(03-13-2018 01:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not dodging - I've just done this song and dance with you for the past year and a half, and the needle hasn't moved. I've provided you with evidence of why the investigation isn't illogical, yet you just refuse to see logic in it. That's why I laughed.
I mean, let's do something really easy and LOGICAL. Assume the pee tape is real. All of a sudden, Putin has leverage over Trump. Putin could then say, let us help you get elected so you can, in return, not criticize me (Trump hasn't), not ratchet up sanctions (Trump still hasn't done that, despite them passing Congress), and push our interests (RNC changed their stance on Ukraine).
There is LOGIC there - whether it is plausible and likely is another story (mainly because I brought up the pee tape). I can think of plenty other logical reasons for why the Russian investigation is still on going, but you will fail to see logic in every one of them. I promise you that.
But here's the project with that LOGIC and all of the LOGICAL arguments. They all depend on significant "if" clauses. And none of the if's have been substantiated in over a year of thorough investigation.
If there is a pee pee tape. What if there isn't?
If "the Russians" hacked the DNC. What if they didn't?
If "the Russians" conspired with Trump to hack the election. What if they didn't?
Let's establish a proper predicate before leaping to hypothetical conclusions.
That's the difference between this and Watergate. There we clearly had a crime before starting to investigate. Here we don't. The needle hasn't moved because there has been nothing to move it.
That’s not what OO was talking about...
But to your point - we don’t know one way or the other, as the investigation hasn’t run its course. But there’s enough hard evidence about Trump campaign associated communicating with Wikileaks about the email dumps, and having meetings “about Russian adoption” to warrant investigating whether or not there was a conspiracy in play.
I mean, there was a crime - emails were stolen from the DNC. There then happened to be a lot of interaction between campaign officials and those releasing said emails.
(03-13-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The DeVos confirmation was a perfect example of how not all of the nominations the Dems opposed were born from complete obstructionism. DeVos has no business being Secretary of Education, and yet there she is. Her 60 Minutes interview didn’t shed light on anything new that her confirmation hearing didn’t expose.
Why shouldn't she be? I can see disagreement with her on policies, but the fact that she advocates a different approach from one that is clearly not working does not seem to me to be a reason why she has no business there. Maybe it is the exact reason why she should be there.
Have you seen her confirmation hearing or the 60 Minutes interview?
Yep. She pretty much flunked the standard bureaucratese questions. She doesn't know things that we would expect a typical bureaucrat to know.
As long as she was not appointed to be another typical bureaucrat, what difference does that make? Do I wish she knew the answers to those questions? Hell yes, but given her mission, they don't strike me as disqualifying.
She flunked a question on proficiency vs growth when judging student progress. How doesn’t that have anything to do with bureaucrats???
It's everything to do with bureaucrats. It's bureaucrat language. That's my point. The 60 Minutes episode and the confirmation hearings were not interviews, they were cross examinations. And they were designed skillfully to overemphasize the weakest points. The only thing that I've sen to disqualify her is that she has not moved faster to implement a total overhaul of our educational philosophy.
(03-13-2018 01:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Why shouldn't she be? I can see disagreement with her on policies, but the fact that she advocates a different approach from one that is clearly not working does not seem to me to be a reason why she has no business there. Maybe it is the exact reason why she should be there.
Have you seen her confirmation hearing or the 60 Minutes interview?
Yep. She pretty much flunked the standard bureaucratese questions. She doesn't know things that we would expect a typical bureaucrat to know.
As long as she was not appointed to be another typical bureaucrat, what difference does that make? Do I wish she knew the answers to those questions? Hell yes, but given her mission, they don't strike me as disqualifying.
She flunked a question on proficiency vs growth when judging student progress. How doesn’t that have anything to do with bureaucrats???
It's everything to do with bureaucrats. It's bureaucrat language. That's my point. The 60 Minutes episode and the confirmation hearings were not interviews, they were cross examinations. And they were designed skillfully to overemphasize the weakest points. The only thing that I've sen to disqualify her is that she has not moved faster to implement a total overhaul of our educational philosophy.
Your point is c***. What you are suggesting is bureaucratic language is NOT bureaucratic language. That is a fundamental educational theory about how to best measure the progress of children in our schools. That would be like suggesting that Scott Pruitt not even knowing what the theory of climate change is, is just him not being a typical bureaucrat. That's insane.
In both instances, falling on one side of the debate or the other isn't the issue (although, for the EPA example, I think there is an issue) - it's being totally uninformed that this topic exists that is the problem. If you want someone to break up the status quo, they should, in DeVos' case, at least been able to tear the entire debate a new one and explain why proficiency nor growth are the right way to measure student progress.
So if you want her to overhaul our educational philosophy, how the heck is she going to do that if she doesn't understand foundational components of it?
(03-13-2018 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Have you seen her confirmation hearing or the 60 Minutes interview?
Yep. She pretty much flunked the standard bureaucratese questions. She doesn't know things that we would expect a typical bureaucrat to know.
As long as she was not appointed to be another typical bureaucrat, what difference does that make? Do I wish she knew the answers to those questions? Hell yes, but given her mission, they don't strike me as disqualifying.
She flunked a question on proficiency vs growth when judging student progress. How doesn’t that have anything to do with bureaucrats???
It's everything to do with bureaucrats. It's bureaucrat language. That's my point. The 60 Minutes episode and the confirmation hearings were not interviews, they were cross examinations. And they were designed skillfully to overemphasize the weakest points. The only thing that I've sen to disqualify her is that she has not moved faster to implement a total overhaul of our educational philosophy.
Your point is c***. What you are suggesting is bureaucratic language is NOT bureaucratic language. That is a fundamental educational theory about how to best measure the progress of children in our schools. That would be like suggesting that Scott Pruitt not even knowing what the theory of climate change is, is just him not being a typical bureaucrat. That's insane.
In both instances, falling on one side of the debate or the other isn't the issue (although, for the EPA example, I think there is an issue) - it's being totally uninformed that this topic exists that is the problem. If you want someone to break up the status quo, they should, in DeVos' case, at least been able to tear the entire debate a new one and explain why proficiency nor growth are the right way to measure student progress.
So if you want her to overhaul our educational philosophy, how the heck is she going to do that if she doesn't understand foundational components of it?
It's a foundational component because the bureaucrats running eduction have made it one. Nobody but education bureaucrats talks in those terms.
Your comment seems to suggest some disagreement with either approach. Or maybe you disagree with the fundamental principle of measurement of progress, as do many teachers. Or maybe you are just imputing such disagreement to DeVos, not sure exactly where you are heading. It's an interesting debate that I'd enjoy having. For the record, I lean toward growth. But no, I don't think that she needs to play at that level of detail to serve as secretary of education--if we need a secretary of education at all, which is another debate I'd enjoy having. Given that since the department was created our costs have skyrocketed with no discernible improvement in performance--we now spend more than any other country and our results are middling at best--I think a massive reorientation is in order. Umm, weren't we just having this discussion about health care, and how spending more than anyone else with middling results meant that we needed a drastic overhaul? So we did a half-assed one. Not what I wanted there either.
(03-13-2018 02:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 02:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. She pretty much flunked the standard bureaucratese questions. She doesn't know things that we would expect a typical bureaucrat to know.
As long as she was not appointed to be another typical bureaucrat, what difference does that make? Do I wish she knew the answers to those questions? Hell yes, but given her mission, they don't strike me as disqualifying.
She flunked a question on proficiency vs growth when judging student progress. How doesn’t that have anything to do with bureaucrats???
It's everything to do with bureaucrats. It's bureaucrat language. That's my point. The 60 Minutes episode and the confirmation hearings were not interviews, they were cross examinations. And they were designed skillfully to overemphasize the weakest points. The only thing that I've sen to disqualify her is that she has not moved faster to implement a total overhaul of our educational philosophy.
Your point is c***. What you are suggesting is bureaucratic language is NOT bureaucratic language. That is a fundamental educational theory about how to best measure the progress of children in our schools. That would be like suggesting that Scott Pruitt not even knowing what the theory of climate change is, is just him not being a typical bureaucrat. That's insane.
In both instances, falling on one side of the debate or the other isn't the issue (although, for the EPA example, I think there is an issue) - it's being totally uninformed that this topic exists that is the problem. If you want someone to break up the status quo, they should, in DeVos' case, at least been able to tear the entire debate a new one and explain why proficiency nor growth are the right way to measure student progress.
So if you want her to overhaul our educational philosophy, how the heck is she going to do that if she doesn't understand foundational components of it?
It's a foundational component because the bureaucrats running eduction have made it one. Nobody but education bureaucrats talks in those terms.
Your comment seems to suggest some disagreement with either approach. Or maybe you disagree with the fundamental principle of measurement of progress, as do many teachers. Or maybe you are just imputing such disagreement to DeVos, not sure exactly where you are heading. It's an interesting debate that I'd enjoy having. For the record, I lean toward growth. But no, I don't think that she needs to play at that level of detail to serve as secretary of education--if we need a secretary of education at all, which is another debate I'd enjoy having. Given that since the department was created our costs have skyrocketed with no discernible improvement in performance--we now spend more than any other country and our results are middling at best--I think a massive reorientation is in order. Umm, weren't we just having this discussion about health care, and how spending more than anyone else with middling results meant that we needed a drastic overhaul? So we did a half-assed one. Not what I wanted there either.
You're making my point perfectly - I appreciate that.
DeVos could not even provide a salient response like yours, that actually addressed the question. Like I said, she could have been for one side, the other, or completely tearing down the debate, but she wasn't. Instead she was uninformed and unable to respond to a question that should be easy for someone to respond to that has thought about how to measure student progress. The idea of measuring student progress isn't a bureaucratic idea - it is a fundamental idea in education. It's why there is a grading scale...
You can go ahead and debate the merits of that all you want, but my point is DeVos isn't equipped to have that debate.
(03-13-2018 01:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The investigation has a logical basis - just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. Members of the Trump campaign were aware of the DNC email hacks before the emails were released - and it seems perfectly logical to investigate whether or not there was cooperation between the Trump campaign and those responsible for the hacks (Russia).
so you think a deal was reached months before Trump even had the nomination for Russia to steal and publish the emails without editing in return for...what? Who was the genius that realized that publishing that Donna Brazile cheated for Hillary would turn Wisconsin red? and why did they decide to pass their communications over handshakes at state dinners.
Well, a lot of people believe that the world was created in six days. Because they choose to believe.
If I am on a grand jury, this is a no bill. If I am on a petit jury, this is a not guilty. You just cannot come in in and tell me he worked with the russians because one of his employees had suspicious deals with them years ago and he slept with a hooker and he is mean and rude. (stamp foot) Does not pass the sniff test.
I think the ones that it passes the sniff test for are the ones who think Trump stinks.
Lad, alone among the throng on your side, including the thoughtful people here and the ones burning dumpsters, you tried to make a narrative that made sense. You failed, but you tried. Can you rebuild that here again? Trace the evolution of the conspiracy. Give us the quid pro quo. Explain how Trump knew months before the election, before the nomination even, that all he needed was to publish Hillary's yoga schedule. If he did, smart man.
I think we could investigate the First Baptist Church of Dallas or Rice University for collusion with Mars, and come up with a list of OOJ and money laundering charges. Do you disagree?
Hahahaahahahahahahah
Yeah, your opinion on whether or not there is a narrative that makes sense really holds a lot of weight to me. At least you tried.
Dodging the challenge.
Always hard to talk logic with true believing conspiracy theorists. Might as well try to convince an Idaho militiaman that the government is NOT coming to take their guns.
What do you think of my last paragraph?
I'm not dodging - I've just done this song and dance with you for the past year and a half, and the needle hasn't moved. I've provided you with evidence of why the investigation isn't illogical, yet you just refuse to see logic in it. That's why I laughed.
I mean, let's do something really easy and LOGICAL. Assume the pee tape is real. All of a sudden, Putin has leverage over Trump. Putin could then say, let us help you get elected so you can, in return, not criticize me (Trump hasn't), not ratchet up sanctions (Trump still hasn't done that, despite them passing Congress), and push our interests (RNC changed their stance on Ukraine).
There is LOGIC there - whether it is plausible and likely is another story (mainly because I brought up the pee tape). I can think of plenty other logical reasons for why the Russian investigation is still on going, but you will fail to see logic in every one of them. I promise you that.
Implausible logic? Are they teaching that now at rice?
And then after all that, Putin sells the pee tape to the Clinton Campaign. Explain the logic in that? And then after the tape is sold and made public, Trump keeps his end of the deal? Explain the logic in that, please. He is not enforcing sanctions so that Putin will not make the pee tape public? THAT is your logic?
Implausible logic, indeed.
(03-13-2018 03:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]so you think a deal was reached months before Trump even had the nomination for Russia to steal and publish the emails without editing in return for...what? Who was the genius that realized that publishing that Donna Brazile cheated for Hillary would turn Wisconsin red? and why did they decide to pass their communications over handshakes at state dinners.
Well, a lot of people believe that the world was created in six days. Because they choose to believe.
If I am on a grand jury, this is a no bill. If I am on a petit jury, this is a not guilty. You just cannot come in in and tell me he worked with the russians because one of his employees had suspicious deals with them years ago and he slept with a hooker and he is mean and rude. (stamp foot) Does not pass the sniff test.
I think the ones that it passes the sniff test for are the ones who think Trump stinks.
Lad, alone among the throng on your side, including the thoughtful people here and the ones burning dumpsters, you tried to make a narrative that made sense. You failed, but you tried. Can you rebuild that here again? Trace the evolution of the conspiracy. Give us the quid pro quo. Explain how Trump knew months before the election, before the nomination even, that all he needed was to publish Hillary's yoga schedule. If he did, smart man.
I think we could investigate the First Baptist Church of Dallas or Rice University for collusion with Mars, and come up with a list of OOJ and money laundering charges. Do you disagree?
Hahahaahahahahahahah
Yeah, your opinion on whether or not there is a narrative that makes sense really holds a lot of weight to me. At least you tried.
Dodging the challenge.
Always hard to talk logic with true believing conspiracy theorists. Might as well try to convince an Idaho militiaman that the government is NOT coming to take their guns.
What do you think of my last paragraph?
I'm not dodging - I've just done this song and dance with you for the past year and a half, and the needle hasn't moved. I've provided you with evidence of why the investigation isn't illogical, yet you just refuse to see logic in it. That's why I laughed.
I mean, let's do something really easy and LOGICAL. Assume the pee tape is real. All of a sudden, Putin has leverage over Trump. Putin could then say, let us help you get elected so you can, in return, not criticize me (Trump hasn't), not ratchet up sanctions (Trump still hasn't done that, despite them passing Congress), and push our interests (RNC changed their stance on Ukraine).
There is LOGIC there - whether it is plausible and likely is another story (mainly because I brought up the pee tape). I can think of plenty other logical reasons for why the Russian investigation is still on going, but you will fail to see logic in every one of them. I promise you that.
Implausible logic? Are they teaching that now at rice?
And then after all that, Putin sells the pee tape to the Clinton Campaign. Explain the logic in that? And then after the tape is sold and made public, Trump keeps his end of the deal? Explain the logic in that, please. He is not enforcing sanctions so that Putin will not make the pee tape public? THAT is your logic?
Implausible logic, indeed.
Something can implausible (i.e. not likely to occur), but still be logical. To me, that's the pee tape. There's a small possibility it exists because of how outlandish that would be, but if it does exists, the situation I stated is logical. I don't view logic and likelihood as being completely correlated.
And when did this tape ever get sold to the Clinton Campaign?
And to you last question, that is one line of thinking. It's not inconceivable that Putin has compromising information on Trump, which is why he won't enforce the sanctions that Congress almost unanimously passed. There are plenty of other logical explanations as to why Trump hasn't, but mere existence of multiple, logical reasons for Trump to be avoiding sanctioning Russia doesn't make any of the others less logical.
(03-13-2018 01:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The investigation has a logical basis - just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. Members of the Trump campaign were aware of the DNC email hacks before the emails were released - and it seems perfectly logical to investigate whether or not there was cooperation between the Trump campaign and those responsible for the hacks (Russia).
so you think a deal was reached months before Trump even had the nomination for Russia to steal and publish the emails without editing in return for...what? Who was the genius that realized that publishing that Donna Brazile cheated for Hillary would turn Wisconsin red? and why did they decide to pass their communications over handshakes at state dinners.
Well, a lot of people believe that the world was created in six days. Because they choose to believe.
If I am on a grand jury, this is a no bill. If I am on a petit jury, this is a not guilty. You just cannot come in in and tell me he worked with the russians because one of his employees had suspicious deals with them years ago and he slept with a hooker and he is mean and rude. (stamp foot) Does not pass the sniff test.
I think the ones that it passes the sniff test for are the ones who think Trump stinks.
Lad, alone among the throng on your side, including the thoughtful people here and the ones burning dumpsters, you tried to make a narrative that made sense. You failed, but you tried. Can you rebuild that here again? Trace the evolution of the conspiracy. Give us the quid pro quo. Explain how Trump knew months before the election, before the nomination even, that all he needed was to publish Hillary's yoga schedule. If he did, smart man.
I think we could investigate the First Baptist Church of Dallas or Rice University for collusion with Mars, and come up with a list of OOJ and money laundering charges. Do you disagree?
Hahahaahahahahahahah
Yeah, your opinion on whether or not there is a narrative that makes sense really holds a lot of weight to me. At least you tried.
Dodging the challenge.
Always hard to talk logic with true believing conspiracy theorists. Might as well try to convince an Idaho militiaman that the government is NOT coming to take their guns.
What do you think of my last paragraph?
I'm not dodging - I've just done this song and dance with you for the past year and a half, and the needle hasn't moved. I've provided you with evidence of why the investigation isn't illogical, yet you just refuse to see logic in it. That's why I laughed.
I mean, let's do something really easy and LOGICAL. Assume the pee tape is real. All of a sudden, Putin has leverage over Trump. Putin could then say, let us help you get elected so you can, in return, not criticize me (Trump hasn't), not ratchet up sanctions (Trump still hasn't done that, despite them passing Congress), and push our interests (RNC changed their stance on Ukraine).
There is LOGIC there - whether it is plausible and likely is another story (mainly because I brought up the pee tape). I can think of plenty other logical reasons for why the Russian investigation is still on going, but you will fail to see logic in every one of them. I promise you that.
I would point out that while we have been singing and dancing with other, your needle hasn't moved either. Why should mine move and yours not? Oh, yeah, I am supposed to STFU.
Seems like your DeVos complaints, everybody's Trump complaints, and your complaint about me all fit one leftist mold - just agree with me, do it my way, or else you are wrong.
Trump and DeVos are criticized for not maintaining the policies and standards of the previous Administration. I am criticized for not seeing logic where there is none.
I heard Leebron was talking to some Canadians about moving Rice to Winnipeg. There is enough smoke right there to warrant an investigation. We won't know for sure if he is actually conspiring with the Canadians until the investigation is over and we get a report, so just STFU.
Logical?
I bet such an investigation would result in many indictments for OOJ and laundering. But the Leebron-Canada conspiracy? probably not. But nobody should ever make a peep about the silliness of it all.
Implausible logic, indeed.
(03-13-2018 03:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You're making my point perfectly - I appreciate that.
DeVos could not even provide a salient response like yours, that actually addressed the question. Like I said, she could have been for one side, the other, or completely tearing down the debate, but she wasn't. Instead she was uninformed and unable to respond to a question that should be easy for someone to respond to that has thought about how to measure student progress. The idea of measuring student progress isn't a bureaucratic idea - it is a fundamental idea in education. It's why there is a grading scale...
You can go ahead and debate the merits of that all you want, but my point is DeVos isn't equipped to have that debate.
Well then, maybe I should be secretary of education.
I'd track students, on at least three tracks--gifted, college prep, and vocational. And the vocational track would be a lot more rigorous. And we'd have school choice and vouchers. And I'd replace Common Core with a curriculum designed not by teachers alone but by employers in conjunction with teachers, based on skills that are actually needed in the workplace, and students would be tested to that curriculum, so no more of this "do I teach the curriculum or do I teach the test?" And to be eligible for vouchers, a school would have to spend at least X% (I'm thinking 90, but open to debate) inside the classroom and subject its students to those standardized tests annually to measure proficiency to determine which tracks students were eligible for, so they would have skin in the game, as well as growth to evaluate teachers. And I'm thinking vouchers would be $3,000 per student with requirement that $2500 go to teachers' salaries and $500 to classroom materials, so a teacher with a 20 student load would be guaranteed $50,000 compensation and $10,000 to buy supplies, minimum, before the state or district spend a dime. Those are some of my thoughts. What say you?
So I have at least given this some thought, and I'm fine with DeVos.
(03-13-2018 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 03:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You're making my point perfectly - I appreciate that.
DeVos could not even provide a salient response like yours, that actually addressed the question. Like I said, she could have been for one side, the other, or completely tearing down the debate, but she wasn't. Instead she was uninformed and unable to respond to a question that should be easy for someone to respond to that has thought about how to measure student progress. The idea of measuring student progress isn't a bureaucratic idea - it is a fundamental idea in education. It's why there is a grading scale...
You can go ahead and debate the merits of that all you want, but my point is DeVos isn't equipped to have that debate.
Well then, maybe I should be secretary of education.
I'd track students, on at least three tracks--gifted, college prep, and vocational. And the vocational track would be a lot more rigorous. And we'd have school choice and vouchers. And I'd replace Common Core with a curriculum designed not by teachers alone but by employers in conjunction with teachers, based on skills that are actually needed in the workplace, and students would be tested to that curriculum, so no more of this "do I teach the curriculum or do I teach the test?" And to be eligible for vouchers, a school would have to spend at least X% (I'm thinking 90, but open to debate) inside the classroom and subject its students to those standardized tests annually to measure proficiency to determine which tracks students were eligible for, so they would have skin in the game, as well as growth to evaluate teachers. And I'm thinking vouchers would be $3,000 per student with requirement that $2500 go to teachers' salaries and $500 to classroom materials, so a teacher with a 20 student load would be guaranteed $50,000 compensation and $10,000 to buy supplies, minimum, before the state or district spend a dime. Those are some of my thoughts. What say you?
So I have at least given this some thought, and I'm fine with DeVos.
Which employers?
McDonald's would probably emphasize something different than McDonnell-Douglas, and Hollywood something else entirely. None of them would likely have much use for music or literature.
(03-13-2018 04:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 03:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]You're making my point perfectly - I appreciate that.
DeVos could not even provide a salient response like yours, that actually addressed the question. Like I said, she could have been for one side, the other, or completely tearing down the debate, but she wasn't. Instead she was uninformed and unable to respond to a question that should be easy for someone to respond to that has thought about how to measure student progress. The idea of measuring student progress isn't a bureaucratic idea - it is a fundamental idea in education. It's why there is a grading scale...
You can go ahead and debate the merits of that all you want, but my point is DeVos isn't equipped to have that debate.
Well then, maybe I should be secretary of education.
I'd track students, on at least three tracks--gifted, college prep, and vocational. And the vocational track would be a lot more rigorous. And we'd have school choice and vouchers. And I'd replace Common Core with a curriculum designed not by teachers alone but by employers in conjunction with teachers, based on skills that are actually needed in the workplace, and students would be tested to that curriculum, so no more of this "do I teach the curriculum or do I teach the test?" And to be eligible for vouchers, a school would have to spend at least X% (I'm thinking 90, but open to debate) inside the classroom and subject its students to those standardized tests annually to measure proficiency to determine which tracks students were eligible for, so they would have skin in the game, as well as growth to evaluate teachers. And I'm thinking vouchers would be $3,000 per student with requirement that $2500 go to teachers' salaries and $500 to classroom materials, so a teacher with a 20 student load would be guaranteed $50,000 compensation and $10,000 to buy supplies, minimum, before the state or district spend a dime. Those are some of my thoughts. What say you?
So I have at least given this some thought, and I'm fine with DeVos.
Why are you fine with DeVos? What has she said that actually makes a case for her being Secretary of Education? You haven't really addressed that at all - you've just railed against faceless bureaucrats and said she wasn't one of them. Is that her only selling point that makes her qualified in your opinion?
I'm not letting you turn this conversation around from being about the qualifications of one candidate to the merits of different educational philosophies.
(03-13-2018 04:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 01:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]so you think a deal was reached months before Trump even had the nomination for Russia to steal and publish the emails without editing in return for...what? Who was the genius that realized that publishing that Donna Brazile cheated for Hillary would turn Wisconsin red? and why did they decide to pass their communications over handshakes at state dinners.
Well, a lot of people believe that the world was created in six days. Because they choose to believe.
If I am on a grand jury, this is a no bill. If I am on a petit jury, this is a not guilty. You just cannot come in in and tell me he worked with the russians because one of his employees had suspicious deals with them years ago and he slept with a hooker and he is mean and rude. (stamp foot) Does not pass the sniff test.
I think the ones that it passes the sniff test for are the ones who think Trump stinks.
Lad, alone among the throng on your side, including the thoughtful people here and the ones burning dumpsters, you tried to make a narrative that made sense. You failed, but you tried. Can you rebuild that here again? Trace the evolution of the conspiracy. Give us the quid pro quo. Explain how Trump knew months before the election, before the nomination even, that all he needed was to publish Hillary's yoga schedule. If he did, smart man.
I think we could investigate the First Baptist Church of Dallas or Rice University for collusion with Mars, and come up with a list of OOJ and money laundering charges. Do you disagree?
Hahahaahahahahahahah
Yeah, your opinion on whether or not there is a narrative that makes sense really holds a lot of weight to me. At least you tried.
Dodging the challenge.
Always hard to talk logic with true believing conspiracy theorists. Might as well try to convince an Idaho militiaman that the government is NOT coming to take their guns.
What do you think of my last paragraph?
I'm not dodging - I've just done this song and dance with you for the past year and a half, and the needle hasn't moved. I've provided you with evidence of why the investigation isn't illogical, yet you just refuse to see logic in it. That's why I laughed.
I mean, let's do something really easy and LOGICAL. Assume the pee tape is real. All of a sudden, Putin has leverage over Trump. Putin could then say, let us help you get elected so you can, in return, not criticize me (Trump hasn't), not ratchet up sanctions (Trump still hasn't done that, despite them passing Congress), and push our interests (RNC changed their stance on Ukraine).
There is LOGIC there - whether it is plausible and likely is another story (mainly because I brought up the pee tape). I can think of plenty other logical reasons for why the Russian investigation is still on going, but you will fail to see logic in every one of them. I promise you that.
I would point out that while we have been singing and dancing with other, your needle hasn't moved either. Why should mine move and yours not? Oh, yeah, I am supposed to STFU.
Seems like your DeVos complaints, everybody's Trump complaints, and your complaint about me all fit one leftist mold - just agree with me, do it my way, or else you are wrong.
Trump and DeVos are criticized for not maintaining the policies and standards of the previous Administration. I am criticized for not seeing logic where there is none.
I heard Leebron was talking to some Canadians about moving Rice to Winnipeg. There is enough smoke right there to warrant an investigation. We won't know for sure if he is actually conspiring with the Canadians until the investigation is over and we get a report, so just STFU.
Logical?
I bet such an investigation would result in many indictments for OOJ and laundering. But the Leebron-Canada conspiracy? probably not. But nobody should ever make a peep about the silliness of it all.
Implausible logic, indeed.
I'm not really saying you should STFU - I'm pointing out how silly your original comment was, when you asked me to try and make a case to change your opinion. You don't want to have your opinion changed in this case. I'm saying don't ask for someone's opinion when you don't actually care to hear it.
And your comment about the left's mold is the EXACT same thing as your mold, and most of the right's mold. Heck, that is almost EVERYONE'S mold. Don't go throwing stones at glass houses when you live in one.
Also, what a wonderful way to mischaracterize my comment on DeVos. I've EXPLICITLY stated that my issue with her nomination wasn't her views, but her lack of insight into educational policy and understanding of some very basic topics in education. It was her QUALIFICATION, not her OPINIONS, that made me feel she should not have been nominated. So if you want to say my and the left's views are that someone should be qualified for a job and have a good understanding of the area you operate in, you've got me there!
(03-13-2018 04:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Why are you fine with DeVos? What has she said that actually makes a case for her being Secretary of Education? You haven't really addressed that at all - you've just railed against faceless bureaucrats and said she wasn't one of them. Is that her only selling point that makes her qualified in your opinion?
Quite frankly, that's probably enough. The fact that she isn't well accepted by the idiots that have screwed up the system is more positive than negative in my mind. And the fact that the establishment is feeding her gotcha questions about what really should be trivia troubles me a lot more about the questioners than it does about her. You have seen my approach. Who is more likely to implement all or significant parts of it--DeVos or some career education bureaucrat who knows all of the inside baseball lingo?
Quote:I'm not letting you turn this conversation around from being about the qualifications of one candidate to the merits of different educational philosophies.
But the two issues aren't exactly unrelated, are they? Her qualifications are being measured against a set of metrics that go with one philosophy. If that's the wrong philosophy, then what difference does it make how she measures against those metrics? How important are your skills at riding a horse of you are driving in the Indy 500? As I said, my biggest negative about her is that she isn't upsetting the apple cart fast enough.
My bottom line--Criticizing DeVos because she doesn't fit the bureaucracy's concept of what a secretary of education should be is kind of like the captain of the Titanic criticizing my seamanship. Maybe I'm not an expert on his terms, but I know not to run into the damn iceberg. Our education system is a freaking disaster. Somebody not well versed in its minutia is probably an improvement.
(03-13-2018 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 04:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Why are you fine with DeVos? What has she said that actually makes a case for her being Secretary of Education? You haven't really addressed that at all - you've just railed against faceless bureaucrats and said she wasn't one of them. Is that her only selling point that makes her qualified in your opinion?
Quite frankly, that's probably enough. The fact that she isn't well accepted by the idiots that have screwed up the system is more positive than negative in my mind. And the fact that the establishment is feeding her gotcha questions about what really should be trivia troubles me a lot more about the questioners than it does about her. You have seen my approach. Who is more likely to implement all or significant parts of it--DeVos or some career education bureaucrat who knows all of the inside baseball lingo?
Quote:I'm not letting you turn this conversation around from being about the qualifications of one candidate to the merits of different educational philosophies.
But the two issues aren't exactly unrelated, are they? Her qualifications are being measured against a set of metrics that go with one philosophy. If that's the wrong philosophy, then what difference does it make how she measures against those metrics? How important are your skills at riding a horse of you are driving in the Indy 500? As I said, my biggest negative about her is that she isn't upsetting the apple cart fast enough.
No they aren't! Her qualifications are being measured against the ability to understand and discuss educational policy, and some integral pieces of it.
How is measuring student progress part of one philosophy? Based on your previous post, you stated that a vocational track would be more rigorous - well how would you track the progress of students on that track? And you still have testing in your plans - is that not a way to track a student's progress? You must be part of that side your railing against then, no?
This is DeVos' answer on her opinion on growth vs. proficiency:
Quote:I think, if I’m understanding your question correctly around proficiency, I would also correlate it to competency and mastery, so that each student is measured according to the advancement they’re making in each subject area.
As Franken pointed out, that is the definition of growth, not proficiency, because it is measuring each student relative to how well they are each doing. As opposed to proficiency, which doesn't account for where a student starts.
This concept is not part of a specific philosophy - it doesn't care about charter schools and vouchers.
(03-13-2018 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not really saying you should STFU - I'm pointing out how silly your original comment was, when you asked me to try and make a case to change your opinion. You don't want to have your opinion changed in this case. I'm saying don't ask for someone's opinion when you don't actually care to hear it.
It wasn't a comment, it was a request. Nor was it silly, thank you very much. I have been asking for a narrative that would support an investigation from dozens of leftists for months, and to your credit, you were to the only one to at least attempt one. My hope is that if you actually have to construct a case for an investigation,, rather than just making excuses for it, you will see how weak and tenuous the "logic" is.
But either you cannot or will not make that case. Sorry, I cannot diagnose your sore throat if you won't say "Ah".
Didn't the Clinton Campaign pay for the dossier, and isn't the tape part of that?
Innuendo is not a basis for an investigation.
(03-13-2018 05:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]No they aren't! Her qualifications are being measured against the ability to understand and discuss educational policy, and some integral pieces of it.
How is measuring student progress part of one philosophy? Based on your previous post, you stated that a vocational track would be more rigorous - well how would you track the progress of students on that track? And you still have testing in your plans - is that not a way to track a student's progress? You must be part of that side your railing against then, no?
This is DeVos' answer on her opinion on growth vs. proficiency:
Quote:I think, if I’m understanding your question correctly around proficiency, I would also correlate it to competency and mastery, so that each student is measured according to the advancement they’re making in each subject area.
As Franken pointed out, that is the definition of growth, not proficiency, because it is measuring each student relative to how well they are each doing. As opposed to proficiency, which doesn't account for where a student starts.
This concept is not part of a specific philosophy - it doesn't care about charter schools and vouchers.
Her qualifications are being measured against educational policy terminology, as defined by the educational bureaucracy. That terminology does not exist outside the educational bureaucracy. Do normal, average people discussing the quality of our education system speak in terms of growth versus proficiency? Not that I'm aware of.
I think the way our standardized testing systems have been implemented measures proficiency more than growth, and I disagree with that. It has been used as teachers as an argument against standardized testing. I would use it to argue that testing should be restructured to measure growth, so to that extent I get into the argument. But I'm sorry, I just don't see that mastery of words of art in the education bureaucracy is an essential qualification for a secretary go education.
Franked's question, and the 60 Minutes interview, were both very obviously gotcha hatchet jobs. Devon should have ben ready for that, and it's to her detriment that she wasn't. But I don't think that either is disqualifying.
(03-13-2018 05:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not really saying you should STFU - I'm pointing out how silly your original comment was, when you asked me to try and make a case to change your opinion. You don't want to have your opinion changed in this case. I'm saying don't ask for someone's opinion when you don't actually care to hear it.
It wasn't a comment, it was a request. Nor was it silly, thank you very much. I have been asking for a narrative that would support an investigation from dozens of leftists for months, and to your credit, you were to the only one to at least attempt one. My hope is that if you actually have to construct a case for an investigation,, rather than just making excuses for it, you will see how weak and tenuous the "logic" is.
But either you cannot or will not make that case. Sorry, I cannot diagnose your sore throat if you won't say "Ah".
Didn't the Clinton Campaign pay for the dossier, and isn't the tape part of that?
Innuendo is not a basis for an investigation.
It is silly because it isn’t sincere.
This document, just released by House dems, does a good job laying out the concerns:
https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov...ndices.pdf
(03-13-2018 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 05:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 04:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not really saying you should STFU - I'm pointing out how silly your original comment was, when you asked me to try and make a case to change your opinion. You don't want to have your opinion changed in this case. I'm saying don't ask for someone's opinion when you don't actually care to hear it.
It wasn't a comment, it was a request. Nor was it silly, thank you very much. I have been asking for a narrative that would support an investigation from dozens of leftists for months, and to your credit, you were to the only one to at least attempt one. My hope is that if you actually have to construct a case for an investigation,, rather than just making excuses for it, you will see how weak and tenuous the "logic" is.
But either you cannot or will not make that case. Sorry, I cannot diagnose your sore throat if you won't say "Ah".
Didn't the Clinton Campaign pay for the dossier, and isn't the tape part of that?
Innuendo is not a basis for an investigation.
It is silly because it isn’t sincere.
This document, just released by House dems, does a good job laying out the concerns: https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov...ndices.pdf
I sincerely would like you or anybody else to create a narrative that makes sense.
here is all I can glean fro the assorted hysterical musings:
Trump called Putin and asked him to steal the DNC's emails and publish them, without any changes or editing, so that the american public, especially in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, would know that Donna Brazile gave Clinton the debate questions in advance.
OR:
Putin threatened to release a faked video that purported to show Trump in an embarrassing light, and Trump (ever fearful and easily bullied as he is), shakily accepted the opportunity to be Putin's *****. Putin then sold it to the Clinton Campaign through the British spy they hired and Trump still doesn't know.
Pick one.
It is clearly a framework of gossamer.
The report does not impress me, as my opinion is that there never should have been an investigation in the first place. I am sure the McCarthy committee (very similar situation) in the 50's still had a lot of people they wanted to call when they shut down, too. No, what I want from you or any other defender of this witch hunt is a coherent and reasonable reason why there should have been an investigation into Trump in the first place.
And you never did respond to my question.
(03-13-2018 05:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]This is DeVos' answer on her opinion on growth vs. proficiency:
Quote:I think, if I’m understanding your question correctly around proficiency, I would also correlate it to competency and mastery, so that each student is measured according to the advancement they’re making in each subject area.
So instead of accepting the posited dichotomy between A and B, she suggested that they need not be mutually exclusive. That hardly seems disqualifying, either in style or in substance. Stylistically, it is exactly the sort of all-things-to-all-people answer that politicians routinely give, and that in fact we expect them to give. Substantively, it seems pretty sensible: ideally schools should help students meet objective benchmarks AND improve their own performance.
A nominee who clings (bitterly?) to the idea that growth and proficiency are mutually exclusive seems like the LAST person we should trust with educational policy.
(03-13-2018 10:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-13-2018 05:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]This is DeVos' answer on her opinion on growth vs. proficiency:
Quote:I think, if I’m understanding your question correctly around proficiency, I would also correlate it to competency and mastery, so that each student is measured according to the advancement they’re making in each subject area.
So instead of accepting the posited dichotomy between A and B, she suggested that they need not be mutually exclusive. That hardly seems disqualifying, either in style or in substance. Stylistically, it is exactly the sort of all-things-to-all-people answer that politicians routinely give, and that in fact we expect them to give. Substantively, it seems pretty sensible: ideally schools should help students meet objective benchmarks AND improve their own performance.
A nominee who clings (bitterly?) to the idea that growth and proficiency are mutually exclusive seems like the LAST person we should trust with educational policy.
But this gets to my point. Growth versus proficiency is kind of educational bureaucratese jargon. Nobody speaks in those terms--particularly with the specialized meaning that those terms take on--except educational bureaucrats. You ask parents if they are satisfied with the education their kids get, or ask employers if they are satisfied with the educational preparation of employees, and they don't come back with, "Do you mean on a proficiency basis or a growth basis?" Because that's not the way people speak about education except within the narrow band of education establishment bureaucrats. It is a fundamental cornerstone of education policy because education policy has been defined by that narrow band of bureaucrats. It's a provider-defined term, not a user-defined term. And if DeVos wants to change the paradigm, which I think is needed, then I just don't see it as a major issue. She can hire people who speak in those terms when speaking in such terms is necessary. As George points out, her answer defined a policy goal, if that goal doesn't fit your terminology, then maybe it is your terminology that needs changing.