apparently
> > ignored:
> >
> > Even your buddy Malcolm concedes this point in his assertion. Why don't
> > you bother to read HIS statement? After all, HE'S on your side. Bob,
> > who is certainly no friend of yours also agrees as well. Now if
> > everyone, on both sides of the issue, agrees on this point, except YOU,
> > what does that suggest to YOU, my arrogant, jealous and dishonest
> > friend?
> >
> > Why no reply, Patrick? Can't you handle the truth?
>
> "Everyone" being Malcolm, Bob and Alan?
As far as this discussion is concerned, all the protagonists are
covered. Except possibly jalison, and there's no doubt as to which side
he'd weigh in on.
And I note that your failure to reply is likely because you find
yourself politically isolated here, not wanting to contradict an ally.
Well if you think he's wrong, then say so, or can't you take the heat of
a rejoinder from him? But your shallow ego prevents you from admitting
that you're wrong. You know, my arrogant, conceited, dishonest, jealous
and condescending "friend." You're not as smart as you think, and when
you get past the insults, sarcasm and your substitution of citations for
your own reasoning, you really don't have a hell of a lot to say.
Tell us, Patrick, have you as yet learned about the fallacy of "appeal
to authority?"
Alan
susupply
"Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
frustrated that his errors are being exposed, decides there's nothing to do
but start telling flat out lies,
wrote in message news:3D5D93...@erols.com...
> Once again, Patrick continues his demonstration of his dishonesty by
> misquoting. Par for the course for him. For the record, the original
> sentence which Patrick doctors up reads:
>
> "There is a difference between ideas expressed in essays in intellectual
> forums as opposed to political movements."
Would anyone be surprised to learn that Patrick has neither "misquot[ed]"
nor
"doctored up" the above. Nor anything else written by Alan (he's funny
enough all by himself). If Alan can produce my so doing, he should do
it. If not (and he won't be able to) he should apologize for slandering
me--but I won't be holding my breath.
> As it is evidently clear, there is no contradiction between anything
> that was said. Patrick fails to see the difference between a voucher
> which was issued as a result of a political movement and a philosophical
> position having little force of politics.
Surprise, somebody isn't telling the truth! Going back to the origin of
this, I'd written (in response to Alan's disingenuous attempt to tar
vouchers as having a racist past in "segregated, religious schools"):
> > > The history of vouchers in this country goes back at least to 1869 New
> > > England. In England, at least to Mill's "On Liberty" of
1850-something.
To which Alan responded:
> > There is a difference between ideas expressed in essays in intellectual
> > forums as opposed to political movements. The history of the voucher
> > movement, in its present form( having the government use tax money to
> > pay for "individual choice" ) does not reach as far back as you would
> > like it.
Which was baloney, and I demonstrated it with the url to this article:
<< Lessons from Vermont
132-Year-Old Voucher Program Rebuts Critics
by Libby Sternberg >>
Which article begins:
<< For more than a century, Vermont has operated
a viable and popular voucher system in 90
towns across the state. During the 1998-99
school year, the state paid tuition for 6,505 students
in kindergarten through 12th grade to
attend public and private schools. >>
Leaving Alan with egg all over his face. So he decided he'd had his
fingers crossed when he claimed that vouchers don't go back as far as I
would like. His case seems to be based on an out he thinks this
qualification gives him:
> > The history of the voucher
> > movement, in its present form( having the government use tax money to
> > pay for "individual choice" ) does not reach as far back as you would
> > like it.
Which is--again, SURPRISE--backing and filling by the guy whose "shallow ego
prevents [him] from admitting that [he's] wrong".
Because Alan is "doctoring up" his argument, which originally was:
> I regret that you fail to see the true
> underlying reasons for support of vouchers. The movement began with the
> Southern Fundamentalists who had the dual purpose of maintaining their
> segregated, religious schools, in the face of increasing costs, at
> government expense. Then, after this "noisy minority" became more
> vocal, the well-to-do saw this as yet another tax break for them as
> well.
Putting aside that Alan is one of the "well-to-do" (at the expense of NY's
taxpayers), he is now arguing that: heck, golleeee, NY has had "vouchers"
all
along:
> > > The State, recognizing this shortcoming, set up regional sites,
> > > called BOCES centers, where students wishing that training could
> > > attend. Since BOCES is a separate school district, each sending
school
> > > district pays for each student who attends BOCES. The method is not
> > > uncommon, and as in Vermont, merely permits the students to take
> > > advantage of services to which they are entitled but are unavailable
in
> > > the taxing jurisdiction in which the happen to live. You spin the
> > > situation in that you liken them to vouchers. They are not.
Of course, Alan admitted they are vouchers: "With respect to Vermont,
vouchers were indeed issued....", but the above paragraph from Alan:
"conveniently le[ft] out that portion which defeats his position". We might
say he was attempting to "spin... facts through omission to present an out
of issue out of perspective"
And when I asked him about that, he lied. Twice:
<< > Alan keeps forgetting, it seems, that private schools educated some of
these
> kids. Just an innocent mistake, I'm sure.
<< Never forgot it. It just wasn't done through vouchers the way you said
it was. >>
and:
<< > As opposed to your ignoring that Vermont paid tax money to private
schools
> to educate its children?
<< Never did ignore it. >>
Of course, he did. Here are his claims regarding this, and conspicuous by
its absence is the admission that Vermont taxpayers paid for private
schooling:
<< With respect to Vermont,
vouchers were indeed issued, but only because of the unavailability of
public schools in a given jurisdiction. So in order to provide for the
State provided service, individuals living in districts which did not
have schools, had to be given funds ***to pay other districts***.>>
and:
<< Since BOCES is a separate school district, each sending school
district pays for each student who attends BOCES. The method is not
uncommon, and as in Vermont, merely permits the students to take
advantage of services to which they are entitled but are unavailable in
the taxing jurisdiction in which the happen to live. >>
Then, when I cornered him, he tried to wriggle out with:
<< The situation
which occurs in NY today, the payment ***to one school district by
another***,
is exactly the same situation which occurs in Vermont, the only
exception being that in Vermont, you cited one instance of a private
firm receiving the money. >>
Had Alan actually read the article, he would have found out that the
vouchers BEGAN with the state paying for students to go to PRIVATE schools:
<< Widespread respect for private academies
and acknowledgement of the impracticality
of each town's building its own school led
Vermont to pass the state's first tuitioning
statute in 1869. The statute allowed public
school districts to pay students' tuition at
private academies....>>
Note the plural in the last word, Alan. Also:
<<... in 1927, the legislature passed Act 31,
which gives town school boards the power to
send students to other schools at the parents'
request even when a local public school is
available.>>
I hope Alan noticed the phrase "at the parent's request" in that last
sentence.
And the article also names other private schools accepting vouchers:
<< Burr
and Burton Academy in Manchester....
Thetford Academy in Thetford....
nearly 50 percent of the budget of St.
Johnsbury Academy comes from tuition
town students. These well-respected private
schools are obviously being chosen in large
numbers by Vermont parents.>>
Got that, Alan: "obviously being chosen". And:
<< Students in the St. Johnsbury region can
choose from numerous public and private
schools, including private academies such as
the Lyndon Institute, St. Johnsbury
Academy, and the Burke Academy....>
Again, note the phrase "can choose". So much for Alan's "one instance".
And so much for his:
<< The situation
which occurs in NY today, the payment to one school district by another,
is exactly the same situation which occurs in Vermont....>>
Alan needs to learn to read a bit more carefully.
susupply
"Alan Lichtenstein" <alicht...@erols.com>
appealing to all the authority misc.education deserves,
wrote in message news:3D5D93...@erols.com...
> > > Even your buddy Malcolm concedes this point in his assertion. Why
don't
> > > you bother to read HIS statement? After all, HE'S on your side. Bob,
> > > who is certainly no friend of yours also agrees as well. Now if
> > > everyone, on both sides of the issue, agrees on this point, except
YOU,
> > > what does that suggest to YOU, my arrogant, jealous and dishonest
> > > friend?
> > >
> > > Why no reply, Patrick? Can't you handle the truth?
> >
> > "Everyone" being Malcolm, Bob and Alan?
>
> As far as this discussion is concerned, all the protagonists are
> covered. Except possibly jalison, and there's no doubt as to which side
> he'd weigh in on.
>
> And I note that your failure to reply is likely because you find
> yourself politically isolated here, not wanting to contradict an ally.
> Well if you think he's wrong, then say so, or can't you take the heat of
> a rejoinder from him? But your shallow ego prevents you from admitting
> that you're wrong. You know, my arrogant, conceited, dishonest, jealous
> and condescending "friend." You're not as smart as you think, and when
> you get past the insults, sarcasm and your substitution of citations for
> your own reasoning, you really don't have a hell of a lot to say.
>
> Tell us, Patrick, have you as yet learned about the fallacy of "appeal
> to authority?"
Obviously you still haven't or you wouldn't be giving me this risible
example of that fallacy:
> > > if
> > > everyone, on both sides of the issue, agrees on this point, except
YOU,
> > > what does that suggest to YOU, my arrogant, jealous and dishonest
> > > friend?
And speaking of dishonesty, Malcolm doesn't agree (or only agrees partially,
on one point). He said:
<< MK. This is not all on one side. The "Old Deceiver Satan act" predates
unions, but as a "compulsory attendance law" it --barely-- qualifies.
Myron Lieberman ("Privatization and Educational Choice") agrees
substantially with Alan about the relation between unions, child labor
laws, and compulsory attendance laws. Joel Spring ("The American
School") finds teacher organizations promoting compulsory attendance
and child labor laws. So it works both ways.
<< MK. Lieberman disagrees with Alan about the prospects for unions,
compulsory attendance laws, and child labor laws. Lieberman suggests
that the relation between years spent in school and later income is
weak, for many students. Those would be better off (as would
taxpayers) if they joined the workforce earlier. Lieberman suggests
that the aging US population will contribute to a shift in this
direction since a) seniors are more hostile to schol expenditures, and
b) the pension obligations of social security will require more
employees.>>
I count 1 agreement with Alan in the above, versus 3 disagreements. This
suggests to me that Alan is: "arrogant, jealous and dishonest".
PAT REIFSTECK
Bob LeChevalier
><< For more than a century, Vermont has operated
>a viable and popular voucher system in 90
>towns across the state. During the 1998-99
>school year, the state paid tuition for 6,505 students
>in kindergarten through 12th grade to
>attend public and private schools. >>
The question remains unanswered whether the Vermont system is a
"school choice voucher" as envisioned by proponents of same.
Specifically, to the parents get to choose any old school they want,
or are they limited to one or a couple alternatives specifically
approved by a government entity.
><< Widespread respect for private academies
>and acknowledgement of the impracticality
>of each town's building its own school led
>Vermont to pass the state's first tuitioning
>statute in 1869. The statute allowed public
>school districts to pay students' tuition at
>private academies....>>
>
>Note the plural in the last word, Alan.
Not necessarily significant, since "districts" is also plural. If
each district in question had one private school, the plural would be
appropriate and no choice is indicated.
>Also:
>
><<... in 1927, the legislature passed Act 31,
>which gives town school boards the power to
>send students to other schools at the parents'
>request even when a local public school is
>available.>>
This similarly does not indicate true parental choice. It indicates
that parents can request an alternative, but the decision is made by
the school board.
>And the article also names other private schools accepting vouchers:
>
><< Burr
>and Burton Academy in Manchester....
>Thetford Academy in Thetford....
> nearly 50 percent of the budget of St.
>Johnsbury Academy comes from tuition
>town students. These well-respected private
>schools are obviously being chosen in large
>numbers by Vermont parents.>>
>
>Got that, Alan: "obviously being chosen".
It is not "obvious" to us.
>And:
>
><< Students in the St. Johnsbury region can
>choose from numerous public and private
>schools, including private academies such as
>the Lyndon Institute, St. Johnsbury
>Academy, and the Burke Academy....>
>
>Again, note the phrase "can choose".
Clearly the article is making a false statement, since in the prior
one, it was the parents and not the students choosing. Some people
seem to think that the two are identical. They aren't.
lojbab