If I were going to make this thread with a title like "Republicans continue to hate public education" I'd make it principally about a study as to what right-wing state governments do with their education systems.
In general, it's not very good, but you also have to account for differences in state GDP per capita, rurality, etc.
THAT SAID what PA republicans are doing to the public education system there is both horrifically toxic and terrible as well as somewhat emblematic of neglect that the right TENDS to foist on education systems. Not that it's all that's wrong with american education (there's so much wrong there that it's not even remotely a joking matter) but it's definitely a serious problem and one conservatives need to get called out for.
quote: The schools may open without counselors, administrative staff, noon aids, nurses, librarians or even pens and paper, but hey, kids will have a place to go and sit.
sounds about right
quote:Things have gotten so bad that at least one school has asked parents to chip in $613 per student just so they can open with adequate services
yup, yup, yes indeed, this sounds real familiar
quote:And in a diabolical example of circular logic, the state argues that the red ink it imposed, and shoddy management it oversees, are proof that the district can’t manage its finances or its mission and therefore shouldn’t get more money.
AH YES. The NCLB-standard Funding to Fail debacle. Prove that a social system doesn't work by ensuring it doesn't work.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
But Sam! Its been proven that public education doesn't work! Because the schools we took money away from with NCLB don't meet our metrics, ergo we need to take even MORE money away, put into charter schools instead and kill public education because it doesn't work right?
Also funding public education means more taxes, for services to the rotten plebs who don't deserve it because they made ~bad choices~, the ones who work hard will succeed anyways, so public education is SOCIALIST!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i still do not at all make the bridge between what the article is pointing out vs. the claim that is made in the thread title
"republicans hate public education" is best fully explained as "the organizational aims of republicans, as usually dictated by the monied interest and groups that direct their policies in very well established patterns, often involve an institutional and calculated purposeful teardown of the current educational model, which has often been to the detriment of schools primarily managed by conservative state governments, and has resulted in a consistent pattern of red states having the most obviously imperiled and dysfunctional schools even when the issue of socioeconomic disparity is more than accounted for, and certain concerning trends inflicted on the public schooling system such as attempts to use charter schools as a hedge for funneling tax money to openly religious institution are primarily conservative operations and legacies and okay so I suppose the weakness of this is there is no way it will fit in a thread title shut up"
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Public education is one of those things that I think both parties handle improperly. Both parties want good education for our young, they just don't go about it the right way.
It seems to me that when talking about public education, it always comes back to unions. Democrats are beholden to them, Republicans hate them. Instead of coming to common sense conclusions that would benefit kids, they just argue about teacher benefits, pay, and funding.
Here in Las Vegas there are numerous things I hate about our school district. Besides being one of the biggest in the nation, they waste money left and right. They have a $120,000 chandelier in their administration office. They put up fully grown palm trees that cost $6,000 each in front of the high schools. (Dozens of them!) They then complain they do not have enough money for school books, etc. There is a ton of waste, but the administration just doesn't care. I have some hope that things may change, as our new superintendant is an AMAZING person that has been teaching here for over 25 years. He and my grandmother taught at the same school for about 10 years, and he was my sister's fourth grade teacher.
I actually like charter schools. They tend to be more frugal with their funding and the children really do get a good education. My wife works for a charter school management company here in Las Vegas, and I asked her if they had or planned on opening any charter schools in poor neighborhoods. She said that they currently have two here in Las Vegas, but they struggle to fill them. While the schools in wealthier neighborhoods have waiting lists of over 1,000 kids, they can't fill the two in poor neighborhoods. The charter schools are free and they hold enrollment fairs and participate in community events to help, but they struggle with filling the seats.
The charter schools in these neighborhoods generally have more technology and better facilities than the other schools in these locations. Clark County is notorius for giving less money to the schools in poor areas while pumping cash into those with wealthier residents. I don't know why the parents in these neighborhoods wouldn't enroll their children in one of the charters, but it may be due to misinformation or lack of understanding.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Public education is one of those things that I think both parties handle improperly. Both parties want good education for our young, they just don't go about it the right way.
Say both a few more times, and we will be convinced that there's an equivalence here between democratic misguidedness about standards based education, and Republican terrorizing of the working class and relentless, shameless hectoring of teachers and unions, and an absolute refusal to take any real responsibility for the millions of youths in our country who are underadvantaged by a lack of education- while they run repeatedly at public funds for voucher programs.
In that sense they are "both" to blame. Only in the sense that they are both political parties, and they have both not managed to save public schooling. The fact that one of them has openly been attacking its existence for 3 decades is not material to that point. Certainly, it seems, for your purposes.
quote: I actually like charter schools. They tend to be more frugal with their funding and the children really do get a good education.
Incidentally there data doesn't bear out this impression. Charter schools in rich areas do well- about equally as well as public ones do in rich areas.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I have zero experience with charter schools so I can't really comment on them. I did go to a private school for three years (4th, 5th and 6th grades) and there is NO comparison between it and any public school I attended. Despite having almost no homework, I learned more in those three years than the rest of my time in public school combined.
Let's take math for an example. I was learning calculus and trig in private school. My first day back in public I was shocked to be taught LONG DIVISION! Seriously, long division? This is as far as public school can get their kids in 7 years? And what's worse, we worked on this almost all year. It wasn't until the end of the year that we started working on fractions. And my teachers, counselors and parents wondered why I slept through my classes.
Even high school was just rehashing all the same crap I already knew despite my high school being rated as the best public one in the state. Finally my junior year I got into an advanced geometry class and learned a few things. Still, I learned more math in a year of vo-tech machine shop than I did from math classes.
Most of my other subjects were the same. The only exceptions being one brilliant year of History I will never forget and an aging, cranky Architecture teacher that seemed to truly know everything about everything.
If that's the best public education can do, something needs to change drastically. I don't mean just tweaks to policy or a little extra funding, I'm talking a complete tear down and rebuilding of the whole system. Are the Republican ideas the right way to go? Probably not but seriously, they can't do too much damage as the system is already crap.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
We've been sending our kids to a charter school for the last 4 years. Our oldest daughter was in 2nd grade at the local elementary and was losing interest in education. She had always been so bright and interested in learning things, but her class went so slow that she was learning nothing most days, and it was starting to show in her attitude toward school in general.
We put her in the lottery for the charter school at the end of that year, and lo and behold, her name was drawn. The charter school has a bit more of a Montessori philosophy in which it lets the kids go at their own pace, with some flexibility to allow them to go ahead into material that challenges them, even if it's above their grade level. It didn't take long in 3rd grade for our daughter to bounce right back and begin to love school again. Our boys have similarly benefited from the ability to go at their own pace.
Other considerations aside, it's nice to have a school with a specific philosophy about education as an alternative to the mainstream system in the elementary schools. We were glad for the choice (and the bit of luck that got our daughter in). We didn't particularly want to homeschool, but that's where we were headed.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I learned algebra in 8th grade (public school). I learned long division in 4th grade.
In the private high school I went to, you couldn't learn calculus until 12th grade anyway.
I didn't go to particularly distinguished public schools, and my private school was a respectable prep school.
So no, Wingracer, your experience is not the best public school can do. Heck, there was a college friend of mine that went to one of the best public school systems in the country, and he was probably more prepped for college than I.
Of course, I grew up in a state that generally is very education-focused (MA). We also have one of the strongest teachers unions in the country.
It turns out that education outcomes, at an aggregate level, track socioeconomic indicators pretty well. Now one party wants to blame the people low on the socioeconomic ladder for their education problems, while another wants to blame people high on the ladder.
I believe the latter belief can effect actual change, while the former is trying to squeeze blood from a stone.
I'm all for some amount of choice, but I think it is bad for our modern society to allow the sort of voucher legislation some states have implemented.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: I have zero experience with charter schools so I can't really comment on them. I did go to a private school for three years (4th, 5th and 6th grades) and there is NO comparison between it and any public school I attended. Despite having almost no homework, I learned more in those three years than the rest of my time in public school combined.
Yes. When you spend money on education, you get (often) a good education. The free market is good at this kind of thing.
Rich people can afford a good education. Look at me- I grew up in a rich family and I got a great education. A private one after the 8th grade (well, university was public). It's amazing how money can buy you quality teachers, equipment, sporting facilities, performing arts programs, gyms, and excellent teaching materials. We should ALL go to private schools that we pay for with our own money. That would be great- if we all had the money for that (12,000 a year for high school when I was going- way more now).
Where the Republicans frankly step out of the Earth's atmosphere is when they insist a voucher program wouldn't create a bunch of unaccountable private institutions that will swallow up the pool of available funds and deliver a minimum viable product. That's exactly what they'll do. It's not a free market solution if the funds for the poorest participants are fixed. Just isn't.
What the Republicans hate most is the middle class giving their money to taxes to pay the way for the poor. If you have to pay for their education (because of some silly constitutional article), you might as well get your taste on the come back- funnel tax money out of the public system and into the hands of the best connected businessmen. God forbid that money should end up in the hands of teachers and other middle class reprobates, or worse yet, be *wasted* on *non-essentials*, like sex education.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
The problem I had with public school wasn't funding, facilities, number of teachers or anything like that. In fact, the public schools I went to had more of all that than the private school. I just felt it was a bad system. Everyone is forced to follow the same path at the same speed in the same courses. The things I liked about private school were things that don't require more money, just a different philosophy. If a party comes out wanting to do that, I will support them regardless of which one it is. Instead we get one party that just wants to throw more money into an already sinking ship and another that wants to sink all the ships and be done with them.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Some talk of what the problem is and what the solution can be:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Where the Republicans frankly step out of the Earth's atmosphere is when they insist a voucher program wouldn't create a bunch of unaccountable private institutions that will swallow up the pool of available funds and deliver a minimum viable product. That's exactly what they'll do. It's not a free market solution if the funds for the poorest participants are fixed. Just isn't.
Correct. The most important element to fixing our ridiculously screwed educational system is to ensure that the default system is in operating condition. The voucher system has all the hallmarks of legislators not serving to make a system function, but being bribed to collapse an institution and open a market.
To super-simplify this discussion: it is absolutely reasonable that we do not trust the party that is jumping over itself to kick children out of Head Start and demolish pre-k programs for when it comes to "reform" of our educational systems in sum.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: The most important element to fixing our ridiculously screwed educational system is to ensure that the default system is in operating condition
I'm dying for someone to explain how a system that was designed during the early days of the industrial revolution, that treats children as if they were just running down a manufacturing line, is ever, ever, ever going to be useful in the modern world.
The modern public education system needs to be broken down and completely rebuilt from scratch. What we have now in every state (including those wonderful paragons of society like California and New York) is very little more than government sponsored day care. We can spend all the money we want to on the public school system, but until it is redesigned to work towards the needs of the modern world and how people actually learn, it's still going to be a gigantic pile of crap.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm dying for someone to explain how a system that was designed during the early days of the industrial revolution, that treats children as if they were just running down a manufacturing line, is ever, ever, ever going to be useful in the modern world.
reform and/or modeling after working systems, both domestic and foreign
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm dying for someone to explain how a system that was designed during the early days of the industrial revolution, that treats children as if they were just running down a manufacturing line, is ever, ever, ever going to be useful in the modern world.
reform and/or modeling after working systems, both domestic and foreign
The shockingly uncreative response of "Hey, lets just do whatever they're doing" rather than approaching the problem with just a little bit of ingenuity and thought, then? I guess when the people responsible for reforming the public education system (that does more to destroy creativity and original thought than improve it) are products of that system, that's the best we can hope for.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm dying for someone to explain how a system that was designed during the early days of the industrial revolution, that treats children as if they were just running down a manufacturing line, is ever, ever, ever going to be useful in the modern world.
reform and/or modeling after working systems, both domestic and foreign
The shockingly uncreative response of "Hey, lets just do whatever they're doing" rather than approaching the problem with just a little bit of ingenuity and thought, then? I guess when the people responsible for reforming the public education system (that does more to destroy creativity and original thought than improve it) are products of that system, that's the best we can hope for.
So we should totally ignore methods used by schools with excellent track records simply because it's unoriginal?
I agree that the system needs a complete overhaul and some new ideas but to not learn from the past's failures and successes would be foolish.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Great, Boris. What would such a system look like and how would it be funded?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: I have zero experience with charter schools so I can't really comment on them. I did go to a private school for three years (4th, 5th and 6th grades) and there is NO comparison between it and any public school I attended. Despite having almost no homework, I learned more in those three years than the rest of my time in public school combined.
Yes. When you spend money on education, you get (often) a good education. The free market is good at this kind of thing.
Where the Republicans frankly step out of the Earth's atmosphere is when they insist a voucher program wouldn't create a bunch of unaccountable private institutions that will swallow up the pool of available funds and deliver a minimum viable product. That's exactly what they'll do. It's not a free market solution if the funds for the poorest participants are fixed. Just isn't.
Would you agree that where Democrats step out of the Earth's atmosphere is thinking that a standardized, "One size fits all" approach learning curriculum does nothing but help the rich kids get a better education while leaving the poor kids behind?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: So we should totally ignore methods used by schools with excellent track records simply because it's unoriginal?
No. We should ignore them because they are most likely reacting to failings in the existing system, which has deep fundamental flaws that limit its capacity for success. Further, any attempt to emulate the presumed methods of success attained by those schools are not guaranteed to work when implemented at larger scales. It's far better to examine the ways humans obtain and retain knowledge and rebuild the system with a focus on maximizing students' potential for self learning.
quote: Great, Boris. What would such a system look like and how would it be funded?
Well, let's see...How about we stop saying that the most important factor in a child's advancement through school is their age? Switch that to knowledge and you give significant powers of success to students. Suddenly their advancement is completely under their own control and the social dynamic changes from one of seniority to one of knowledge (possibly).
Or stop exclusively using "one answer only" problems. In the real world, there are usually many different solutions to a problem and numerous ways to arrive at the same solution. Help students figure things out in a way that works for *them* and you'll see much greater levels of learning than when you just teach one way to solve a problem and expect students to use only that.
Stop focusing on rote memorization and start teaching kids how to get the information they need to solve problems. Memorizing facts and numbers used to be important, but it's less so now.
Teach people to teach themselves. Too many people graduate high school and college and decide that they no longer have to learn anything else. Help people realize that learning should be a lifetime goal.
I could go on for a while about ways that the current system fails to produce much beyond mediocrity. As for how it's funded...We could save a whole hell of a lot of money by encouraging families with one or more adults that do not leave the home for work to utilize online learning solutions. A single teacher can teach a lot more students when they don't have to act as a babysitter as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: The shockingly uncreative response of "Hey, lets just do whatever they're doing" rather than approaching the problem with just a little bit of ingenuity and thought, then?
That sure is a shockingly uncreative response you're speaking of, here, but fortunately nobody in this thread has responded with that. While your post would suffice in the event that this actually came up, how would you reply to what I actually wrote?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Sam, how does "reform and/or modeling after working systems, both domestic and foreign" not equate to "Do whatever someone else is doing that seems to be working", exactly? Or were you trying to say something else but didn't?
After all, modeling and reforming based on what other nations or systems are doing is...well, it's basically just doing what someone else is doing, now isn't it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
For starters, Boris, there is a difference between modeling changes based off of the successes of other educational systems and copying whatever they are doing — i.e., 'let's just do whatever they're doing.' Secondly, there's an and/or operator in that sentence which denotes that there are plenty of avenues of potential reform not necessarily related to said modeling.
quote:After all, modeling and reforming based on what other nations or systems are doing is...well, it's basically just doing what someone else is doing, now isn't it?
No.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I would like to point out here that this:
quote: modeling changes based off of the successes of other educational systems
says something completely different than this:
quote: reform and/or modeling after working systems, both domestic and foreign
Note how the first statement is much more specific, while the second is broad and vague. I guess the public school system didn't teach you much about communicating successfully. Basically, what you meant to say is not what you said.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
golly boris, "reform and/or modeling after working systems, both domestic and foreign" doesn't mean "Hey, lets just do whatever they're doing" and you strawmanned a bit when you said that's what it means. The end.
So I could also have written "there is a difference between modeling after working systems and copying whatever they were doing" and the point remains completely unchanged. So I said what I said and you strawmanned, congratulations.
I don't know how many posts this needs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The shockingly uncreative response
quote:I guess the public school system didn't teach you much about communicating successfully.
Also just as a reminder so you don't get started down your traditional schtick, Boris: you have a tendency to be a condescending and pointlessly jerky poster — like you're being here, straight out of the gate, opening shots and all — but then like clockwork complain about other people's attitudes towards you and play vigorous prosecution cards. Don't do that. Or, I guess, to be even better about it, learn not to be a condescending jerk by default in the first place.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: you have a tendency to be a condescending and pointlessly jerky poster — like you're being here, straight out of the gate, opening shots and all...
...Or, I guess, to be even better about it, learn not to be a condescending jerk by default in the first place.
This is an exact description of yourself. It's amazing you take time to criticize the behavior of others but don't criticize your own.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My kids are going to a Title 1 school and I think that school is doing pretty well. They still have classes that are a bit too large IMO (2nd grade has 24 students per class) but they are using some pretty strong learning models and the curriculum includes a lot of innovative stuff.
Maybe it could be better but it's not state-funded daycare. They take their jobs seriously and work hard at them, and do a fantastic job at engaging and working with a diverse bunch of kids.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: you have a tendency to be a condescending and pointlessly jerky poster — like you're being here, straight out of the gate, opening shots and all...
...Or, I guess, to be even better about it, learn not to be a condescending jerk by default in the first place.
This is an exact description of yourself. It's amazing you take time to criticize the behavior of others but don't criticize your own.
Why is it exactly that you really blatantly run away from me when I'm calling you out on your own (similarly) clockwork tendencies, but always return to take potshots at me in another thread, as though you've ever really kept something remotely resembling an upper hand over me?
One of us, either Boris or me, is the first to engage the other with condescending and belittling language. Can you identify which one it is? Do you understand why that is relevant? If you don't, I don't think Boris will benefit very much by your attempt to calvary in and help with an overwordy "NO U"
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: you have a tendency to be a condescending and pointlessly jerky poster — like you're being here, straight out of the gate, opening shots and all...
...Or, I guess, to be even better about it, learn not to be a condescending jerk by default in the first place.
This is an exact description of yourself. It's amazing you take time to criticize the behavior of others but don't criticize your own.
Why is it exactly that you really blatantly run away from me when I'm calling you out on your own (similarly) clockwork tendencies, but always return to take potshots at me in another thread, as though you've ever really kept something remotely resembling an upper hand over me?
One of us, either Boris or me, is the first to engage the other with condescending and belittling language. Can you identify which one it is? Do you understand why that is relevant? If you don't, I don't think Boris will benefit very much by your attempt to calvary in and help with an overwordy "NO U"
It wasn't my intention to hurt your feelings but you really need to be made aware of the negative impact of your behavior and the way others perceive your "style" of posting. You go into crusader mode every time someone with even a slightly conservative ideology posts in a thread. You can pretend you're all nice and sincere until the other person is condescending or snarky but we have your entire posting history to prove otherwise. Another example of your characteristic approach (this is illustrated by your last response) is that you become more immature and petty when someone comments on your unsavory posting habits.
I (and likely others on this board) lose interest in discussions with you due to your antagonistic and disparaging remarks, not because your position is impervious to counter-arguments. You conflate the effect of what you say with how you say it. That's a classic example of poor communication skills.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: You can pretend you're all nice and sincere until the other person is condescending or snarky
I don't have to pretend. Whether or not you are ably aware enough of my actual M.O., I don't open up with hostilities against a person. Hell, I even played it straight with Boris after his last extended leave.
I'm going to ask you the questions again, and see if you run from them. Take a good look at this thread and then answer: one of us, either Boris or me, is the first to engage the other with condescending and belittling language. Can you identify which one it is? Do you understand why that is relevant?
quote:I (and likely others on this board) lose interest in discussions with you due to your antagonistic and disparaging remarks, not because your position is impervious to counter-arguments.
You actually lose interest in discussions with me the minute I straightforwardly ask you a question which exposes something in your line of attack that you don't think you can wriggle out of. No jokes, you now have a well-established pattern of getting caught with a question, vanishing at that exact moment, and then the next you interact with me is to start the entire song and dance over again by taking a potshot at me. It's why I call it out for being such obvious simpering.
I'm sure plenty of people like you lose interest in discussions with me. That's fine. I'm obviously antagonistic to you (and I have good reason to be!). Keep telling me as frequently as you can manage how you have lost interest in discussing with me. Meanwhile, this thread is trying to be about education.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
You're antagonistic to other members as well as entire groups of people. And your "questions" typically coincide with you becoming unbearably boorish and condescending. I guess we all have well-established patterns.
You made a comment about Boris' general tendencies yet your question is specific to this thread. I'll still answer it anyway. You both engage each other in the same calloused manner. Knowing your past interactions that's not a surprise. Considering the stupidly obtuse thread title in this case, though, I don't fault Boris too much for his somewhat negative tone. The thread title (in this instance, but not exclusively) is not your fault but if you didn't fight snark and condescension with even worse snark and condescension you could uplift the quality of conversation instead of further degrading it. Who began what and when is relevant to you because you want to feel justified. A question for you: Do you think comments peppered with sarcasm, snark, and gross exaggeration advance or hinder discussion at Hatrack?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: I have zero experience with charter schools so I can't really comment on them. I did go to a private school for three years (4th, 5th and 6th grades) and there is NO comparison between it and any public school I attended. Despite having almost no homework, I learned more in those three years than the rest of my time in public school combined.
Yes. When you spend money on education, you get (often) a good education. The free market is good at this kind of thing.
Where the Republicans frankly step out of the Earth's atmosphere is when they insist a voucher program wouldn't create a bunch of unaccountable private institutions that will swallow up the pool of available funds and deliver a minimum viable product. That's exactly what they'll do. It's not a free market solution if the funds for the poorest participants are fixed. Just isn't.
Would you agree that where Democrats step out of the Earth's atmosphere is thinking that a standardized, "One size fits all" approach learning curriculum does nothing but help the rich kids get a better education while leaving the poor kids behind?
Yes.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to note that while I generally agree with the above statement, I am fully aware of your lame attempt to score points in your endless "both sides" nonsense non-argument against who knows what. Rationality I suppose. The Republicans are *far* *far* worse in this regard, including pertaining to the above view of education as a national political issue.
STEM and expansion of standardized testing is not only seriously flawed, it is seriously wrong-headed. That does not, in any way, establish an equivalence between the overall badness of Republican and Democratic aims. There is no comparison. The former are attempting to destroy the system. The latter are attempting, with breathtaking lack of alacrity, to make it work better. My admitting that they are both bad is not my admitting that they are both equally bad. On the contrary, were the Democrats not hobbled to a national establishment that was forced to face down the barbarically stupid Republican minority in order to get anything done, then Democrats would be free to split up into factions which argue about *how* to fix the problem, and not *whether* to fix it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Or stop exclusively using "one answer only" problems. In the real world, there are usually many different solutions to a problem and numerous ways to arrive at the same solution. Help students figure things out in a way that works for *them* and you'll see much greater levels of learning than when you just teach one way to solve a problem and expect students to use only that.
Do you read much about what teachers are actually saying they want to do in the public education system? Because this kind of thing is pretty high on the list. No help from anyone in Washington, granted, but the problem is not the teachers or the methodologies, it's the demand for outcomes that, surprise surprise, don't encompass testing for or developing metrics for this kind of learning. I realize you didn't imply fault with teachers- but I wanted to point out where it lies. This pattern has been stepped up to an extraordinary degree since the early 2000s, and is not slowing down now.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
You didn't really answer the question, but you point out you can't fault Boris's tone to Sam because Elison R. Salazar who is not Sam made a thread title that Sam disagreed with openly.
That's pretty mumbly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, capax, Samprimary didn't ask if they both behaved that way but rather who did first, here.
Second, I don't know which 'we' you're referring to. Even when conservative-leaning active posters were much more abundant, you were on the far right of *that* and considerably more combative and hostile in tone than most people your 'side'.
Put another way, while there's certainly a case to be made for your 'Samprimary is a jerk' campaign, you're remarkably ill-suited to be its spokesman.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Actually, capax, Samprimary didn't ask if they both behaved that way but rather who did first, here.
Samprimary was the first to post in the thread. His early comments weren't direct interactions with Boris, but this is a public forum, of which Boris is a part. When it comes to indirect hostility and condescension, the offender don't get to chose which members internalize and respond to the remarks.
Put another way, Samprimary is upset because he was the direct recipient of what he, in earlier posts, was putting out indirectly. I merely highlighted his unabashed hypocrisy. That you think I'm ill-suited to do so isn't my concern right now.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...there's certainly a case to be made for your 'Samprimary is a jerk' campaign...
If you (or anyone else) really believe this then why don't you say more? Even some variation of "What you said is right but the way you said it is wrong" could do wonders to increase the quality of discussion on this forum.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is a sign of how bad you are at hearing things you don't want to hear. I've said almost *exactly* what I did hear to Samprimary on multiple occasions. If you don't believe me, ask him yourself or do some digging but in either event, capax, for this and other reasons you're a very poor mascot for 'what we should do to raise the bar around here'.
It's not about a stern, moral wisdom disapproving of rudeness. You just don't like the guy or many of his views-the habit of ironic condescension you so object to is simply an easier target.
As for the rest, you moved the goalposts. Samprimary asked a direct question which you've evaded twice now, while insisting he's being disrespectful. Suppose for the sake of argument you're right about how awfully offensive his earlier posts were-in any event they weren't directed specifically to Boris. In that pairing, the line of condescending thinly veiled insults was crossed first by Boris-with outright overt insults, in fact. Doing that while demanding victim hood status is something of a habit for him, and that remains true whether Samp chaps your ass or not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, note that Boris loudly and even repeatedly I think declared he was through with this place. So no, he wasn't really a member until he reappeared, if we were to take him at his word.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Suppose for the sake of argument you're right about how awfully offensive his earlier posts were-in any event they weren't directed specifically to Boris. In that pairing, the line of condescending thinly veiled insults was crossed first by Boris-with outright overt insults, in fact.
Show me these "outright overt insults" from Boris to Samprimary in this thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude, his second post in the thread and his first to Samprimary. Furthermore his first post, too, was general and rife with scorn and antagonism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Further, the overall tone of the thread you were so quick to criticize Samprimary for? His first words in the thread were to challenge its title and explain why the reality was, in his opinion, much more nuanced and less awful than the title.
You picked a particularly bad discussion to attempt to prove what a jerk Samprimary, capax. It's plain to all that you believe that but if you want to use a specific discussion, be prepared to be challenged on it. For example: you've still not answered his question.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I answered the question. You can continue to insist that I didn't but it makes you look totally unreasonable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No, you didn't. I just reread your posts-your 'answer' was to reject the question, sort of, but also to halfway admit the answer was 'Boris' but it didn't matter because of how mean Samprimary has been in the past and at the beginning of this thread (though you never showed where). Here's how it's plain you didn't answer the question: because it was one of two answers.
Anyway, your latest post accusing me of the appearance of unreasonability while ignoring multiple other questions and points is...well, quite in keeping with your style.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: I answered the question.
Here's the worst part of this -- I think you are being sincere when you say this. Even though you didn't answer the question, you really think you did and people who recognize the truth and can even explain this with patience are written off as "totally unreasonable".
quote:Show me these "outright overt insults" from Boris to Samprimary in this thread.
And if you still need to be shown this, then you are the worst candidate for lecturing anyone on selective blindness here.
Anyway, this is fun, continue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just for the sake of clarity or whatever, I am going to put the question right next to the "answer"
quote:one of us, either Boris or me, is the first to engage the other with condescending and belittling language. Can you identify which one it is? Do you understand why that is relevant?
quote:You both engage each other in the same calloused manner. Knowing your past interactions that's not a surprise. Considering the stupidly obtuse thread title in this case, though, I don't fault Boris too much for his somewhat negative tone. The thread title (in this instance, but not exclusively) is not your fault but if you didn't fight snark and condescension with even worse snark and condescension you could uplift the quality of conversation instead of further degrading it. Who began what and when is relevant to you because you want to feel justified.
Ok so you're not going to answer the question but you'll say that you'll excuse boris's behavior because after all that was a doozie of a thread title or whatever.
I also like how you put the onus on me to not do what boris was doing. You won't fault boris for being a jerk (he gets a pass you see), but if I'm gonna call it out for what it is suddenly I am the one who deserves your jump-out-of-the-woodwork SHAME, SHAME ON YOU.
Yeah call me when you answer the question. It's real simple, and it's still there.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
From what I remember of public school in the UK, it wasn't that bad. Apart from the class being expected to all pray to the Christian god together.
I was only there through the 3rd grade, but at least for math each student could go at their own pace. There would be separate workbooks, going up in complexity, and the students would work through each one at their own pace. When it was "maths time," the students working on each book would group up together, ranging from groups a couple years ahead to a couple years behind. Then, the teacher would spend her time going from group to group, teaching and helping as needed.
It seemed a fine system to me.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Ok so you're not going to answer the question...
I see the cause of your confusion. You must have missed this part of the exchange where I answer the question:
quote:Samprimary was the first to post in the thread. His early comments weren't direct interactions with Boris, but this is a public forum, of which Boris is a part. When it comes to indirect hostility and condescension, the offender don't get to chose which members internalize and respond to the remarks.
Again, my first statement was that your general behavior is exactly as you described Boris'. You insist on focusing on this thread, hence your question. I obliged because the case can be made solely on your interactions in this thread. You and Rakeesh become indignant when you think I haven't answered a question yet my question (in this thread and others) go unanswered. Calm down. My description of your behavior is vindicated with every comment you make...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's not an answer to the question he asked, and by the way-show which remarks prior to Boris's arrival match your characterization. And while you're at it, please address the problem of your characterization matching his actual first post in the thread-challenging the dubious thread title that you claim gave Boris license to lay on with the insults.
And for (self) pity's sake, stop talking as though there's some silent majority just waiting on your word to decide what to think. Multiple times now you've spoken as though you had some popular support, as though it were a given, when...where is it? Why does this silent but major support mean you get to avoid, repeatedly, multiple direct challenges?
Why does your dislike of an individual *still* make you such a hack?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: You're antagonistic to other members as well as entire groups of people. And your "questions" typically coincide with you becoming unbearably boorish and condescending. I guess we all have well-established patterns.
You made a comment about Boris' general tendencies yet your question is specific to this thread. I'll still answer it anyway. You both engage each other in the same calloused manner. Knowing your past interactions that's not a surprise. Considering the stupidly obtuse thread title in this case, though, I don't fault Boris too much for his somewhat negative tone. The thread title (in this instance, but not exclusively) is not your fault but if you didn't fight snark and condescension with even worse snark and condescension you could uplift the quality of conversation instead of further degrading it. Who began what and when is relevant to you because you want to feel justified. A question for you: Do you think comments peppered with sarcasm, snark, and gross exaggeration advance or hinder discussion at Hatrack?
Why is the thread title relevant?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If it is relevant, wouldn't it be equally relevant that Samprimary's first post was a lengthy dispute of the title?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I tend to lean pretty conservative on a lot of issues (though certainly not all of them) so I probably would have found the thread title quite offensive at one time. Unfortunately, Republican actions and rhetoric over the last decade or so have been pretty shameful even for me so I take no offense to it now. I'd have to say it's pretty much spot on.
As for how any of that is relevant to Samp, I don't see it. I think he's been pretty composed in this thread, though that hasn't always been the case.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Oh look! An argument with Samprimary in which I am not involved!
Someone pass me some popcorn!
capxinfinity, I do have to say that Rakeesh has in past done pretty well in asking Samprimary to use kinder language when responding. Rakeesh has done this even if he agrees with Samprimary's point or thoughts on a subject.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thanks for mentioning that, Geraine. Perhaps with your conservative credibility it will be able to be believed...though there was that post of yours mentioning an effort to be more skeptical and less partisan (in all directions, an admirable ideal), so who knows *how* much of a liar you are now!
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
By the way, in case there was absolutely any doubt of the authenticity of the thread title.
Scorched Earth Tactics in a Post-Fact World.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dude, alternet.
I mean, really.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
What? Pretty sure regardless of your answer "It ain't Fox News" is probably the sufficient zinger.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
No, it's not Fox News. More like a left-wing Free Republic.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Reality has a left-wing bias. Regardless I think it'ld be more productive if you found inaccuracies in the article, are there? Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Well, this thread took a different turn than I thought it would after I stopped giving a crap and went back to worrying about work instead of wasting time on this forum...But let me explain some things.
1. My initial response to this thread was due to my absolute exasperation at the self-righteousness of the thread title and the arrogance in the few posts I felt like reading before I had to put in my two cents. I am thoroughly exasperated by the state of education in this country, mostly due to the fact that I was not brought up in public school past 6th grade. If state law had allowed I would have been able to get my GED at age 10 instead of age 16 like I did. I was one of those people the public education system absolutely failed.
2. Samprimary's response to my post, which was very short and curt, read to me as a cop out and further exasperated my frustration at the attitudes people take toward solving problems in this country. I hear countless calls from left-wing supporters saying we should be doing the things Europe is doing for everything from fiscal policy to education. But this attitude ignores that things could be significantly better if we were to take a completely fresh look at the problems facing us and attack them with the kind of curiosity and ingenuity that has brought humanity as far as it's come. I apologize for the sarcastic response, but I understood Samp's response as a curt dismissal of what I was saying and responded from a standing of supreme frustration (which is what I deal with every time I try to read stuff on this forum, which is why I don't spend much time posting here, though I do lurk from time to time). If he had taken some time to craft a more lengthy and expository response, that would have been helpful.
3. I have made a number of attempts to join in conversations on this thread, doing my best to be reasonable and explain my position as well as I can. I am not the best at communicating my ideas in great part because I don't like communicating very much. Every time I've done so I've been met with sarcasm, snark, and condescension. Each time that has happened it has increased my frustration and this has in turn resulted in me being more rude and curt and sarcastic. For that I apologize as well.
In all, the level of discourse on this board is staggeringly low. Almost every political thread I read here is left wing ideologues propping up other ideologues and trashing anyone who tries to bring up points supporting any other view.
So that's where I'm coming from here. And now I go back to doing what I actually enjoy. Fixing problems I have some amount of control over.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Actually, Before I go back to working...I want to pose a question...Why do we need a public education system in the first place? I think you would be surprised at how capable humans are of learning things without being taught by someone else.
Or why aren't we looking at are kids when they tell us what they want to be when they grow up and asking, "What do you think you will need to know to do that?" Instead we shove them in a classroom for 12 years to learn stuff without telling them how those things can be applied to what they want to do. By the time people are done with school they have completely lost the desire to do the things that inspired them as children. Either because they can't perform up to the demands of a standardized education system or because they don't know how to get where they want to be.
And another question...how is the right wing destruction of the public education system worse than the left wing focus on mediocrity if the results of both approaches are the same? Both will result in some getting poor education, some getting great education, and the rest just floating along. I think you'd be surprised at how little the difference would actually be.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The philosophical goal of public education, historically, isn't to make kids become better pilots, or physicists, or administrative assistants, or waiters.
It's to raise better citizens.
Also, concerning right wing vs. left wing solutions... Why do you think people 150 years ago worked en mass to institute public education? As you know, no public education is the natural state of things.
Was it a scam that was unbelievably successful? Is the ideal out-of-date with contemporary times?
I know people with love to pull out their personal stories of the terrible schools that they grew up in. I'll merely add that I went to a middling public school system from K-8, a private school 9-12, and private university for my degree.
I didn't have a terrible time in school, I learned plenty, and the public school system didn't fail me.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I guess what I was implying is that for really smart people, public school being a nightmare or a non-issue is largely due to socialization skills.
I can't claim any certainty on that, but I feel that if one's social skills had been as advanced as one's academic skills, public schools, while tedious, wouldn't have been odious.
I say this as an introvert, though one who has had to learn to deal with a type A introvert father, and very strong extrovert mother.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Public Education raises the productivity of citizens, insures a literate populace and helps reduce crime and poverty.
If we look at German during I think the Franco-Prussian war which had public education for quite some time, 1/1000 recruits were illiterate; this was something close to 250/1000 for France, and 600/1000 for Russia. Prussia had a much more robust NCO cadre, more technically proficient specialists, and a more varied and larger economy than most of its rivals on the continent.
Might have been on the Eve of WWI, but I'ld have to reread.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
When you consider that the world is vastly different now than it was 150 years ago, how do we actually know that the existence of the public school system does the same things it did in the past?
quote: Public Education raises the productivity of citizens, insures a literate populace and helps reduce crime and poverty.
How do you know this? Are we comparing areas that currently have public education with areas that don't have public education? Because I can promise you that the existence of public education is not the only variable in the equation of poverty and crime.
Also consider the impact of what our educational system is costing us. Watch this particular presentation: How Schools Kill Creativity
Consider that prior to the implementation of Public Schooling, the vast majority of the populace lived a life where the ability to read and write was absolutely unnecessary to survive or even thrive. This is not so today. You may be able to survive without being literate today, but you most certainly will not thrive, and it is much more difficult to relate to your fellow humans today, with all the technology we use, without having at least basic reading comprehension skills.
The point I'm trying to make here is that we are woefully ignorant of how people learn and because of that most of our attempts to reform education will ultimately not be as effective as they could be. Viewing what people are doing that are successful without examining *why those things are successful* will not do much. We need to get to the root of the problem and start addressing that instead of paying attention to the window dressing and packaging.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I guess what I was implying is that for really smart people, public school being a nightmare or a non-issue is largely due to socialization skills.
I can't claim any certainty on that, but I feel that if one's social skills had been as advanced as one's academic skills, public schools, while tedious, wouldn't have been odious.
I say this as an introvert, though one who has had to learn to deal with a type A introvert father, and very strong extrovert mother.
I think this is oversimplifying. There are a myriad of reasons for the public schooling system failing students in many situations. The fact that it fails anyone is a major indictment of it in my mind, to be honest.
Posted by hef (Member # 12497) on :
Boris, are you saying that for public education to be worthwhile that it has to be 100% perfect? That's not a very reasonable point of view to have. If perfection is your standard for any worthwhile endeavor, you probably need to find a nice cave somewhere and wait for the inevitable. That's about the only 100% solution to anything.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: If he had taken some time to craft a more lengthy and expository response, that would have been helpful.
If you had asked for a more lengthy and expository response, it would have been more helpful than moving immediately to hostile and degrading behavior.
Boris: do you legitimately in any sense think that there is any evidence that the country would have been better off without public schooling
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Boris: do you legitimately in any sense think that there is any evidence that the country would have been better off without public schooling
Dude, you have better reading comprehension than that. That's not even close to what he said.
Read it again. He specifically questions whether we still need the same schooling system as 150 years ago. He doesn't question whether or not that was the best option at the time, and in fact seems to accept that it was.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I guess what I was implying is that for really smart people, public school being a nightmare or a non-issue is largely due to socialization skills.
I can't claim any certainty on that, but I feel that if one's social skills had been as advanced as one's academic skills, public schools, while tedious, wouldn't have been odious.
I say this as an introvert, though one who has had to learn to deal with a type A introvert father, and very strong extrovert mother.
I think this is oversimplifying. There are a myriad of reasons for the public schooling system failing students in many situations. The fact that it fails anyone is a major indictment of it in my mind, to be honest.
I've seen private schools fail people too. Even at the post-secondary level. So the objection seems to be a non-starter, to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Boris: do you legitimately in any sense think that there is any evidence that the country would have been better off without public schooling
Dude, you have better reading comprehension than that. That's not even close to what he said.
yes, you're absolutely correct. now, who's saying that this was what he said? if he had, what would be the point of asking him something i would already therefore know?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I guess what I was implying is that for really smart people, public school being a nightmare or a non-issue is largely due to socialization skills.
I can't claim any certainty on that, but I feel that if one's social skills had been as advanced as one's academic skills, public schools, while tedious, wouldn't have been odious.
I say this as an introvert, though one who has had to learn to deal with a type A introvert father, and very strong extrovert mother.
I think this is oversimplifying. There are a myriad of reasons for the public schooling system failing students in many situations. The fact that it fails anyone is a major indictment of it in my mind, to be honest.
I've seen private schools fail people too. Even at the post-secondary level. So the objection seems to be a non-starter, to me.
Do you think we shouldn't be striving for a system that fails no one?
quote: If you had asked for a more lengthy and expository response, it would have been more helpful than moving immediately to hostile and degrading behavior.
Yes, I realize that, and am sorry for having gone off the handle.
quote: Boris: do you legitimately in any sense think that there is any evidence that the country would have been better off without public schooling
Your wording here seems to suggest that you do, in fact, seem to think that I am saying the country never should have developed a public education system. I am not. There was a time when the public education system was exactly what the nation needed to build a better populace. It is no longer filling that purpose any longer. Larger and larger numbers of students are graduating without the knowledge and tools they need to succeed in a constantly changing world. Public incompetence (I use this word not as a general insult but to mean that a large portion of the working force is not competent enough to perform their jobs) is becoming a staggering drain on both public and private sector industry and efficiency. I believe that this is because we have an educational system that was designed for a world that no longer exists. It's time for us to make some major changes. Not small adjustments. We should seriously consider starting entirely from scratch.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
There are at least in the United States, a large number of people who would opt out of public education, they would not be nearly as productive as those who do not.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: There are at least in the United States, a large number of people who would opt out of public education, they would not be nearly as productive as those who do not.
Again, how do you know this?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I don't think we should strive for a system that fails no one. I think people will find a way to fail in any system.
That said, I do think a public school system is directly beneficial for the vast majority of people who go through it, or is better than any alternative they have open to them.
I think tweaking/modifying the system is certainly within the realm of reason, of course. But I don't think it is whole-cloth worthless and deserving of complete destruction. I guess I'm a conservative in that regard.
For instance, I think schools are failing in some big respects too, but not the same ones as you think. I think we've been sacrificing the citizen part of the education to improve in math and science. We could do better there, and even if they graduate at a 6th grade reading level, they'll do better at their jobs because they'll be invested/empowered in their community to do so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Public Education raises the productivity of citizens, insures a literate populace and helps reduce crime and poverty.
...in Victoria 2. Also known for its economic model which causes three massive revolts in every Great Power in the 1920s, not to mention a micromanaging central state being more efficient than its capitalists.
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: There are at least in the United States, a large number of people who would opt out of public education, they would not be nearly as productive as those who do not.
Indeed, many people do. How do you know they are less productive?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
There were some papers I read a while back that showed the returns in GDP in terms of investment in public education. Additionally Paul Kennedy shows some data to support it as well to compare say, large illiterate masses of peasants in Russia in comparison to germany.