Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#321
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
In article , strabo
writes: Your posts in this thread imply that those who graduate from HS today are brighter and better educated than in 1965. While no one here knows the academic achievements of your kid, he is apparently not representative of the general population of high schoolers. The typical college graduate today knows less of the basics than did the typical high school graduate of 1965. You know this because of your "close" relatives? Any of them make it? Without the guns? (For the purpose of this exercise we should probably accept tenth grade ....) -- Cliff |
#322
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
"strabo" wrote in message
news But it's simply not true that kids are not as smart. For example, the decline in SAT scores that have been reported off and on over the last few decades have been accompanied by a higher *percentage* of kids actually taking the SAT. More kids who are down the line academically take the test. It used to be mostly the top kids who even took it. They don't often mention that. And the high college dropout rate reflects this. How so? What are the comparative percentages? Do you know anything you're talking about, or are you just making it up as you go along? "Smart" is not appropriate. There are numerous tests and surveys with which to make comparisons. I suspect the potential is similar. The three key reasons responsible for today's low education scores a incompetent teachers; minority performance; inadequate curriculum. Tell us what you're basing these assertions on, strabo. You keep making these sweeping claims. The performance and graduation rates of inner city schools are deplorable. Some schools refuse to flunk failures and instead pass them through graduation. Most of those that do graduate are functionally illiterate. Is that a problem caused by the schools, or by the parents? Ed Huntress |
#323
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
strabo wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:30:51 -0800, hamei wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: "strabo" wrote in message ... The typical college graduate today knows less of the basics than did the typical high school graduate of 1965. I seriously doubt that, strabo. What's the basis of that assertion? Something he read in the bathroom, probably. Sure sounds like something he pulled out of his ass, at any rate. So which is it? I don't really know ... I wasn't in there with you. It smells like something you pulled out of your ass, however. |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:55:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: ,;"Gary H. Lucas" wrote in message ,;news ,; ,; "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ,; . net... ,; "strabo" wrote in message ,; ... ,; s ,; ,; Your posts in this thread imply that those who graduate from HS ,; today are brighter and better educated than in 1965. ,; ,; I don't know if they're brighter; I doubt if there's any difference. As ,; for ,; "better educated," they have a better curriculum and better specific ,; content. Compared to the history books my son is using, for example, the ,; ones we used back in '65 were the Classic Comics version. ,; ,; ,; While no one here knows the academic achievements of your kid, he ,; is apparently not representative of the general population of ,; high schoolers. ,; ,; The typical college graduate today knows less of the basics than ,; did the typical high school graduate of 1965. ,; ,; I seriously doubt that, strabo. What's the basis of that assertion? ,; ,; -- ,; Ed Huntress ,; (remove "3" from email address for email reply) ,; ,; ,; I suspect that kids today seem less smart simply because as WE get older ,;our ,; accumulated knowledge that we compare to has gotten much greater. ,; ,; "Kid, I've already forgotten more that you know! That's too bad, because ,;it ,; means I've really forgotten a lot!" ,; ,; The older I get the better I used to be. ,; ,; Gary H. Lucas ,; ,; ,; ,;Haha! Yes, I wonder sometimes how we could have been so smart, and today's ,;kids so dumb, when I read things like the contents of strabo's post. g ,; ,;It's also true that the education in other countries has gotten better a lot ,;faster than ours has. That's the pinch we feel about our education system, ,;which certainly needs a lot of improvement. But many of those education systems in "other" countries filter at about 11 years of age. Some students go to trade schools others go to college prep schools and it is not the student's choice of program. In this country there will be students enrolled in public school with a "minder" and no hope of meaningful employment because of unfortunate circumstances when selecting from the gene pool. They tend to lower the class average and the level of teaching. If we had selection system similar to theirs and the students were taught at a higher level because slow learners were elsewhere then we would compare better. I am not advocating that type of screening just pointing out the fact that it exists in some countries and it frequently is those countries that are held up for comparison. In addition as long as we have the tenure system for teachers you are going to have too many mediocre teachers in the system. I once asked a school board member these questions... 1. How many teachers have been told to move on during the 3 year probationary period in the last 20 years? The answer was "none". My response was "There isn't anyone that is that good at hiring employees. 2. How many teachers have been fired in the last 20 years because their teaching skill have drifted to an unacceptable level (read burnout)? Again "none". Presumably this was because they hadn't raped a student in front of the class. Perhaps the only legitimate reason to fire an incompetent teacher. Both questions brought out the same reply from a school board member that I hold in considerable respect. My response was the same to both answers. ,; ,;But it's simply not true that kids are not as smart. For example, the ,;decline in SAT scores that have been reported off and on over the last few ,;decades have been accompanied by a higher *percentage* of kids actually ,;taking the SAT. More kids who are down the line academically take the test. ,;It used to be mostly the top kids who even took it. They don't often mention ,;that. Because it is not politically correct to suggest that one student may not learn as well as another. When I was in school each grade had an "A" & a "B" class and everyone knew what those designations meant. If one suggested that today there would be a tar and feather party and a trip out of town on a rail. Actually I think both groups would benefit as both could be taught closer to their level of competence but the PC police wouldn't allow it. |
#325
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
Gunner wrote:
Its obvious. The public schools will finally have to get off their overstuffed dead asses and be competative with the private schools. When they see their tax dollars dribbling away..they will indeed institute improvements. Standardized testing will make sure everyone is working on a level playing field. Those that cannot teach worth a **** will be dumped in favor of those who can actually teach. Administration costs will fall, as they remove the deadwood and streamline. With fewer kids in the public schools, wear and tear on the infrastructure will be reduced and for those children who tear up the place, are "unteachable" etc..they will be finally handled the way they should be. With the proper punishment and expulsion as needed. Im sure there will be Boot Camp type schools that will spring up for problem children that will accept vouchers. It will really suck to be an asshole child who wants to disrupt things. Gunner I only wish it were true. They will only pressure the legislature for more and MORE money. Those that can't teach, most will have tenure or some such so will be there for eternity. :-). Administration costs will always continue to grow because an administrators sallary depends on how many people are on the TO&E under him. With a higher percentage of the "unteachables" in the schools the "wear and tear" will be worse. Punishment, What is that? :-) My wife substitutes and often in "special ed" classes. You may not have ever come across the sorts of students in these classes. Kids in public school that are almost "vegitables" for all the mental, physical, and emotional ability they have. This is about half of the problem, other half is, IMHO , the inability to dicipline the missbehavior kids. ...lew... |
#326
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
"Don Wilkins" wrote in message
... big snip Because it is not politically correct to suggest that one student may not learn as well as another. When I was in school each grade had an "A" & a "B" class and everyone knew what those designations meant. If one suggested that today there would be a tar and feather party and a trip out of town on a rail. Actually I think both groups would benefit as both could be taught closer to their level of competence but the PC police wouldn't allow it. 'Sorry for clipping so much interesting thought, but, in the interest of time, just one thing you may be interested in: My son's school does have two tracks, with A and B classes in nearly every program. In math, it's three tracks: "Standard," "Advanced," and "Accelerated," which is Advanced at double-time. There are no apologies made for it. Ed Huntress |
#327
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:18:17 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths: Its obvious. The public schools will finally have to get off their overstuffed dead asses and be competative with the private schools. When they see their tax dollars dribbling away..they will indeed institute improvements. Standardized testing will make sure everyone is working on a level playing field. Those that cannot teach worth a **** will be dumped in favor of those who can actually teach. Beautiful thought, but do you know how much it costs to fight the teachers' union? Administration costs will fall, as they remove the deadwood and streamline. With fewer kids in the public schools, wear and tear on the infrastructure will be reduced and for those children who tear up the place, are "unteachable" etc..they will be finally handled the way they should be. With the proper punishment and expulsion as needed. Hear, hear! Im sure there will be Boot Camp type schools that will spring up for problem children that will accept vouchers. It will really suck to be an asshole child who wants to disrupt things. They'd double their money selling tour tickets so parents could watch that kind of school in action. pop And then Gunner woke up and reality hit again. ---=====--- After all else fails, read the instructions. ---=====--- Website Design and Update http://www.diversify.com |
#328
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
strabo wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:52:44 GMT, Jim Stewart wrote: Gary H. Lucas wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message . cv.net... "strabo" wrote in message m... s Your posts in this thread imply that those who graduate from HS today are brighter and better educated than in 1965. I don't know if they're brighter; I doubt if there's any difference. As for "better educated," they have a better curriculum and better specific content. Compared to the history books my son is using, for example, the ones we used back in '65 were the Classic Comics version. While no one here knows the academic achievements of your kid, he is apparently not representative of the general population of high schoolers. The typical college graduate today knows less of the basics than did the typical high school graduate of 1965. I seriously doubt that, strabo. What's the basis of that assertion? -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) I suspect that kids today seem less smart simply because as WE get older our accumulated knowledge that we compare to has gotten much greater. "Kid, I've already forgotten more that you know! That's too bad, because it means I've really forgotten a lot!" The older I get the better I used to be. I've had the opportunity to hire several high school kids as materials handlers and engineering aids/interns. I've been very impressed with their abilities. The engineering intern has been very fast and sharp. The materials handlers are more accurate than most of the adults we've used. You discriminated in order to get the best available. You didn't take a random sample. My 17 year old daughter comes and gets me every night to watch Jeopardy and she holds her own against her old man. I have nothing bad to say about this generation of kids. Either your daughter is a genius or your knowledge and skills are lacking. You are the adult. You have the advantage of time and experience. You're supposed to know considerably more. And your response questions your ability to recognize and understand human intellegence. My daughter has received, both from her parents and from the public school system a very good education of general knowledge. She consistantly beats her dad on questions pertaining to art, Shakespere, Greek mythology, and popular music. Things her dad either never learned or forgot 30 years ago. Her dad dominates in science, religion, wars and US history. She also benefits from a quicker recall of facts than her dad. Probably has to to with less facts to search through. As to my knowledge, here's the website of my company: http://www.jkmicro.com The J in JK is me. The K is my wife. I'm not quite a genuis, but I've done well considering that I'm one generation removed from poor white trash. |
#329
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
"Why" wrote in message
... "Don Wilkins" wrote in message .. . big snip Because it is not politically correct to suggest that one student may not learn as well as another. When I was in school each grade had an "A" & a "B" class and everyone knew what those designations meant. If one suggested that today there would be a tar and feather party and a trip out of town on a rail. Actually I think both groups would benefit as both could be taught closer to their level of competence but the PC police wouldn't allow it. 'Sorry for clipping so much interesting thought, but, in the interest of time, just one thing you may be interested in: My son's school does have two tracks, with A and B classes in nearly every program. In math, it's three tracks: "Standard," "Advanced," and "Accelerated," which is Advanced at double-time. There are no apologies made for it. Ed Huntress You are lucky ED, here in TX we just turn out Presidents Many others of us are hoping to turn out the Texas President, too. Maybe the Houston Astros will want him. g Ed Huntress |
#330
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:24:31 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote: (snips) The J in JK is me. The K is my wife. I'm not quite a genuis, Obviously not. (rest snipped) -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:24:31 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote: (snips) The J in JK is me. The K is my wife. I'm not quite a genuis, Obviously not. But I have known many and most of them have some degree of dyslexia. |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
Santa Cruz Mike wrote:
I will make it clearer.. a bowl with a 10 inch od and a 30 inch od circumference... Only a problem if you assume the bowl to be circular. -- Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
The key to an alternative reading of the verse 1 Kings 7:23 is to be found in the very ancient Hebrew tradition (see, e.g., [Britannica 1985], [Banon 1987, pp. 52, 53]) to differently write (spell) and read some words of the Bible; the reading version is usually regarded as a correct one (in particular, it is always correct from the point of view of the Hebrew grammar, and this is why it could be easily either remembered or reconstructed from the written version), whereas the written version slightly deviates from the correct spelling. (Another approach, involving the comparison between written forms of the same words in 1 Kings 7:23 and Chronicles 4:2 is cited in [Posamentiern, Gordan 1984]; see more about this version of the exegesis in 4). 1 Kings 7:23 Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. 7:26 Its thickness was a handbreadth; its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths. 2 Chonicles 4:2Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from rim to rim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. 4:5 Its thickness was a handbreadth; its rim was made like the rim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held three thousand baths. The letters of the Hebrew alphabets were traditionly used (well before the building of the First Temple [Guitel 1975]) for numerical purposes and, thus, have had numerical values . Using these values, one can calculate values of words (as sums of values of letters, but also in several other, less obvious and/or more involved ways); these methods became later known as gematria [Michael Munk 1983, p. 163], [Britannica 1985]. Here are the standard numerical equivalents of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet: cm = cmti8 scaled 0 Aleph=1, Beth=2, Gimel=3, Daled=4, Hea=5, Vav=6, Zain=7, CHet=8, Tet=9, Yod=10, Caf=20, Lammed=30, Mem=40, Noon=50, Samech=60, Aiin=70, Pea=80, TSadik=90, Qof=100, Reish=200, Shin=300, Tav=400. In particular, the numerical equivalent of the written version ,``QVH'', is Qof+Vav+Hea=100+6+5=111, whereas the numerical equivalent of the reading version, ``QV'', is Qof+Vav=106. Using these numerical equivalents, one defines as follows: [...] (1) Thus the Hebrew pi = 3.1415094 (1)See http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/facult...l/bpi/bpi.html for math calculations whose formulas I can't reproduce in a newsgroup post. |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
Jim,
I have to disagree about the implication about the ADA portion of education (not facilities) sucking from the schools. Actually there is a VERY good system in place for kids with special needs. They are thoroughly and properly tested to determine their needs, weaknesses and strengths (shouldn't this happen to all kids) and an individualized education plan (IEP is developed that emphasises the specific needs (again, shouldn't all kids be taught to their strengths and weaknesses?) The failure of this system currently is that the public schools do the bare minimum and just throw the kids into the classroom. The teacher ends up without a real plan or process for educating a particular student and because they are bored/not served they tend to fail, act out, and generally be a drain. No real progress happens. Remember that the VAST majority kids who need these services are just barely below average....you can't assume that they are the bottom IQ who are thrown in to be babysat at school. If the IEP system were proper addressed to ALL students, things would improve a lot in schools Koz jim rozen wrote: In article , Koz says... One rule I would impose on vouchers...If you accept them (assuming the voucher is the same amount the public school would get), you accept them as full payment. The goal is get people who can do it MORE efficiently and better, not more costly and exclusive than public schools. This would make sense to me. I think one reason why private schools invariably are run at a lower cost than public schools is their ability to operate outside an entire subset of regulations that public schools are required to obey. The ADA thing that I mentioned before, for example. Private schools have one thing that public schools would *love* to be able to boast about, but cannot: the ability to say "no" to some students. One single kid can cause enormous amounts of hassle and disruption in a classroom by misbehaving. I saw that happen in my daugher's school for two or three years running. Then that kid was told "don't come back, we've tried everything." What a difference. Public schools can't do that. That's one more reason they cost more to run. They *have* to take everyone. Jim ================================================= = please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================= = |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Koz says...
I have to disagree about the implication about the ADA portion of education (not facilities) sucking from the schools. Actually there is a VERY good system in place for kids with special needs. They are thoroughly and properly tested to determine their needs, weaknesses and strengths (shouldn't this happen to all kids) and an individualized education plan (IEP is developed that emphasises the specific needs (again, shouldn't all kids be taught to their strengths and weaknesses?) OK hold on there *just* a moment. Sure there is a great system for disabled kids in place right now. *Who* pays for it?? The taxpayer. Yep, if you calculated 'cost to educate' for each student, the disabled kids will indeed be costing more to the taxpayer. But hold on now and be fair, the voucher proponents compare private schools and public schools, and say 'hey, the private ones are *better* because they do the same job - maybe better - and they do it for less.' But the private schools don't have to educate disabled kids. So the comparison is faulty at least on that note and an attempt to fund vouchers on an 'equal slice' approach is going to leave the expensive kids out in the cold. I sure agree that public schools can always be improved, but my suspicion is that vouchers a)wil shift the same problems over in to the private sector, b) not magically produce more teachers to staff the influx into private schools, and c) are probabaly a attempt to end-run the first amendment issues so that parents can sent their kids to religious schools on the taxpayer nickel. I would advocate fixing the problem where it is, rather than generating new ones. Jim Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Gunner says...
... How does a voucher plan ensure that the left-behinds will still get a decent education? Its obvious. The public schools will finally have to get off their overstuffed dead asses and be competative with the private schools. When they see their tax dollars dribbling away..they will indeed institute improvements. Standardized testing will make sure everyone is working on a level playing field. Umm, not so obvious. You can have standardized testing like Texas has, where everyone simply passes, even those who don't *have* the skills. Or like in NY, where many kids fail. Just *having* testing does not mean that the schools work. Those that cannot teach worth a **** will be dumped in favor of those who can actually teach. Still not obvious here. If Fitch were around, he would (did) ask the biggie question: WHERE are you going to get those teachers who can actually teach? All the teachers are already employed. So how are you going to staff the extra, or larger, private schools once vouchers permit portability? Administration costs will fall, as they remove the deadwood and streamline. With fewer kids in the public schools, wear and tear on the infrastructure will be reduced and for those children who tear up the place, are "unteachable" etc..they will be finally handled the way they should be. With the proper punishment and expulsion as needed. I guess you weren't listening, but public schools can't expell kids. They simply go into a more expensive version of public school that the taxpayer still has to fund. So in your scheme, the public schools become dumping grounds for the problem (read, 'expensive') kids with one twist - they have less money than before to educate them. Im sure there will be Boot Camp type schools that will spring up for problem children that will accept vouchers. It will really suck to be an asshole child who wants to disrupt things. I think those already exist. They keep having news stories about them, where the kids are incarcerated in prison, outside of the US. The best of these that I've ever seen is NY state's "Challenge" program. They run the kids through what looks like a version of basic training up at Camp Smith. What happens when something around here actually works? Yep, you got it. State funding for that program got cut off. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Gunner says...
Read the First Amendment again. The Why, I know it by heart: "...no law respecting the establishment of religion..." The courts take that to mean you CANNOT put granite tombstones in your courthouse, and CANNOT fund parochial schools with taxpayer money. Get over it. Jim's crystal ball prediction: (and I will wager on this one) The moment vouchers are instituted anywhere in the US, there will be a first amendment court case that goes up to supreme court within two years. Btw..I know several Jewish families whose children attend Catholic schools, simply for the superior education. They simply do not join in the religious activities, and the schools have structured themselves to allow such as this without making the Jewish kids feel left out. Sure, I've seen the same thing. Difference here is that the parents are accepting that this is a catholic school and are buying into the situation with their own private money. My take on it is that the instant vouchers arrive, the state now has a responsibility to see that the money is being spend wisely. So there will be meddling in the private schools affairs. To put it another way, if you really want to screw something up, put the government in charge. My fear is that by funding private schools with public money, you won't be elevating public schools to private standards. You're going to be dragging private schools down into the public sector swamp. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
jim rozen wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:... MK. Discussion deleted.... I think what I was getting at is the idea that the vouchers are not going to cover the full freight at most private schools, so the parents are going to have to handle the remainder. It would be nice if the state simply handed over an 'equal slice' payment (which probably *would* cover most of the tuition in a private school, at least until the exodus from public schools drove up the price...) but for a variety of reasons that's probably never going to happen. MK. Robert FitzRoy learned Greek, Latin, shiphandling, gunnery, fencing, trigonometry, and calculus, between age 12 and 14, at which point he went to sea (see: __Evolution's Captain__). The physicist Joseph Henry left school at age 13, and was apprenticed. At 16 he read a book on science and prepped for college. Ben Franklin attended school for two years, between 10 and 12. The per-pupil budget in the US has tripled, in inflation-adjusted terms, between 1950 and today. Education is potentially cheap. It's --school-- that's expensive. Giving to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy is a formula for high costs and low performance. Likely, school vouchers would lower the cost of school, over the long haul. So the question is, once a kid takes a voucher, but the parents can no longer contribute their sha Do You Require the Public School to Take the Kid Back? MK. Which school voucher plan are we discussing? My ideal? My ideal is parent performance contracting, not a voucher. In a school voucher system, yes, public schools would still have to accept students according to their usual criteria. I'd suggest that they be budgeted in the same way as independent, voucher-accepting schools, monthly, based on enrollment. The only differences between the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools") and voucher-accepting schools would be 1) that the taxpayers' per-pupil support of the cartel's schools would be 100%, while the school voucher would be 0 X% 100%. 2) that he cartel's schools operate on government-owned land, 3) That the cartel's schools get free legal help from the State. And, how do you handle the entanglement that vouchers are going to cause between state funding and religious schools? MK. I don't worry much about them. That's like saying, "I don't care about a teeny little tornado!" MK. Hardly. The USSC has said that so long as parents decide which institution the child attends, there is no "establishment" violation. I agree. The way to teach tolerance of diversity is to tolerate diversity, seems to me. Sure *you* don't care but that little thing like the bill of rights *does* care! What are the private schools going to do when the state starts demanding that catholic schools recognize jewish holidays, or that they ban religious displays? State money being funnelled into parochial schools is the first step towards a huge first amendment collision. That collision *will* happen in the courts when vouchers are first tried. It is also one of the biggest reasons why vouchers will be avoided for quite some time to come. MK. The greatest barrier to school vouchers is determined lobbying by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 18 Feb 2004 14:16:34 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Koz says... I have to disagree about the implication about the ADA portion of education (not facilities) sucking from the schools. Actually there is a VERY good system in place for kids with special needs. They are thoroughly and properly tested to determine their needs, weaknesses and strengths (shouldn't this happen to all kids) and an individualized education plan (IEP is developed that emphasises the specific needs (again, shouldn't all kids be taught to their strengths and weaknesses?) OK hold on there *just* a moment. Sure there is a great system for disabled kids in place right now. *Who* pays for it?? The taxpayer. Yep, if you calculated 'cost to educate' for each student, the disabled kids will indeed be costing more to the taxpayer. But hold on now and be fair, the voucher proponents compare private schools and public schools, and say 'hey, the private ones are *better* because they do the same job - maybe better - and they do it for less.' But the private schools don't have to educate disabled kids. So the comparison is faulty at least on that note and an attempt to fund vouchers on an 'equal slice' approach is going to leave the expensive kids out in the cold. No..because there will be programs for those kids, as there is now. Vouchers will not be mandatory, but simply another option for parents. I sure agree that public schools can always be improved, Now there is a candidate for understatement of the year. but my suspicion is that vouchers a)wil shift the same problems over in to the private sector, b) not magically produce more teachers to staff the influx into private schools, and c) are probabaly a attempt to end-run the first amendment issues so that parents can sent their kids to religious schools on the taxpayer nickel. What is the goal of a private religious school? To make preachers? Or to educate children to meet standard criteria in an religous environment? Seems to me that the religious component means nothing as long as the child can meet the standardized testing requirements. In fact, I could care less if the kid gets a bit of Druidism or Buddhism or whatever with his education, as long as he can pass all the required standardized tests. What difference does it make? Kids today are getting an overdose of secular humanism with their public school education, and I dont see you bitching. I would advocate fixing the problem where it is, rather than generating new ones. Jim Sometimes Jim..it takes threat to job and career to get people to get off the pot. This is called in this case, Competition. And its a good t hing. Seems that 30+ yrs of bitching about the situation, tossing increasing amounts of money at it, has only made it worse, so its time to try something else. Gunner ================================================= = please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================= = "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 |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 18 Feb 2004 14:35:46 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... ... How does a voucher plan ensure that the left-behinds will still get a decent education? Its obvious. The public schools will finally have to get off their overstuffed dead asses and be competative with the private schools. When they see their tax dollars dribbling away..they will indeed institute improvements. Standardized testing will make sure everyone is working on a level playing field. Umm, not so obvious. You can have standardized testing like Texas has, where everyone simply passes, even those who don't *have* the skills. Or like in NY, where many kids fail. Just *having* testing does not mean that the schools work. Nationwide standardized testing. Not just per state. Those that cannot teach worth a **** will be dumped in favor of those who can actually teach. Still not obvious here. If Fitch were around, he would (did) ask the biggie question: WHERE are you going to get those teachers who can actually teach? All the teachers are already employed. So how are you going to staff the extra, or larger, private schools once vouchers permit portability? good question. What are you doing next week? What can YOU teach? Seems that a teaching credential doenst guarentee that a teacher even knows their subject. Administration costs will fall, as they remove the deadwood and streamline. With fewer kids in the public schools, wear and tear on the infrastructure will be reduced and for those children who tear up the place, are "unteachable" etc..they will be finally handled the way they should be. With the proper punishment and expulsion as needed. I guess you weren't listening, but public schools can't expell kids. They simply go into a more expensive version of public school that the taxpayer still has to fund. So in your scheme, the public schools become dumping grounds for the problem (read, 'expensive') kids with one twist - they have less money than before to educate them. Not less money..as they will still get the lions share, and those that do voucher out, use none of the money allocated for plant, etc etc. Not everyone will voucher out. And after being forced to streamline..they will have MORE money to use, but more efficently. Hint..the public schools are already dumping grounds for such kids, who are generally simply passed along until they get a diploma they cant even read. Im sure there will be Boot Camp type schools that will spring up for problem children that will accept vouchers. It will really suck to be an asshole child who wants to disrupt things. I think those already exist. They keep having news stories about them, where the kids are incarcerated in prison, outside of the US. The best of these that I've ever seen is NY state's "Challenge" program. They run the kids through what looks like a version of basic training up at Camp Smith. What happens when something around here actually works? Yep, you got it. State funding for that program got cut off. And mores the pity. Want to give us a clue as to who was behind that program being shut down? I think we both know. Jim Gunner ================================================= = please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================= = "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 |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 18 Feb 2004 14:42:48 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... Read the First Amendment again. The Why, I know it by heart: "...no law respecting the establishment of religion..." then why did you leave out the rest of that statement.... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The courts take that to mean you CANNOT put granite tombstones in your courthouse, and CANNOT fund parochial schools with taxpayer money. Get over it. The courts (some) find that homosexual marriage is legal) Does it mean its correct? Ill bet you I can find a sympathetic judge to say that owning your own nuke is legal. Wanna take a shot at it? Jim's crystal ball prediction: (and I will wager on this one) The moment vouchers are instituted anywhere in the US, there will be a first amendment court case that goes up to supreme court within two years. Vouchers have been in use for at least 5 yrs already in many places in the US. Cincinnati Ohio IRRC is one of them. The courts found it legal. Why not do the google search? Or do you want me to handle it? G Btw..I know several Jewish families whose children attend Catholic schools, simply for the superior education. They simply do not join in the religious activities, and the schools have structured themselves to allow such as this without making the Jewish kids feel left out. Sure, I've seen the same thing. Difference here is that the parents are accepting that this is a catholic school and are buying into the situation with their own private money. My take on it is that the instant vouchers arrive, the state now has a responsibility to see that the money is being spend wisely. So there will be meddling in the private schools affairs. Oh..so putting long strings on it will make sure its spent wisely? Odd..its already in control of much of it..and we both know its not being spent wisely.. To put it another way, if you really want to screw something up, put the government in charge. My fear is that by funding private schools with public money, you won't be elevating public schools to private standards. Thats what Standardized Testing (national standards) will insure. Btw..do you know how much money that the Salvation army gets to the end user? Check it out..then compare it to welfare....chuckle... You're going to be dragging private schools down into the public sector swamp. Jim Not if the pinheads dont try to micromanage the private schools, and the standard testing is kept high. 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 |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Gunner says...
The courts (some) find that homosexual marriage is legal Supreme court. Anyway the marriage thing is not the topic so nice try though! Not if the pinheads dont try to micromanage the private schools, and the standard testing is kept high. Let me get this straight: you think the state is going to just *give* money to private schools, no strings attached, and not apply some kind of (excessive) administrative oversight to go along with the funds? Are you still putting cookies out for santa every Xmas Eve too? :^) Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Gunner says...
Nationwide standardized testing. Not just per state. W H A T ?????? Hold the phone, somebody just kidnapped gunner and is impersonating him on usenet! I can't believe the one and only *true* gunner would advocate a change from state and local control, to big government federal control, on an issue like this. Education has *always* been handled mostly on a local level, and to some degree on a statewide level. To suggest that the federal government should step in and set standards for education, to set up and supervise testing, and to attempt to punish those who don't perform, is possibly one of the most *liberal* ideas that have floated by on this ng in quite some time. I'm sure you want to rephrase what you thinking of, because that came as a bit of a shocker. ...... And mores the pity. Want to give us a clue as to who was behind that program being shut down? I think we both know. My understanding is that NY is in a major budget crunch. They're cutting everything. But I'll ask my buddy in the know, and report back. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Gunner says...
I sure agree that public schools can always be improved, Now there is a candidate for understatement of the year. :^) What is the goal of a private religious school? To make preachers? Or to educate children to meet standard criteria in an religous environment? Seems to me that the religious component means nothing as long as the child can meet the standardized testing requirements. In fact, I could care less if the kid gets a bit of Druidism or Buddhism or whatever with his education, as long as he can pass all the required standardized tests. What difference does it make? Kids today are getting an overdose of secular humanism with their public school education, and I dont see you bitching. I would advocate fixing the problem where it is, rather than generating new ones. Jim Sometimes Jim..it takes threat to job and career to get people to get off the pot. This is called in this case, Competition. And its a good thing. Gunner I can't figure out why this issue escapes you! Competition *is* a good thing, you are 100% correct. Funny thing is, that competition you are hungering for is *already* present! The private sector does indeed draw kids away from public schools right now, and folks are 100% free to avail themselves of this choice. Now if you could explain to me why this competition has not already boosted public school performance, I would be interested to hear about it. I thought the free market always finds its own true level. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
In article , Malcolm
Kirkpatrick says... MK. Robert FitzRoy learned Greek, Latin, shiphandling, gunnery, fencing, trigonometry, and calculus, between age 12 and 14, at which point he went to sea (see: __Evolution's Captain__). The physicist Joseph Henry left school at age 13, and was apprenticed. At 16 he read a book on science and prepped for college. Ben Franklin attended school for two years, between 10 and 12. Right, and Charles Lindbergh was tossed out of my alma mater on his ear. Those are some great stories but times have changed, and there was no public education as we know it now, in any of those examples you mentioned. Were Robert, Joseph, or Ben educated with public funds, or did they pay their own way? So the question is, once a kid takes a voucher, but the parents can no longer contribute their sha Do You Require the Public School to Take the Kid Back? MK. Which school voucher plan are we discussing? My ideal? My ideal is parent performance contracting, not a voucher. In a school voucher system, yes, public schools would still have to accept students according to their usual criteria. I'd suggest that they be budgeted in the same way as independent, voucher-accepting schools, monthly, based on enrollment. The only differences between the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools") and voucher-accepting schools would be 1) that the taxpayers' per-pupil support of the cartel's schools would be 100%, while the school voucher would be 0 X% 100%. Umm, hold it. 100% of *what*? For condition (1) above, public taxes pay for all of of the kids who want to go to public schools, just like now? And at the same time, the public taxes pay some fixed percentage of vouchers for kids who want to go to a private school, or home school? Who decides what the total is? Do the taxpayers get to say what the total budget of the public school should be, or do they deduct some amount for the X that's going to the private schools? Unless there is some means to strangle off the public schools, they will demand the same level of support as before, and the entire she-bang will wind up costing *more*. MK. The greatest barrier to school vouchers is determined lobbying by the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. I guess this discussion is finally coming together in my mind. The voucher folks have a story to tell. That story, simply put, is: 1) Public education in the US doesn't work well. It costs too much and does a poor job of teaching skills. 2) We've found a proven way to solve these problems that exist by giving state money to private schools. My trouble here is that I really have not seen much evidence that (1) above is true. And (2) seems to be quite a stretch. In (1) one invariably sees teacher's unions, stupid teachers, stupid school boards, stupid kids, stupid parents blamed. And one *never* sees the voucher advocates admitting that there really is competition to public schools out there, right now - and it has not had the effect that they desire. How can the be sure that more competition will do it? And I really am all ears to find cases of (2) where it's been shown that kids do get a better education for less money. That would be a great thing. In the meantime I'm holding my breath. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:24:31 -0800, Jim Stewart wrote: (snips) The J in JK is me. The K is my wife. I'm not quite a genuis, Obviously not. but then he's obviously not a drooling mongoloid, either. Unlike some people .... -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. I rest my case .... |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says... Nationwide standardized testing. Not just per state. W H A T ?????? Hold the phone, somebody just kidnapped gunner and is impersonating him on usenet! I can't believe the one and only *true* gunner would advocate a change from state and local control, to big government federal control, on an issue like this. My mouth fell open when I read that too... |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:00:05 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message .. . Cliff's Homework for this year: Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5 unit/inch depth. The diameters have a .005 inch tolerance. And no Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl? Hmm. Does this have something to do with curved space and the velocity of light? If so, then making the bowl is something you have to do while traveling very fast... Ed Huntress that is way beyond me... but an interesting thought.. |
#349
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
|
#350
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:26:12 -0800, John Ings
wrote: The key to an alternative reading of the verse 1 Kings 7:23 is to be found in the very ancient Hebrew tradition (see, e.g., [Britannica 1985], [Banon 1987, pp. 52, 53]) to differently write (spell) and read some words of the Bible; the reading version is usually regarded as a correct one (in particular, it is always correct from the point of view of the Hebrew grammar, and this is why it could be easily either remembered or reconstructed from the written version), whereas the written version slightly deviates from the correct spelling. (Another approach, involving the comparison between written forms of the same words in 1 Kings 7:23 and Chronicles 4:2 is cited in [Posamentiern, Gordan 1984]; see more about this version of the exegesis in 4). 1 Kings 7:23 Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. 7:26 Its thickness was a handbreadth; its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths. 2 Chonicles 4:2Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from rim to rim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. 4:5 Its thickness was a handbreadth; its rim was made like the rim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held three thousand baths. The letters of the Hebrew alphabets were traditionly used (well before the building of the First Temple [Guitel 1975]) for numerical purposes and, thus, have had numerical values . Using these values, one can calculate values of words (as sums of values of letters, but also in several other, less obvious and/or more involved ways); these methods became later known as gematria [Michael Munk 1983, p. 163], [Britannica 1985]. Here are the standard numerical equivalents of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet: cm = cmti8 scaled 0 Aleph=1, Beth=2, Gimel=3, Daled=4, Hea=5, Vav=6, Zain=7, CHet=8, Tet=9, Yod=10, Caf=20, Lammed=30, Mem=40, Noon=50, Samech=60, Aiin=70, Pea=80, TSadik=90, Qof=100, Reish=200, Shin=300, Tav=400. In particular, the numerical equivalent of the written version ,``QVH'', is Qof+Vav+Hea=100+6+5=111, whereas the numerical equivalent of the reading version, ``QV'', is Qof+Vav=106. Using these numerical equivalents, one defines as follows: [...] (1) Thus the Hebrew pi = 3.1415094 (1)See http://www.math.ubc.ca/people/facult...l/bpi/bpi.html for math calculations whose formulas I can't reproduce in a newsgroup post. Ok.. nice try.. but irrelevant.. the dimensions are the same as I have posted in the past.. the History of the Jews doesn't matter except for Cliffy's little swipes at the Jews and the claims Cliffy makes that the Jews taught that PI = 3.000... which of course they did not.. hmm.. Later, Mike Cliff's Homework for this year: Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5 unit/inch depth. The diameters have a .005 inch tolerance. And no Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl? |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
Santa Cruz Mike wrote: The bowl is round... nothing tricky or deceptive. Bob.. should I send you the model for verification.... can't let Cliff see it though? Mike: If you wish. Parasolid would be best, but iges will probably do. -- BottleBob http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob |
#352
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff's Magic Bowl -10 inch OD 30 inch OD Circumference
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:28:37 GMT, BottleBob
wrote: Santa Cruz Mike wrote: The bowl is round... nothing tricky or deceptive. Bob.. should I send you the model for verification.... can't let Cliff see it though? Mike: If you wish. Parasolid would be best, but iges will probably do. -- BottleBob http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob Parasolid txt or binary? I'll send you a model and a .pdf print with dimensions. Mike Cliff's Homework for this year: Cliff's bowl has a 10 unit/inch outside diameter and a 30 unit/inch outer circumference and a 5 unit/inch depth. The diameters have a .005 inch tolerance. And no Virginia PI does not equal 3.00000. So how does Cliff make this bowl? |
#353
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
"Koz" wrote in message
... Jim, I have to disagree about the implication about the ADA portion of education (not facilities) sucking from the schools. Actually there is a VERY good system in place for kids with special needs. They are thoroughly and properly tested to determine their needs, weaknesses and strengths (shouldn't this happen to all kids) and an individualized education plan (IEP is developed that emphasises the specific needs (again, shouldn't all kids be taught to their strengths and weaknesses?) The failure of this system currently is that the public schools do the bare minimum and just throw the kids into the classroom. The teacher ends up without a real plan or process for educating a particular student and because they are bored/not served they tend to fail, act out, and generally be a drain. No real progress happens. Remember that the VAST majority kids who need these services are just barely below average....you can't assume that they are the bottom IQ who are thrown in to be babysat at school. If the IEP system were proper addressed to ALL students, things would improve a lot in schools. ============================ Teaching those kids is what my wife does for a living, and the quality of the systems vary widely. In my wife's case, the testing and program planning for each kid is an extensive enterprise, involving several meetings of professionals for each kid. Of course, this is a good system in my town. Parents move here from quite a wide area just to get the benefits of our handicapped program. Ed Huntress Koz |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Malcolm Kirkpatrick says... MK. Robert FitzRoy learned Greek, Latin, shiphandling, gunnery, fencing, trigonometry, and calculus, between age 12 and 14... Oh, boy, now we're over the center-field fence, looking for the ball in the tall weeds. g You know, I'd put a lot more credence in the ideas we're hearing in this discussion if it wasn't for the fact that most of these people are products of the public education system... Ed Huntress |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
Vouchers would not ensure those left behind would still get a decent
education. But it would ensure that those who wanted a decent education would have a chance to get one. Now they don't have enough money to go any where except public school. And you shouldn't need more teachers. You have the same amount of kids. So assuming public schools shrunk in size, the new teachers would mostly go to private schools. And if done as I think it should be done, the public schools would have more money per kid. Say currently public schools get 10,000 per kid and 1000 kids, so 10,000,000 for public schools. Say 300 kids take the vouchers, which I said should be about 40% of the cost. So that is 4000 dollars times 300 kids, or 1,200,000 dollars. Subtracted from the 10,000,000 leaves 8,800,000 for 700 kids or over 12,500 per kid. Twenty five percent more per kid although less money overall. Same costs to the tax payer. Dan jim rozen wrote in message ... In article , Gunner says... ... How does a voucher plan ensure that the left-behinds will still get a decent education? Still not obvious here. If Fitch were around, he would (did) ask the biggie question: WHERE are you going to get those teachers who can actually teach? All the teachers are already employed. So how are you going to staff the extra, or larger, private schools once vouchers permit portability? Administration costs will fall, as they remove the deadwood and streamline. With fewer kids in the public schools, wear and tear on the infrastructure will be reduced and for those children who tear up the place, are "unteachable" etc..they will be finally handled the way they should be. With the proper punishment and expulsion as needed. I guess you weren't listening, but public schools can't expell kids. They simply go into a more expensive version of public school that the taxpayer still has to fund. So in your scheme, the public schools become dumping grounds for the problem (read, 'expensive') kids with one twist - they have less money than before to educate them. Im sure there will be Boot Camp type schools that will spring up for problem children that will accept vouchers. It will really suck to be an asshole child who wants to disrupt things. I think those already exist. They keep having news stories about them, where the kids are incarcerated in prison, outside of the US. The best of these that I've ever seen is NY state's "Challenge" program. They run the kids through what looks like a version of basic training up at Camp Smith. What happens when something around here actually works? Yep, you got it. State funding for that program got cut off. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
Vouchers would not ensure those left behind would still get a decent
education. But it would ensure that those who wanted a decent education would have a chance to get one. Now they don't have enough money to go any where except public school. And you shouldn't need more teachers. You have the same amount of kids. So assuming public schools shrunk in size, the new teachers would mostly go to private schools. And if done as I think it should be done, the public schools would have more money per kid. Say currently public schools get 10,000 per kid and 1000 kids, so 10,000,000 for public schools. Say 300 kids take the vouchers, which I said should be about 40% of the cost. So that is 4000 dollars times 300 kids, or 1,200,000 dollars. Subtracted from the 10,000,000 leaves 8,800,000 for 700 kids or over 12,500 per kid. Twenty five percent more per kid although less money overall. Same costs to the tax payer. Dan jim rozen wrote in message ... In article , Gunner says... ... How does a voucher plan ensure that the left-behinds will still get a decent education? Still not obvious here. If Fitch were around, he would (did) ask the biggie question: WHERE are you going to get those teachers who can actually teach? All the teachers are already employed. So how are you going to staff the extra, or larger, private schools once vouchers permit portability? Administration costs will fall, as they remove the deadwood and streamline. With fewer kids in the public schools, wear and tear on the infrastructure will be reduced and for those children who tear up the place, are "unteachable" etc..they will be finally handled the way they should be. With the proper punishment and expulsion as needed. I guess you weren't listening, but public schools can't expell kids. They simply go into a more expensive version of public school that the taxpayer still has to fund. So in your scheme, the public schools become dumping grounds for the problem (read, 'expensive') kids with one twist - they have less money than before to educate them. Im sure there will be Boot Camp type schools that will spring up for problem children that will accept vouchers. It will really suck to be an asshole child who wants to disrupt things. I think those already exist. They keep having news stories about them, where the kids are incarcerated in prison, outside of the US. The best of these that I've ever seen is NY state's "Challenge" program. They run the kids through what looks like a version of basic training up at Camp Smith. What happens when something around here actually works? Yep, you got it. State funding for that program got cut off. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 18 Feb 2004 18:14:59 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... I sure agree that public schools can always be improved, Now there is a candidate for understatement of the year. :^) What is the goal of a private religious school? To make preachers? Or to educate children to meet standard criteria in an religous environment? Seems to me that the religious component means nothing as long as the child can meet the standardized testing requirements. In fact, I could care less if the kid gets a bit of Druidism or Buddhism or whatever with his education, as long as he can pass all the required standardized tests. What difference does it make? Kids today are getting an overdose of secular humanism with their public school education, and I dont see you bitching. I would advocate fixing the problem where it is, rather than generating new ones. Jim Sometimes Jim..it takes threat to job and career to get people to get off the pot. This is called in this case, Competition. And its a good thing. Gunner I can't figure out why this issue escapes you! Competition *is* a good thing, you are 100% correct. Funny thing is, that competition you are hungering for is *already* present! The private sector does indeed draw kids away from public schools right now, and folks are 100% free to avail themselves of this choice. Wrong. The average parents educational dollars are locked into paying for public school. If they were well off enough to pay for private school, they would STILL be paying their normal share for public school in addition. Now if you could explain to me why this competition has not already boosted public school performance, I would be interested to hear about it. I thought the free market always finds its own true level. Jim See above. There is NO free market when ones educational dollars are locked into payments to public schools. Ever hear of the Company Store? 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 |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 18 Feb 2004 18:06:42 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... Nationwide standardized testing. Not just per state. W H A T ?????? Hold the phone, somebody just kidnapped gunner and is impersonating him on usenet! I can't believe the one and only *true* gunner would advocate a change from state and local control, to big government federal control, on an issue like this. Psst..no big government control. Government mandated Standards. The state and local systems must meet those standards (as they do now) to be accredited. Someone has to set a national standard that each state and local government must meet. Including teacher quality standards. Education has *always* been handled mostly on a local level, and to some degree on a statewide level. To suggest that the federal government should step in and set standards for education, to set up and supervise testing, and to attempt to punish those who don't perform, is possibly one of the most *liberal* ideas that have floated by on this ng in quite some time. Think of it as UL Labs. No sticker, no creditation. No creditation, no local money to the school. Simple. Lots of national standards for things, such as the fire codes. ( in addition to local ones, which generally follow the national ones..though not always) Think of it as crash test standards...lol Hell..it could be any independant organization, But the Department of Education is already set up. Shrug. They already mandate various quality standards http://www.ed.gov Its evident that state and local agencies are unable or unwilling to set reasonable standards. I'm sure you want to rephrase what you thinking of, because that came as a bit of a shocker. Nope..see my rational above. Gunner ..... And mores the pity. Want to give us a clue as to who was behind that program being shut down? I think we both know. My understanding is that NY is in a major budget crunch. They're cutting everything. But I'll ask my buddy in the know, and report back. Jim ================================================= = please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================= = "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 |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
the Home Schooled was Clark is correct
On 18 Feb 2004 17:59:33 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... The courts (some) find that homosexual marriage is legal Supreme court. Anyway the marriage thing is not the topic so nice try though! Ah..no Supreme court of Mass. A cherry picked liberal court. There are 49 others. Nice attempt at spin though. Gunner Not if the pinheads dont try to micromanage the private schools, and the standard testing is kept high. Let me get this straight: you think the state is going to just *give* money to private schools, no strings attached, and not apply some kind of (excessive) administrative oversight to go along with the funds? As long as they meet the national standards. Yep. Are you still putting cookies out for santa every Xmas Eve too? :^) Jim I usually leave a couple small bottles of JW and a good cigar. Gunner ================================================= = please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================= = "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 |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
Clark is correct
In article , strabo
writes: I seriously doubt that, strabo. What's the basis of that assertion? Something he read in the bathroom, probably. Sure sounds like something he pulled out of his ass, at any rate. So which is it? Which does it taste like? -- Cliff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Clearance between router cutter and guide bush ? | UK diy |