(01-19-2012 03:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:34 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Charter Schools beat Public Schools for two reasons:
1) The kids in charter schools have parents that care enough about their education to jump through the hoops to get their kids into a charter school. It's a safe assumption that those same parents stay engaged in their kids education.

Nonsense. Just watched a good portion of "Waiting for Superman" last Sat. Evidence there blows away this notion.

Quote:2) Charter schools don't have to deal with much of the bureaucracy crap that the public schools do. Part of this is because they don't have the unions to do with, part of it is because of their size.

So economy of scale doesn't exist?

Quote:The other problem is what do we do with the kids who have parents that don't care? I don't have an answer.

Lots of kids succeed w/ parents who don't care. That's not a legitimate fallback position.

It's not a fallback position, it's a legitimate question that should be addressed. If the parents are out of the picture, who's responsibility is it to reach the kids and keep them engaged? Leaving it to the kids isn't really a option with great results.

Economy of scale does exist for production organizations, but it comes with its own baggage. Education isn't the same as making widgets, you can't make kids learn faster. Your only efficiency play is to to try to teach more kids with less resources.

I've seen WFS, it doesn't "blow" anything away. As a film, it raises good questions but does little to provide a comprehensive solution to America's education troubles. Again, I think charter schools are a valuable part of the solution, but they should only be part of a larger system of options.

(01-19-2012 03:18 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I've seen WFS, it doesn't "blow" anything away. As a film, it raises good questions but does little to provide a comprehensive solution to America's education troubles. Again, I think charter schools are a valuable part of the solution, but they should only be part of a larger system of options.

Jeffrey Canada is working to address that issue, much to the chagrin, and opposition, of liberals.

(01-19-2012 03:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:54 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  One could argue that more abortions among the poor would decrease the pool of people that won't pay taxes and that would be receiving the most entitlement programs.

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

Yea it's been argued before..

Yeah.

And? Are you going to attribute every opinion of Sanger to me now? Or was this just so you could bring up planned parenthood?

(01-19-2012 03:18 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's not a fallback position, it's a legitimate question that should be addressed. If the parents are out of the picture, who's responsibility is it to reach the kids and keep them engaged? Leaving it to the kids isn't really a option with great results.

That's a different question.

You're still skipping the first one, what's the purpose of education? What's the vision and philosophy behind it. Frankly, when you read Mann and Dewey, it's to create a passive society of neo-serfs. That's why we are where we are today...whether educators like it or not.

Quote:Economy of scale does exist for production organizations, but it comes with its own baggage. Education isn't the same as making widgets, you can't make kids learn faster. Your only efficiency play is to to try to teach more kids with less resources.

Fallacy one: you most certainly can make kids learn faster.
Fallacy two: you miss the point that efficiency also means making them learn better.

Finally, since public schools are all about economy of scale (and by all, I most certainly mean 100%) then if you are arguing to take that away, you are arguing to eliminate public schools. That follows necessarily.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/3222/if-oba...-provider/

Read some of the comments.

Quote:Listen to Alexander Sanger, the grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who argued that feminists needed to go beyond the rhetoric of "choice," jargon he regarded as cowardly and vague. They should CELEBRATE abortion directly and unapologetically, he said. After all, the UNBORN CHILD, as an ANNOYING INTERLOPER, DESERVES TO DIE "The UNBORN CHILD is not JUST an innocent life," he wrote, but a "lLIABILITY, a THREAT, and a DANGER to the mother and to the other members of the family."

Many abortion proponents are just flat out sick bastards.

(01-19-2012 03:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:18 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's not a fallback position, it's a legitimate question that should be addressed. If the parents are out of the picture, who's responsibility is it to reach the kids and keep them engaged? Leaving it to the kids isn't really a option with great results.

That's a different question.

You're still skipping the first one, what's the purpose of education? What's the vision and philosophy behind it. Frankly, when you read Mann and Dewey, it's to create a passive society of neo-serfs. That's why we are where we are today...whether educators like it or not.

Quote:Economy of scale does exist for production organizations, but it comes with its own baggage. Education isn't the same as making widgets, you can't make kids learn faster. Your only efficiency play is to to try to teach more kids with less resources.

Fallacy one: you most certainly can make kids learn faster.
Fallacy two: you miss the point that efficiency also means making them learn better.

Finally, since public schools are all about economy of scale (and by all, I most certainly mean 100%) then if you are arguing to take that away, you are arguing to eliminate public schools. That follows necessarily.

It's not a different question, it's a different approach to the same problem. What do you do with the kids with no support system?

Do you honestly believe that if we closed down every public school and had only charter schools (as the resulting charter school systems), that there would not be an increase in bureaucracy? I'm in favor of more charter schools but I'm not in favor of ALL charter schools, just like I'm not in favor of ALL public schools or ALL home schools or ALL private schools.
I'm advocating a mixed solution that provides options to kids and their parents. I think there's a place for public education along side private, home, and charter schools. I do not know what the ideal mix is but it would probably change over time anyway.

Do you have a way to make kids learn more faster? I'm assuming your kids are almost done college at 16, right?

If we had a better system we'd probably be able to shave a year off of high school and the kids would actually know more, but we're not going to have most kids ready for college level classes at 12.

(01-19-2012 03:22 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:54 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  One could argue that more abortions among the poor would decrease the pool of people that won't pay taxes and that would be receiving the most entitlement programs.

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

Yea it's been argued before..

Yeah.

And? Are you going to attribute every opinion of Sanger to me now? Or was this just so you could bring up planned parenthood?

Neither... The opinion that by killing off the poor through eugenics we will be left with a better world... IT has a history.

(01-19-2012 03:25 PM)Rebel Wrote:  http://godfatherpolitics.com/3222/if-oba...-provider/

Read some of the comments.

Quote:Listen to Alexander Sanger, the grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who argued that feminists needed to go beyond the rhetoric of "choice," jargon he regarded as cowardly and vague. They should CELEBRATE abortion directly and unapologetically, he said. After all, the UNBORN CHILD, as an ANNOYING INTERLOPER, DESERVES TO DIE "The UNBORN CHILD is not JUST an innocent life," he wrote, but a "lLIABILITY, a THREAT, and a DANGER to the mother and to the other members of the family."

Many abortion proponents are just flat out sick bastards.

And?

Unwanted kids ARE a liability. You can think I'm a sick bastard all you want but I'm glad we give people multiple chances to decide whether or not they want to reproduce or not.

(01-19-2012 03:39 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:22 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:12 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:54 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  One could argue that more abortions among the poor would decrease the pool of people that won't pay taxes and that would be receiving the most entitlement programs.

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

Yea it's been argued before..

Yeah.

And? Are you going to attribute every opinion of Sanger to me now? Or was this just so you could bring up planned parenthood?

Neither... The opinion that by killing off the poor through eugenics we will be left with a better world... IT has a history.

I already knew this and I don't entirely disagree.

(01-19-2012 03:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:25 PM)Rebel Wrote:  http://godfatherpolitics.com/3222/if-oba...-provider/

Read some of the comments.

Quote:Listen to Alexander Sanger, the grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who argued that feminists needed to go beyond the rhetoric of "choice," jargon he regarded as cowardly and vague. They should CELEBRATE abortion directly and unapologetically, he said. After all, the UNBORN CHILD, as an ANNOYING INTERLOPER, DESERVES TO DIE "The UNBORN CHILD is not JUST an innocent life," he wrote, but a "lLIABILITY, a THREAT, and a DANGER to the mother and to the other members of the family."

Many abortion proponents are just flat out sick bastards.

And?

Unwanted kids ARE a liability. You can think I'm a sick bastard all you want but I'm glad we give people multiple chances to decide whether or not they want to reproduce or not.

Choices I don't mind... Putting murder among them... Yea that's a problem!

(01-19-2012 03:47 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:25 PM)Rebel Wrote:  http://godfatherpolitics.com/3222/if-oba...-provider/

Read some of the comments.

Quote:Listen to Alexander Sanger, the grandson of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who argued that feminists needed to go beyond the rhetoric of "choice," jargon he regarded as cowardly and vague. They should CELEBRATE abortion directly and unapologetically, he said. After all, the UNBORN CHILD, as an ANNOYING INTERLOPER, DESERVES TO DIE "The UNBORN CHILD is not JUST an innocent life," he wrote, but a "lLIABILITY, a THREAT, and a DANGER to the mother and to the other members of the family."

Many abortion proponents are just flat out sick bastards.

And?

Unwanted kids ARE a liability. You can think I'm a sick bastard all you want but I'm glad we give people multiple chances to decide whether or not they want to reproduce or not.

Choices I don't mind... Putting murder among them... Yea that's a problem!

Agree to disagree.

(01-19-2012 03:37 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 03:18 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's not a fallback position, it's a legitimate question that should be addressed. If the parents are out of the picture, who's responsibility is it to reach the kids and keep them engaged? Leaving it to the kids isn't really a option with great results.

That's a different question.

You're still skipping the first one, what's the purpose of education? What's the vision and philosophy behind it. Frankly, when you read Mann and Dewey, it's to create a passive society of neo-serfs. That's why we are where we are today...whether educators like it or not.

Quote:Economy of scale does exist for production organizations, but it comes with its own baggage. Education isn't the same as making widgets, you can't make kids learn faster. Your only efficiency play is to to try to teach more kids with less resources.

Fallacy one: you most certainly can make kids learn faster.
Fallacy two: you miss the point that efficiency also means making them learn better.

Finally, since public schools are all about economy of scale (and by all, I most certainly mean 100%) then if you are arguing to take that away, you are arguing to eliminate public schools. That follows necessarily.

It's not a different question, it's a different approach to the same problem. What do you do with the kids with no support system?

Like I said, you have to answer the first question, what's the purpose. Any other discussion is pointless.

Quote:I'm advocating a mixed solution that provides options to kids and their parents.

You're not offering a solution b/c you haven't defined any problem.

Everybody (including many in the WFS movie) wants to dig in w/o defining an objective. You have no effective metrics, no definition of success or failure without this.

And yes, I do think educators and politicians are stupid for pushing forward w/o one.

Even an unpopular one would provide more benefit.

Quote:Do you have a way to make kids learn more faster? I'm assuming your kids are almost done college at 16, right?

My 15 year old is certainly smarter than RWT.

The point is that there are more and less effective approaches and methods for teaching. But, until you define your objective, how do you know whether you're reaching it or not?

(01-19-2012 03:55 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  what's the purpose. Any other discussion is pointless.

That's a reasonable starting point. My view is that the purpose of our education system is to prepare Americans to be productive members of society (i.e. net contributors). That is to say, they they must be able to positively integrate with our economy and society.

In order to do this our education system should, at a minimum, adequately teach reading comprehension and writing, math, scientific concepts, US and world history, and civics. The specifics are subject to change along with the country. I'm probably missing something too.

In general, there should be three basic levels of education as preparation for a future in either unskilled labor, skilled labor, or management.

(01-19-2012 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again,

If Unions are the problem. Why are states that don't have them so horrible? It's not even close.

Unions are *A* problem not *THE* problem. There is no *ONE* issue. It's not just the unions its the school boards and that, more than not being union shops, is why Charters to a better job (on a whole) serving their pupils with fewer resources.

correlation != causation

Public schools are also responsible for sepcial ed and problem kids. Charter schools can kick students out more so than public schools.

(01-19-2012 04:28 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again,

If Unions are the problem. Why are states that don't have them so horrible? It's not even close.

Unions are *A* problem not *THE* problem. There is no *ONE* issue. It's not just the unions its the school boards and that, more than not being union shops, is why Charters to a better job (on a whole) serving their pupils with fewer resources.

correlation != causation

Public schools are also responsible for sepcial ed and problem kids. Charter schools can kick students out more so than public schools.

False! That's an absurd lie...

Charters have the exact same admission criteria and rules as Magnet School. The operate on a lottery which has nothing to do the kids academic standing, mental health, or family situation. Its a freakin lottery.

According to Department of Education data (New York State), 13 percent of charter school students have an Individualized Education Plan, indicating that they have special needs, compared to 15 percent at traditional public schools.

(01-19-2012 04:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:28 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again,

If Unions are the problem. Why are states that don't have them so horrible? It's not even close.

Unions are *A* problem not *THE* problem. There is no *ONE* issue. It's not just the unions its the school boards and that, more than not being union shops, is why Charters to a better job (on a whole) serving their pupils with fewer resources.

correlation != causation

Public schools are also responsible for sepcial ed and problem kids. Charter schools can kick students out more so than public schools.

False! That's an absurd lie...

Charters have the exact same admission criteria and rules as Magnet School. The operate on a lottery which has nothing to do the kids academic standing, mental health, or family situation. Its a freakin lottery.

Our magnet schools are competition-based. I know the ones in Hampton, Va. are on the lottery system though. A friend's daughter was here going to AR Johnson and when she got to Hampton after he retired, she enrolled in one there. Said the kids weren't any smarter than any other school and she was ahead of all of'em.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Dav...net_School

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Johns...igh_School

(01-19-2012 04:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:28 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again,

If Unions are the problem. Why are states that don't have them so horrible? It's not even close.

Unions are *A* problem not *THE* problem. There is no *ONE* issue. It's not just the unions its the school boards and that, more than not being union shops, is why Charters to a better job (on a whole) serving their pupils with fewer resources.

correlation != causation

Public schools are also responsible for sepcial ed and problem kids. Charter schools can kick students out more so than public schools.

False! That's an absurd lie...

Charters have the exact same admission criteria and rules as Magnet School. The operate on a lottery which has nothing to do the kids academic standing, mental health, or family situation. Its a freakin lottery.

Our magnet schools are competition-based. I know the ones in Hampton, Va. are on the lottery system though. A friend's daughter was here going to AR Johnson and when she got to Hampton after he retired, she enrolled in one there. Said the kids weren't any smarter than any other school and she was ahead of all of'em.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Dav...net_School

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Johns...igh_School

NYS was lottery for grade schools and competition for HS but the HS's were not called 'magnet' for some reason.

(01-19-2012 04:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:40 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:36 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 04:28 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Unions are *A* problem not *THE* problem. There is no *ONE* issue. It's not just the unions its the school boards and that, more than not being union shops, is why Charters to a better job (on a whole) serving their pupils with fewer resources.

correlation != causation

Public schools are also responsible for sepcial ed and problem kids. Charter schools can kick students out more so than public schools.

False! That's an absurd lie...

Charters have the exact same admission criteria and rules as Magnet School. The operate on a lottery which has nothing to do the kids academic standing, mental health, or family situation. Its a freakin lottery.

Our magnet schools are competition-based. I know the ones in Hampton, Va. are on the lottery system though. A friend's daughter was here going to AR Johnson and when she got to Hampton after he retired, she enrolled in one there. Said the kids weren't any smarter than any other school and she was ahead of all of'em.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Dav...net_School

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._R._Johns...igh_School

NYS was lottery for grade schools and competition for HS but the HS's were not called 'magnet' for some reason.

I am not anti charter schools. About 40% of DC kids go to charter schools. Some of the ones in the poorest parts of the city have done an excellent job and are some of the best schools in the city (per test scores). They are different from the Magnet schools I know in the suberbs. Some charter schools have a lottery, others do not in DC depending on supply and demand.

However a big part of it is parent involvement (as was stated earlier by a couple of people). The Parents are the ones who need to put pressure on the school and be vocal. At the public schools here the ones where the parents organize an active PTA are the ones where the kids seem to do better overall.

Bull-

I'm sure it differs from state to state. In Ohio, Charter schools can pick and choose.

(01-19-2012 03:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Also AL, can't remember where I saw it, but we as Americans aren't replacing ourselves. IIRC, we have to produce 2.5 kids just to replace our culture. It's going negative. Europe is REALLY f'ed up. Europe will be majority Muslim in less than 150 years.

And this country will be Hispanic much sooner. When this country is full of Mexicans, what other country will they sneak into so they can use their schools?