Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Santa Cruz Mike
 
Posts: n/a
Default the Home Schooled was Clark is correct

snipped...

How many subjects were the public school kids weak in?

Gunner



Take our best and brightest kids in the public schools and the best
and brightest from home schooling and those from other countries..
and they will have just about the same skill levels..

But take all of our kids, particularly in higher education where most
universities are open enrollment, and our kids don't test as well, or
look like they have the same skills.. If the rest of the world
allowed or made available the public education system to the extent
we do.. they would test about the same.. In most countries only the
very brightest get a higher education.. the rest do without or come to
America or some other country...

Currently many of the ways we measure our kids against the kids in
other countries,, home schoolers, and public schools.. we are
comparing apples, oranges, and grapes... and coming to very unfair and
confused conclusions...

We have a lot of kids in our university system in particular that are
marginal.. but in the big picture we benefit and they benefit from
their higher education and the opportunities they are exposed to..

Why do so many students from the rest of the world come to our
universities? Because most other countries do not have open enrollment
and offer limited opportunities.. etc etc.. We have far more to
offer the average student in our schools.. then anyone else..

If parents do their part, keep their own kids motivated, guide and
encourage their own kids.. a kid can still get a great education in
public schools.

But parents who want the government to provide a babysitting service,
a child rearing service, will be sorely disappointed....

Same with home schooling... we will not know for twenty years just
what the consequences will be.

Later,
Mike

  #162   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Now you've quoted a pile of stuff, the last part of which addresses the
politicians issue.

If you check your figures, you'll see that your citations claim that
Congressmen and Senators, together, send 37% of their kids to private
schools [(435 * 0.344 + 100 * 0.50)/535], while you said "more than

half."
As for the teachers, your citation is only about inner-city teachers, and
that number, too, is less than half. And the Heritage Foundation makes no
attempt, at least in this quote, to compare the figures for those two

groups
with those of comparable-income families.

Correct. I was wrong. Only 37 % of our elected pols send their kids to
private school. What is the public figure? 1%.?


The figure you quoted in your last message was 13%. I just double-checked
this with the NCES (fed. gov't.) figure and they agree.

And this is Senators and Congressmen, not all of our elected pols. In their
circle and their income brackets, I'm sure it's much higher than the
average, which includes a lot of people who couldn't afford private schools
if they wanted them.

I can't find specific data on income brackets and percentage of kids in
private schools, but I'm sure it can be derived from data that's available.
I just don't have the time to fool with it. One indicator that the NCES uses
is eligibility for federal school-lunch assistance. It's a rough measure of
poverty. Among public schools, 98% have students eligible. Among private
schools, it's 49.5%. Not many poor kids go to private schools. Their average
family income is quite high, so the percentage of families in higher income
brackets send a lot higher percentage of their kids to private schools, as
one would expect. And this includes parochial and other religious schools,
which have, together, 76% of the total students enrolled in private schools
in the United States.

As to the inner city teachers..they are the ones handling the largest
percentage of single parent, or or troubled damaged kids are they
not?


Yes. I don't see your point about this, though.


The more money people make, the more they're willing to pay for

advantages
for their kids. I don't know of a single public-school teacher who would
claim that a public-school education is as good as a good private-school
education. But a *good* private school costs a lot more than public

schools,
unless the school is a religious one that squeezes every penny, that
underpays its teachers, and that doesn't have to account for much of its
capital costs because they come from church contributions.

So it's a meaningless crock, as much Heritage Foundation "data" is a

crock.

Why would you say Heritage Foundation data is a crock? Why is their
data no good? Please amplify.


They present simplistic numbers without normalizing for things like family
income, level of parental educational attainment, and, in other examples
I've seen, they don't normalize their stats of this type for things like
racial makeup (private schools have MUCH lower percentages of minorities,
for example), language spoken (again, VERY few kids in English-enrichment
programs), handicapped kids (private schools usually have none; that's why
my wife has so many) and so on. The Cato Institute does the same thing. I
did a review last year of one of Cato's "studies" on the status of the
middle class. When I dug into it, I realized that, if their paper had been
presented in a Sophomore college class in statistics, it would have gotten a
"D." That's no exageration.

They aren't honest analyses. They're polemics.

Ed Huntress


  #163   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default the Home Schooled was Clark is correct

On 14 Feb 2004 18:21:34 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , John Flanagan says...

I don't think anyone is saying homeschooling should be required of
anyone.


Are they, John? I think I understand you cogent argument
in favor of reasonable competition for 'eductation as
we know it now' but somehow I always come away from this
discussion (one which has gone on here many many times
in the past) with a sneaky suspicion.

Seems like the folks who push home schooling also invariably
push vouchers. I would take the homeschool types a great
deal more seriously if they said, 'look, we're more than
happy to contribute to the public education, but we feel
like we want to do better for our kids ourselves.'

I do know several individuals who are homeschooling their
kids, and in NJ and NY there are many many hurdles to
leap before this can be done. I have very short patience
with a government that prevents parents from doing this,
because it says they are running scared of the concept.

But when homeschoolers immediately jump on the voucher
bandwagon then it spoils the effect - basically it seems
like all they want to do is shirk paying taxes. And
if everyone is allowed to opt-out of school taxes, then
we get back to your original comment: in that case,
everyone *will* be required to home-school.

Jim


Jim...those who home school or use vouchers pay the same amount of
taxes nonetheless. Same with those who sent their kids to private
schools. Home schoolers and voucher proponents have not asked that the
tax burden be lessened , though most would like that. Why should they
pay taxes utilized for substandard inferior public education and still
have to shell out additional moneys for home schooling or private
school?

Vouchers are an interesting case. You still pay the same amount of
property taxes (which are used for schools) but your kids education
money is spent at the shool of your choice. The present system is
similar to being told you have to buy a house for X dollars, but the
powers that be tell you which house you have to purchase. It may be a
rat and roach infested shack or a nicer low income home. Wouldnt you
rather have the ability to pick which home you have to spend your
money on?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas
  #165   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Home schooling (was...)

On 14 Feb 2004 15:28:06 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

When generalizing about groups, I don't see how statistics can be
meaningful considering how many home-schooled kids live below the
radar. In our county there probably isn't a practical way for
officials to know that the kids *exist*, must less how well they're
schooled.

Wayne


I see a post full of assumptions. Where are the test scores of those
children?

Gunner


That's the point - the home school stats look great because
you only see the ones that are success stories. I think
that unless you can figure out a way to include *all* the
kids who don't attend public school - and not just the showcase
kids - then any attempt to conclude that home-schooling is
best for *all* kids is doomed to failure.

Jim


Jim, find some data to support your assumption. Id be happy as hell to
check it out, and compare the failures of home schooling with the
failures of public education.

No one said home schooling is the universal cure all, but only that as
a whole, home schooled kids do better than public schools kids on the
whole. And for a hell of a lot cheaper.

Gunner
"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas


  #166   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Home schooling (was...)

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:35:11 GMT, wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:39:18 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 21:38:58 GMT,
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 05:17:05 GMT, "Siggy"
wrote:

Sounds to me like they had parents who gave a damn, encouraged their child,
and set a level of expectation that they personally followed up on. I
suspect that THAT is the common thread between home schooled children who
excel and public school children who excel rather than one educational
system vs. another.

Robert

Exactly. I live in the boonies, and there are quite a few
home-schooled kids in the area. Any talk of them doing better as a
group than public-school kids is just nuts. And it's easy to see why
if you look at the reasons many of the boonie parents don't send their
youngns' to school - 1. won't, or can't afford to drive them 15 miles
one-way twice a day to meet the bus. 2. don't want them to associate
with non-fundies....ever. 3. didn't go to school themselves, so don't
see the need. sigh Given the circumstances and attitudes, overall
success rates are bound to be pitiful.

When generalizing about groups, I don't see how statistics can be
meaningful considering how many home-schooled kids live below the
radar. In our county there probably isn't a practical way for
officials to know that the kids *exist*, must less how well they're
schooled.

Wayne


I see a post full of assumptions. Where are the test scores of those
children?


I don't know.... same place as the soap and water? If they aren't
bathed, then it isn't likely that they're getting much of an
education. If the parents aren't too bright, it's not likely that
they're going to be teaching much. If kids aren't socialized, it's
unlikely that they're well adjusted. If officials don't have a way to
know that home-schooled kids live in their district, it's unlikely
that the kids have been tested. If the parents meet visitors at the
gate with a rifle, it's unlikely they'd agree to have their kids
tested. But hey, those are all just assumptions, and I'm sure that
you're about to tell me that a guy with a two dozen beer a day habit
*could* be giving math lessons in his shack, and his kids are
*probably* better off than if they'd gone to gasp public school.

\
Once again all I see are assumptions and some generic claims.
When you can provide some data, Id be happy to look it over, but until
then, its noted as your opinion.

BTW, who are you and what did you do with that other gunner who's so
fond of the "walks like a duck...." homily?

Wayne


I only use it as needed. I dont use a hammer to cut grooves in
inconel.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas
  #167   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"North" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:47:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
said:

"North" wrote in message
.. .

Here's one.
The owner of this yahoogroup:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a-survivalist
Her name is Denice and she is a single stay at home mother of 4 girls
who lives on close to $900 a month in child support with very little
state aid and she homeschools.



A single stay-at-home mother living on child support...who

homeschools...now
*there's* a model for a successful, productive society, eh?

Ed Huntress

Hey Man,
Please don't trash her. I know her personally and she is a fine
upstanding woman who happens to be poor.


"Trash" her? I don't even know her, North. She could be Mother Theresa
reincarnate for all I know.

What I said was that you can't live on $900 a month of money you don't earn,
then teach 1/5 the minimum number of students expected of a teacher, and
claim that you're a model for how a society can work.

The schools where she lives
suck and she has taken it upon herself to give her kids a decent
education. Her kids are testing way above the national adverage.
I for one admire her. Not many people can handle all the work involved
in raising a family with little money and all the work that goes along
with homeschooling.


Most of us have to work for our money. If you consider teaching her kids to
be her work, then she's producing 1/5 what a teacher is expected to produce.
And if I was producing 1/5 of what people doing my kind of work normally
produce, I wouldn't last long in that work. Neither would you.


You asked for an example of a poor single parent that is succesfully
homeschooling their kids, I gave you a real life example.


Actually, I didn't ask. We were talking about national averages. There are
anecdotes to "prove" any point, on almost any subject, anywhere. The problem
is, they prove opposite things.

Ed Huntress


  #168   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Home schooling (was...)

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


No one said home schooling is the universal cure all, but only that as
a whole, home schooled kids do better than public schools kids on the
whole. And for a hell of a lot cheaper.


Not really. Not unless you consider the time that mother or father spends
home-schooling to be worthless time. If they're a good home-schooler,
chances are their time is quite valuable. And unless you account for the
cost of their home-schooling in terms of income foregone, you aren't doing
an honest accounting.

Ed Huntress



  #169   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:25:02 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...



A question was asked about them, that Im unable to answer, but I still
think the general tone of the results is correct. Ive seen various
stats given about Homeschooling versus public school education, and
the public schools used were upscale, "state of the art" schools in
areas not rampant with poverty and low income single parent familys
that produced similar results. I will have to hunt for and find them.


This is to Gunner: Don't waste your time with second-hand stats. They're all
cooked to make somebody's point.

Go right to the source and get the raw data and analyses. You'll find it
he

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/HomeSchool/


How do we know the numbers are not cooked?

'Lots of surprises.


Such as?

Ed Huntress

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas
  #170   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...

The evidence is, it wasn't happening until we set up public education.


The numbers I've seen (and no, I'm not going to look them
up) indicate that the literacy rate among whites was over
90% prior to the civil war. That can't be compared to
today's literacy rate due the changing population covered,
but even among the whites the figure isn't better after over
100 years of public education.


Well, I did look it up, and here are the figures for whites over 14 years of
age. Based on the same way of measuring illiteracy, with a toughening
standard over time, it was 11.5% in 1870 and 0.4% in 1979, when the Census
Bureau stopped using the old method of self-reporting. And "literacy" in
1870 meant being able to read and write a simple sentence. ("120 Years of
American Education: A Statistical Portrait", Edited by Tom Snyder, National
Center for Education Statistics, 1993).

The standards used today are based on what is called "functional literacy,"
and it's a much tougher test, which gets tougher as the society becomes more
complex and the definition of "functional" becomes correspondingly tougher.

Public education didn't
work.


It worked like a charm. Nothing in history ever elevated literacy and
numeracy rates faster or better among a general population. Ever.

Well, it worked, after a fashion, until about
1965-70. Then the teachers' unions gained power and public
education went into the crapper.


Have you bothered to check out the comparative knowledge levels of children
in 1965 versus today, Robert? If not, you're in for a surprise.

BTW, you may want to look at the sample tests given for SATs today,
particularly the SAT II's, which used to be called SAT Achievement Tests in
our day. They'll give you a chill, wondering how we got so dumb. g


Ignorant people tend to think that what was good enough for them is good
enough for their kids. So we had millions of ignorant kids, who had

ignorant
kids, etc.


We had a high rate of literacy without public education.


Not. See above.


It took a major social movement for free public education to take away

from
parents their right to keep their kids ignorant, narrow-minded, and too
intellectually impoverished to govern themselves responsibly. What a

loss,
eh?


If it really was as you claim, it would have been a huge
improvement. But it wasn't.


It was. In 1870, there were 29 times more illiterate whites in the US than
in 1979, as a percentage of the white population. You don't even want to
hear about the numbers for blacks.

And its basic virtue is the same as it's ever been. Without free public
education, we would be a nation of serfs.


We weren't a nation of serfs. With the vastly expanded
power and scope of government control of our lives we are,
in some ways, more like serfs now than then - not counting
the actual slaves, of course.


We would be a nation of serfs today. The big corporations would own
everything, and you'd owe your life to the company store. No question about
it.

The argument against free public education always has an element of
Spencerian Social Darwinism about it, which is an elitist philosophy that
basically relegates the poor to a doomed life. It was the most widespread
argument against free public education, popularized in the mid- and
late-19th century.


It's amazing that we don't starve to death, given the lack
of free public grocery stores.


You need food to live. Many people would choose not to buy education if they
had a choice, as they did in 1870. They didn't buy it then, either.


The trouble with public education today is that it is based a cumbersome

and
antiquated structure of organization. But no alternative that diminishes

or
demeans public education quite escapes the Spencerian nightmare.


The grocery store model would work just fine. We'd buy
education just like we buy food. Those who couldn't afford
it could get school stamps, upon proving need. Education
would be better, cheaper and responsive to the market
instead of to the politicians and unions.


You have excessive faith in the market. More education would help us all,
even as adults. How much have you bought since college? I haven't bought
very much myself. It looks like a luxury to me, as all education looks like
a luxury when you pay for it out of your pocket.


People at
the bottom wind up getting screwed, and we all suffer for it.


You mean like now, when the kids at McDonald's can't make
change without a computer, can't find Mexico on a map and
can't date the civil war to within 50 years? I don't
believe things can get much worse.


Which kids? You mean the ones who never went to school at all a century ago?



You ought to spend some time at board of ed. meetings, in towns where the
right-wing element is particularly vociferous.


You think I have nothing better to do than go to school
board meetings? Especially as I don't think they should
even exist?


Only if you want to know what you're talking about. That, too, seems like an
unnecessary luxury in newsgroup discussions.


I live in a town of 14,000 that passed a $23 million bond issue a few

years
ago. We have some of the best-performing students around. I was deeply
involved in those things at the time, and I can tell which towns are on

the
way up, and which are on the way down, by the way they handle school

budgets
and capital-improvement referendums. It's an amazingly uniform pattern.


If you say so. I don't know, and don't care. Every defeat
for public education is a victory for freedom.


Wasn't it Huck Finn who first said that? g


Oh, BTW, our real-estate values outperform the entire county around us.

It's
because people clamor to come here for the schools. We pass some juicy
education referendums, and it shows.


That's nice. You should work on ways to make sure the
taxpayers get to keep as little of their own money as
possible. That way the People Who Know Better get to spend
more money and the ignorant original owners of the money,
who might waste it on things they want to buy, get to spend
less of it.


Well, this is a case of "I got mine, now you can go to hell," which is the
attitude I've had to fight with the retirees in my town. It's not something
that endears me to my elder neighbors, but we parents won the battle here,
and it's basically over. Maybe they can move to your town, if you folks are
among those who think there's entirely too much education going on. There
are a lot of them these days.


I'll just go with curmudgeon. That fits my general state of
both malcontentedness and stubbornness. And I like the
sound of it.


You'll have to share it with me...

Ed Huntress,
Curmudgeon For All Seasons




  #171   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

This is to Gunner: Don't waste your time with second-hand stats. They're

all
cooked to make somebody's point.

Go right to the source and get the raw data and analyses. You'll find it
he

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/HomeSchool/


How do we know the numbers are not cooked?


Study, Gunner. Learn to read methodology, and to discriminate sources based
on their motivation, their exposure, and the consequences of fudging their
work.


'Lots of surprises.


Such as?


Read and learn.

Ed Huntress


  #172   Report Post  
Excitable Boy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

Gunner wrote in message . ..

Is this why most teachers and politicians send their children to
private schools? Because they are bitter resentful malcontents?

Interesting



"Most" teachers and politicians ? What a crock of ****,
Gunner. You're lying. Liar liar pants on fire.
  #173   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:32:04 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

This is to Gunner: Don't waste your time with second-hand stats. They're

all
cooked to make somebody's point.

Go right to the source and get the raw data and analyses. You'll find it
he

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/HomeSchool/


How do we know the numbers are not cooked?


Study, Gunner. Learn to read methodology, and to discriminate sources based
on their motivation, their exposure, and the consequences of fudging their
work.


'Lots of surprises.


Such as?


Read and learn.

I did.

What did you find surprising?

Ed Huntress


Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas
  #174   Report Post  
Excitable Boy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...


You ought to spend some time at board of ed. meetings, in towns where the
right-wing element is particularly vociferous. The air smells like burning
brimstone. g Around eight years ago I got an education in this when I
visited other towns' Bd of Ed meetings to make a report to my town's Bd of
Ed. Mama mia. Some of those people are unbelievable. They want the cheapest
education the state will let them get away with, and they'll tear the throat
out of anybody who tries to stop them. g



Another small factor generally overlooked by the "education
is worse than ever, teachers are useless, blablabla" crowd -
one of the MAJOR problems with public education is the amount
of power local buffoons have over what is taught. Just think -
Gunner could run for the local school board and probably be
elected shiver.
  #175   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:22:47 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


BTW, you may want to look at the sample tests given for SATs today,
particularly the SAT II's, which used to be called SAT Achievement Tests in
our day. They'll give you a chill, wondering how we got so dumb. g


Is it true they dumbed down the Sats several times in the last 15 yrs?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas


  #177   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Read and learn.

I did.


No you didn't. It's 30 pages long. Evelyn Woods herself couldn't have read
it in that time. g


What did you find surprising?


Actually, I thought *you* would be surprised, because you presented those
SAT scores as if they were a fair comparison. Now, since you just speed-read
30 pages, g you've learned that parents of homeschooled kids are 50% more
likely to have a college degree than those of non-homeschooled kids; that
their families are more than twice as likely to have two parents, and that
only one of them works; and that they were 15% more likely to be white than
black or hispanic. Those are all factors that correlate with higher
performance for non-homeschooled kids, too.

So, unless you normalize for those factors, you don't know if the SAT scores
you reported were higher than expected for non-homeschooler; about the same;
or lower.

In other words, you don't know anything at all about the relative
performance of homeschooled kids.

Aren't you surprised? g?

Ed Huntress


  #178   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
m...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

. net...


You ought to spend some time at board of ed. meetings, in towns where

the
right-wing element is particularly vociferous. The air smells like

burning
brimstone. g Around eight years ago I got an education in this when I
visited other towns' Bd of Ed meetings to make a report to my town's Bd

of
Ed. Mama mia. Some of those people are unbelievable. They want the

cheapest
education the state will let them get away with, and they'll tear the

throat
out of anybody who tries to stop them. g



Another small factor generally overlooked by the "education
is worse than ever, teachers are useless, blablabla" crowd -
one of the MAJOR problems with public education is the amount
of power local buffoons have over what is taught. Just think -
Gunner could run for the local school board and probably be
elected shiver.


Ah...I think he once was a member of his local school board. g

Ed Huntress


  #179   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:22:47 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


BTW, you may want to look at the sample tests given for SATs today,
particularly the SAT II's, which used to be called SAT Achievement Tests

in
our day. They'll give you a chill, wondering how we got so dumb. g


Is it true they dumbed down the Sats several times in the last 15 yrs?


What happened is that they normalized scores upward sometime in the '70s,
for arguable reasons. They said it was to "vernier" the middle range, to
give them a better spread for better discrimination. I don't know if that's
true, or if they were just pressured to raise scores.

Scores allegedly were raised once more, I think in the '80s. That was tied
to a revamping of the questions, partly to remove gender biases. I don't
know much about that one either. And I've asked these questions of Dr.
Charles Krietzberg, former VP of ETS, who I used to know. Charlie gave me
answers but I'm not sure I understood them. He's quite a complex fellow. g

Meantime, the content of advanced courses has improved enormously, and the
SAT tests, particularly the SAT II's, have toughened up to test the new
content. My son's AP and Honors classes, for example, would have scared me
out of my socks when I was his age.

What effect this has had on scores is problematic. But it does mean that we
old farts wouldn't do very well on the tests. I scored 795 on the Physics
SAT Achievement Test in 1965. I've seen the sample questions for the current
SAT II/Physics. I couldn't answer more than 2/3 of them today.

Ed Huntress


  #180   Report Post  
Excitable Boy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

Robert Sturgeon wrote in message . ..

I'll just go with curmudgeon. That fits my general state of
both malcontentedness and stubbornness. And I like the
sound of it.



Stick with 'imbecile.' It's more accurate.


  #181   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:11:02 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

.net...


You ought to spend some time at board of ed. meetings, in towns where

the
right-wing element is particularly vociferous. The air smells like

burning
brimstone. g Around eight years ago I got an education in this when I
visited other towns' Bd of Ed meetings to make a report to my town's Bd

of
Ed. Mama mia. Some of those people are unbelievable. They want the

cheapest
education the state will let them get away with, and they'll tear the

throat
out of anybody who tries to stop them. g



Another small factor generally overlooked by the "education
is worse than ever, teachers are useless, blablabla" crowd -
one of the MAJOR problems with public education is the amount
of power local buffoons have over what is taught. Just think -
Gunner could run for the local school board and probably be
elected shiver.


Ah...I think he once was a member of his local school board. g

Ed Huntress

I was, which is what gave me the bad attitude I have towards public
education today.

Between propaganda masquerading as text books, and idiots masquerading
as unnameable teachers, and complete buffoons as administrators...I
found it was simply impossible to deal with them and never sat again.
I didn't run for the school board for some power trip, but to try to
make changes in the disintegrations of the school system. It was a
lost cause. The other board members for the most part were there
simply for the power, or to have a title after their name when they
answered the phone.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas
  #183   Report Post  
Gary Coffman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct OT again, by the way Just ignore if you don't want to read it

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:46:27 -0800, Koz wrote:
It looks like the costs went up again for this thing...the Light rail
was voted upon at about $ 14,000 per foot and by the numbers given here
it's up to almost $ 19,000 per foot.


So, $100,320,000 a mile.

Building a single expressway lane costs about $20,000,000 a mile today
in the Atlanta metroplex. That's 5 times less than the cost of your rail line.
Peak carriage rates are 10,000 vehicles per lane per mile per hour for the
I-85 corridor. Assuming most vehicles are single occupant, call that 10,000
people per lane per mile per hour. That's a peak cost fraction of $2,000
per person per lane mile per hour.

Now lets contrast that to MARTA, the heavy rapid rail system. Its construction
has been financed by a 1% local sales tax and 90% federal matching funds
since 1969. Very roughly, over that span it has cost about half a billion dollars
a mile of my and *your* tax money. Its daily ridership (subsidized fare) is
about 0.5% of the people in the Atlanta metro area.

During peak hours, it carries a train every 5 minutes. Each train can hold
320 people, so that's a total of 3,840 people per hour per rail line passing
a given point, or given the headways implied, 480 persons per rail mile per
hour. That gives a capital cost of $54,166,666 per person when calculated
on the same basis as the expressway lane.

During off peak hours, it runs one train every 30 minutes, for a total
ridership of 640 people past a given point per hour *if the trains were full*,
they rarely ever are. That works out to such a ridiculously high per
passenger mile cost I won't even include it here.

Now these costs actually must be spread over the life of each of the
systems. But even doing that, the public capital expenditures for the
roadway still comes out much lower than the public capital expenditures
for the rail system per passenger mile.

Of course, if you count the private costs of the cars on the roadways,
things look a lot better for the rail system. That is they do until you realize
that the trains don't go from where most people live to where most
people work. That may have been the plan in 1969, but housing patterns
and work locations have *changed* in 35 years. The diverse roadway
network and the individual directability of personal automobiles has
accomodated that, but the fixed rail lines have not. So people have
to own and use cars anyway.

Of course the real problem is that the transportation plan is not about
getting people "around" the area, it's about getting people into and out
of downtown. Basically, the rail becomes a subsidy of sorts to the
downtown core in order to increase business density. I personally
support a better distribution of job location rather than just moving
people in and out of downtown.


That's called "urban sprawl" by city planners. It *is* the reality anywhere
housing and business construction is unconstrained by geography or
legal strictures. Only when housing and business locations are constrained
by geographic barriers or government fiat to a linear model can the resulting
travel patterns favor fixed rail.

Here in the Atlanta area the rail system is hub and spoke, with the hub
downtown. But most of the places people live, and the places where they
work, are *not downtown*. In other words, you'd have to go downtown and
change trains to go back out of town to get there.

It has been estimated that the average commuter in Atlanta, who now
drives 22 miles each way, would have to ride MARTA (trains and buses)
an average of 62 miles to get within walking distance of his workplace
from his home (or the closest park and ride lot to his home).

I went through the schedules and determined it would take me nearly
two and a half hours to get from the park and ride nearest to my home
to my workplace. I drive it on average in under 30 minutes. It is bad
enough that an hour of my day is spent on my commute, there's no
way I'm going to tolerate 5 hours a day on trains and buses. And
there's no way I'm going to move closer to work either. I like where
I live.

For two wage earner families, which have become the norm, the
alternative of moving closer to work is often an impossible choice,
because one spouse may work in one part of the metro area while
the other works in another. Rapid rail is going to fail as a viable
alternative for at least one of them, probably both. And given the
relatively rapid job changes most people experience, the geometry
changes too frequently to make a 30 year mortgage investment
on the basis of the location of rapid transit lines.

OTOH, lets look at BART, a system designed by the same people
who designed MARTA. Because of the linear geography of the region
it serves, BART actually works fairly well. I don't have even approximate
cost figures for the system, but I do know that daily ridership is much
higher than for MARTA, and that it actually goes in the directions many
people need to go, thanks to an accident of geography which constrains
development to a linear strip between the mountains and the bay.

So mass transit *can* work, in certain circumstances, but it fails to be
practical or cost effective in more cases than not because those special
circumstances are absent.

Gary
  #184   Report Post  
J. Nielsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 08:22:47 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Ed Huntress,
Curmudgeon For All Seasons


Nothing is worse than listening to a curmudgeon - except listening to =
a
curmudgeon who is right. g
--=20

-JN-
  #185   Report Post  
Richard Johnson
 
Posts: n/a
Default the Home Schooled was Clark is correct


"Richard Johnson" wrote in message
...

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:17:57 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

A city wide blackout at Sat, 14 Feb 2004 08:42:36 GMT did not prevent

Gunner
from posting to misc.survivalism the

following:
Snip


Home schooling is in the same situation as the TelEng concept with the
exception they can't seem to kill it.

By the way, I am a Credentialed Teacher in Industrial and Machine related
Arts for grades 19 and 20 now and was a Certified IA back then working

with
the Teachers to develop and record the core course material.

Damn, got to pay attention to what I type. The credential covers grades 13
and 14, (Jr College). 19 and 20, where did I come up with that?? Sorry.
(At least I am self correcting!)

Rich




  #186   Report Post  
Gary H. Lucas
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct OT again, by the way Just ignore if you don't want to read it


"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:46:27 -0800, Koz

wrote:
It looks like the costs went up again for this thing...the Light rail
was voted upon at about $ 14,000 per foot and by the numbers given here
it's up to almost $ 19,000 per foot.


So, $100,320,000 a mile.


Snipped

OTOH, lets look at BART, a system designed by the same people
who designed MARTA. Because of the linear geography of the region
it serves, BART actually works fairly well. I don't have even approximate
cost figures for the system, but I do know that daily ridership is much
higher than for MARTA, and that it actually goes in the directions many
people need to go, thanks to an accident of geography which constrains
development to a linear strip between the mountains and the bay.

So mass transit *can* work, in certain circumstances, but it fails to be
practical or cost effective in more cases than not because those special
circumstances are absent.

Gary


Aw, quit your whining! In NJ we just spent $1.2 Billion to build a light
rail system between Trenton and Camden. Two cities that NO ONE wants to go
to, and neither of which have any jobs! When it comes to wasting money you
guys are going to have to get up really early to beat us!

Gary H. Lucas


  #187   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Home schooling (was...)

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:01:25 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:35:11 GMT, wrote:


Exactly. I live in the boonies, and there are quite a few
home-schooled kids in the area. Any talk of them doing better as a
group than public-school kids is just nuts. And it's easy to see why
if you look at the reasons many of the boonie parents don't send their
youngns' to school - 1. won't, or can't afford to drive them 15 miles
one-way twice a day to meet the bus. 2. don't want them to associate
with non-fundies....ever. 3. didn't go to school themselves, so don't
see the need. sigh Given the circumstances and attitudes, overall
success rates are bound to be pitiful.

When generalizing about groups, I don't see how statistics can be
meaningful considering how many home-schooled kids live below the
radar. In our county there probably isn't a practical way for
officials to know that the kids *exist*, must less how well they're
schooled.

Wayne

I see a post full of assumptions. Where are the test scores of those
children?


I don't know.... same place as the soap and water? If they aren't
bathed, then it isn't likely that they're getting much of an
education. If the parents aren't too bright, it's not likely that
they're going to be teaching much. If kids aren't socialized, it's
unlikely that they're well adjusted. If officials don't have a way to
know that home-schooled kids live in their district, it's unlikely
that the kids have been tested. If the parents meet visitors at the
gate with a rifle, it's unlikely they'd agree to have their kids
tested. But hey, those are all just assumptions, and I'm sure that
you're about to tell me that a guy with a two dozen beer a day habit
*could* be giving math lessons in his shack, and his kids are
*probably* better off than if they'd gone to gasp public school.

\
Once again all I see are assumptions and some generic claims.
When you can provide some data, Id be happy to look it over, but until
then, its noted as your opinion.


My posts included anecdotes based on personal observations and
discussion with local home-schoolers. I note that you're quite happy
to use anecdotes elsewhere in the discussion to support your own
position. Besides, where would you expect anyone to get statistics for
people who go out of their way to avoid being included in statistics?
Most of these people refused to participate in the census, much less
in education studies.

BTW, who are you and what did you do with that other gunner who's so
fond of the "walks like a duck...." homily?

Wayne


I only use it as needed. I dont use a hammer to cut grooves in
inconel.

Gunner


What you mean is, when you see something obvious and are questioned
about your observations, you're happy to fall back on a homily. But
when someone else comments on the obvious, you insist on "research",
which you seem to think is copying and pasting URLs no matter which
quack sites they link to.

Wayne

  #188   Report Post  
Pierre Bongo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

The purpose of the original post was not to argue over WHY home-schooled
kids do markedly better on standardized academic tests, but rather to refute
with this statistical fact the ignorant attempt at slandering home-schooling
as some sort of fringe cult whose students are profoundly inferior
performers. The statistics DO clearly show - for whatever reason - that this
ignorant prejudice is clearly false.


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
et...
"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...

Kids from disfunctional families and illiterate, impoverished families

are
included in the "general population." Home-schooled kids almost

exclusively
are not.

Another case of lying with statistics.

--
Ed Huntress


That may be true in general but I live in a very low income county and

many low
income families home school very successfully. I don't know that I'd

lump
them
with illiterate or even dysfunctional. "Lying" is probably a bit of an
exageration but then exagerating is lying too, isn't it )
Greg Sefton


I don't doubt that home-schooled kids do quite well on tests, Greg. It
appears that the average home-schooled kid actually is advantaged, though,
in several ways. They have parents who really care; they have parents who
make substantial sacrifices to educate their kids; they get something

close
to one-on-one interaction with the teacher, full-time. What's the per-hour
value of a parent capable of teaching, 3 or 4 hours/day? How does that

stack
up against the cost of public education? My guess is that it works out to
around $15,000 kid for home-schooling, versus something less than

two-thirds
that for public school. More money, better education, eh?

The advantages are great in themselves, and I have nothing against
home-schooling. But it makes the statistical comparisons flaky or
misleading. And a lot of home-schooling advocates aren't above using the
statistics to draw a conclusion that's opposite of the truth. It's hard to
believe that all of the people who quote these stats are so cavalier about
them, or so ignorant of statistical methods that *all* of them fail to see
the errors.

Ed Huntress




  #189   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

And a lot of home-schooling advocates aren't above using the
statistics to draw a conclusion that's opposite of the truth. It's hard to
believe that all of the people who quote these stats are so cavalier about
them, or so ignorant of statistical methods that *all* of them fail to see
the errors.

Ed Huntress

Once again, I find my personal experince to conflict with your statistics. Not
that they are wrong ). Where I live, most home schoolers do so because of a
totally ineffective local public school system which graduates high numbers of
funtional illiterates. They also use many teaching aids available to them on
the net & mail, so they don't neccesarily have to be a math whiz to supervize
their kids in an algebra course. They also organize group classes and field
trips to draw on the abilities of others and integrate social interaction into
the education process.
Greg Sefton
  #190   Report Post  
Lewis Hartswick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the Home Schooled was Clark is correct

Larry Jaques wrote:

Public school teachers really aren't required to know actual subjects.
They concentrate in "education" theory and union dues. That might
explain a lot.


They do too teach. They teach diversity, self-esteem,
political correctness, and a whole lot of other very
necessary things to thekids who can't find the USA on
a map by the 8th grade...

http://diversify.com


My wife substitutes all over the city and I have been volunteering
at a high school for several years, eating lunch with a group of
teachers and I tell you it's AMAZING how little the teachers seem
to know of so many subjects. No wonder the kids can't find the USA on
a map or do the simplest arithmetic. :-(
...lew...


  #191   Report Post  
Garlicdude
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct OT again, by the way Just ignore if you don'twant to read it

"Gary H. Lucas" wrote:

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:46:27 -0800, Koz

wrote:
It looks like the costs went up again for this thing...the Light rail
was voted upon at about $ 14,000 per foot and by the numbers given here
it's up to almost $ 19,000 per foot.


So, $100,320,000 a mile.


Snipped

OTOH, lets look at BART, a system designed by the same people
who designed MARTA. Because of the linear geography of the region
it serves, BART actually works fairly well. I don't have even approximate
cost figures for the system, but I do know that daily ridership is much
higher than for MARTA, and that it actually goes in the directions many
people need to go, thanks to an accident of geography which constrains
development to a linear strip between the mountains and the bay.

So mass transit *can* work, in certain circumstances, but it fails to be
practical or cost effective in more cases than not because those special
circumstances are absent.

Gary


Aw, quit your whining! In NJ we just spent $1.2 Billion to build a light
rail system between Trenton and Camden. Two cities that NO ONE wants to go
to, and neither of which have any jobs! When it comes to wasting money you
guys are going to have to get up really early to beat us!

Gary H. Lucas


And then there's the VTA here in Silly Cone Valley. Forgot
the actual figures, but it is something like $1.50 per rider
paid in fairs, and costs $5.00 and change for the ride.
Some folks voted to extend BART to San Jose with bond
money. Now the rat ******* politicans want to use the bond
money for operating expenses.

I've consistantly voted no on any transportation money since
they tricked me on raising the sales tax to widen the roads,
but failed to mention that they would be car pool lanes.
--
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://www.pulsareng.com/
  #192   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default the Home Schooled was Clark is correct

But when homeschoolers immediately jump on the voucher
bandwagon then it spoils the effect - basically it seems
like all they want to do is shirk paying taxes


I would sure support vouchers for homeschoolers, but never for religious based
schools. I think that they are taking a load off the public (stressed)
education system in many cases and incurring many expenses (not to mention,
being un-empolyed). Their efforts are for the good of society in the long run.
Of couse they took it upon themselves, but the result will be the same. Why
do childless people have to pay the same property taxes and get no exemptions?
Because we all have an interest in the success of youth. A voucher to offest
those costs and assist that success would be a good investment. "Shirk paying
taxes"??? Jim, you are way off on this one ).
Greg Sefton
  #193   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct


http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/HomeSchool/

'Lots of surprises.

Ed Huntress


Now there's an unbiased source ).
Greg Sefton
  #194   Report Post  
Bray Haven
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

Study, Gunner. Learn to read methodology, and to discriminate sources based
on their motivation, their exposure, and the consequences of fudging their
work.


Yeah, study Gunner, and someday you'll be able to argue as well as Ed. You'll
still be slanting your argument to your position, as he does (& you do), but it
will read/sound better. )
Greg Sefton
  #195   Report Post  
Dan Caster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Home schooling (was...)

I don't know too much about home schooling, but my niece lives in
Alaska and is home schooling her daughter. My sister ( her mother )
told me that in Alaska home schooled children have to take tests and
pass to be home schooled.

Dan


wrote in message


When generalizing about groups, I don't see how statistics can be
meaningful considering how many home-schooled kids live below the
radar. In our county there probably isn't a practical way for
officials to know that the kids *exist*, must less how well they're
schooled.

Wayne



  #196   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default the Home Schooled was Clark is correct

In article , Gunner says...

Jim...those who home school or use vouchers pay the same amount of
taxes nonetheless.


Right - but they get that tax money right back, as a voucher.
This is basically a tax rebate for them. I would say sure,
let them have vouchers. They pay a thousand dollars in
school tax right now, they can have a five hundred dollar
voucher if they pay fifteen hundred! If they were serious
about improving education then would agree to that. The
more vouchers, the fewer kids in public schools with the
same number of teachers.

Same with those who sent their kids to private
schools. Home schoolers and voucher proponents have not asked that the
tax burden be lessened , though most would like that. Why should they
pay taxes utilized for substandard inferior public education and still
have to shell out additional moneys for home schooling or private
school?


Vouchers are simply the first step in eliminating public education.
It won't get better when they're installed - only worse. The
analogy might be to car insurance: sure I'd like to be able to
take the money I spend on that and keep it myself. But if
everyone were allowed to opt out of the system - and that is
*exactly* what vouchers are, an 'opt out' clause - then it would
stop working in short order.

Just out of curiosity, how do folks with *no* children make
out in a proposed voucher system? Do they get a voucher good
for some portion of a brand new car or something? g

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

  #198   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/HomeSchool/

'Lots of surprises.

Ed Huntress


Now there's an unbiased source ).
Greg Sefton


Yeah, Greg, it is. In fact, most of the pro-homeschool tracts you'll see
quote these figures. They're just very selective about which ones they
quote. g

The methodology and results are exposed to the world for anyone to criticize
as they wish. They don't wish. Because they recognize that they're valid.

Ed Huntress


  #199   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Clark is correct

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Study, Gunner. Learn to read methodology, and to discriminate sources

based
on their motivation, their exposure, and the consequences of fudging

their
work.


Yeah, study Gunner, and someday you'll be able to argue as well as Ed.

You'll
still be slanting your argument to your position, as he does (& you do),

but it
will read/sound better. )


Some of the most useful stuff I ever studied in college was how to pick
apart phony statistics. If you really get into it, it will make a real
centrist out of you.

d8-)

Ed Huntress


  #200   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default Home schooling (was...)

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


No one said home schooling is the universal cure all, but only that as
a whole, home schooled kids do better than public schools kids on the
whole. And for a hell of a lot cheaper.


Not really. Not unless you consider the time that mother or father spends
home-schooling to be worthless time. If they're a good home-schooler,
chances are their time is quite valuable. And unless you account for the
cost of their home-schooling in terms of income foregone, you aren't doing
an honest accounting.


Saying 'look at all these great stories about home schooling'
is sort of the same thing as saying, "I'm gonna open up a doctors
office, but I won't treat any sick folks." Or something to the
tune of "I'm gonna run an car insurance business, but only insure
folks who never make any claims."

Home schooling looks great when you have motivated parents. What
I want to see are the tremendous, terriffic, outstanding results
that happen when you have a single parent household. I thought
we had one of those mentioned recently, the welfare mom who
collects public assistance so she can stay home and teach her kids?

All the anecdotal evidence that's been flying around here is
a splendid example of cherry-picking. The home-school advocates
can sure bring out fine examples of success. But so can public
school educators.

Where the rubber meets the road is when you look at the problem
cases: yep, public schools have em. What, there simply are
NONE for home schoolers? Why not? Could it have something to
do with the moment they run into trouble, those kids get shuffled
back into public schools, and wind up as a stat *there*? Or maybe,
as onother poster suggested, they simply never get tested.

Simple question for the home school advocates: what happens
to the kids if the voucher money runs out in mid-year in the
private school? Are they allowed to show up on the public
school's doorstep, and demand to be educated? Or what if they
get kicked out of the private school? Sorry, no refunds.

I can envision the flap when local PS123 says, 'nope, sorry.'

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Clearance between router cutter and guide bush ? Rob Graham UK diy 0 March 29th 04 07:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"