Ideology Over Results, A Liberal Tradition

[Azalin]

You never had instruction in them outside of school, because the public sector took them over. The public sector becomes a near monopoly on services wherever they insert themselves.

 

As examples, little league and pop-warner generate far greater involvment than school teams do; but wouldn't exist if elementary schools offered teams which made participation exclusionary, and as such, you'd have a far lower rate of participation.

while I understand (and largely agree with) your point, I can tell you that going back to when I first began attending school in 1962, there was no symphonic or orchestral training in the greater Buffalo/Niagara Falls area for children outside of school. the music theory course alone that I attended in high school (it was based on the primary music theory course from Eastman) was something I would have had to wait until college to take. I did have additional instruction outside of school, but that was for developing technique, not working within the framework of a classically oriented symphony. my family was never poor, but the cost for outfitting a child with timpani, xylophones, and the like would have made participation impossible for me. in addition, many children don't get any exposure to anything but commercial pop music (via their parents or their peers.....most of which is pretty vacuous no matter what generation it comes from) in the home. the first time I saw an orchestra performing the molto vivace movement from Beethoven's 9th was at school, and it had an everlasting effect on me. I seriously doubt if I'd have had that experience if it hadn't happened at school.

 

A musician would see things differently I imagine

this is a breakthrough. for once, you understand me completely.

 

You would be lynched in Texas for a proposal like this. No high school football? Ha!

no truer thing has ever been posted on this board. high school football is a religion down here.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Azalin

[B-Man]

Winning the War on Charter Schools

by Reihan Salam

 

The public charter school movement is entering a new phase. To put it bluntly, charter schools are finally becoming genuinely frightening to the powers-that-be in traditional public education, and for good reason. Charter schools have always been frightening to traditional public schools for the simple reason that they are granted wide autonomy to develop new instructional models, and most of the people associated with traditional public schools are afraid of change, or rather afraid of change that doesn’t involve increasing compensation levels.

 

This is true of the people associated with most organizations, public or private, but public schools have long been shielded from the entry of new start-ups that leave them no choice but to start doing things in new ways. Brick-and-mortar retailers might resent Amazon.com for forcing them to experiment with new pricing models, or to have to learn how to deliver their products across vast distances quickly and inexpensively, but they often have a hard time strangling innovative business models in the crib — for one thing, incumbent businesses are often divided amongst themselves as to how to respond to new threats.

 

In contrast, traditional public educators benefit from (a) enormous political influence, a product of the size of the public education workforce and the organization of large swathes of this workforce into effective labor unions, which are keen to protect the interests of their median members; and (b) the fact that “business-as-usual” has prevailed for so long makes it easy for people to assume that newness is bad. You don’t generally have competing unions of public school teachers with dramatically different attitudes towards charters, despite the fact that you have individual public school teachers who might be sympathetic, or who might think that the competition for talent among charter schools might actually leave them better off than they are under the unionized status quo. But unions, like all democratic organizations should, represent the interests of their median members, and it is generally true that the teachers who think they’d be better off in a more diverse, competitive educational landscape represent a minority.

 

So unionized public school teachers have, from the start, fought to limit the expansion of public charters and, to the extent possible, their organizational autonomy. For example, if public charters are required to be subject to the collective bargaining agreements that prevail in a given district, you’ve kind of defeated the point of having a charter school, which is to allow school administrators and teachers to experiment with new ways of doing things. This is all old news. The new news, or the newish news, is that after years of fighting these battles, public charters have nevertheless kept growing.

 

 

 

more at link

[TakeYouToTasker]

while I understand (and largely agree with) your point, I can tell you that going back to when I first began attending school in 1962, there was no symphonic or orchestral training in the greater Buffalo/Niagara Falls area for children outside of school. the music theory course alone that I attended in high school (it was based on the primary music theory course from Eastman) was something I would have had to wait until college to take. I did have additional instruction outside of school, but that was for developing technique, not working within the framework of a classically oriented symphony. my family was never poor, but the cost for outfitting a child with timpani, xylophones, and the like would have made participation impossible for me. in addition, many children don't get any exposure to anything but commercial pop music (via their parents or their peers.....most of which is pretty vacuous no matter what generation it comes from) in the home. the first time I saw an orchestra performing the molto vivace movement from Beethoven's 9th was at school, and it had an everlasting effect on me. I seriously doubt if I'd have had that experience if it hadn't happened at school.

It will never happen outside of school unless we give it a chance to.

 

Here's the thing: people find these experiences valuable; and for the record, I'm no different. I strongly believe that diversity in experiences helps individuals learn who they are as they grow.

 

The stark difference is, that I've never found government to be the most efficient or effective administrator of positive impacts; and I can't see how it's any different when it comes to education.

 

You would be lynched in Texas for a proposal like this. No high school football? Ha!

It would absolutely be beyond controversial at first, but I think that after only a short time, after seeing the quality of play drasticly increase with the advent of better coaching, corporate sponsorship, compensated athletes, and a more effective feeder system; they would quickly come around.

 

Texas football has nothing on South American and European soccer in terms of rabid local fans (the fans in much of Europe actually own stakes in their field clubs, and pay annual dues); and the system I advocate for has produced amazing results there.

[Azalin]

It will never happen outside of school unless we give it a chance to.

 

Here's the thing: people find these experiences valuable; and for the record, I'm no different. I strongly believe that diversity in experiences helps individuals learn who they are as they grow.

 

The stark difference is, that I've never found government to be the most efficient or effective administrator of positive impacts; and I can't see how it's any different when it comes to education.

 

 

I'll never disagree on the point that government programs or projects are inefficient. many public schools are already dropping things like advanced art courses and band from their curricula directly because of such inefficiencies. it just boggles my mind that so much money (how much is spent on average per student per year? it has to be an awful lot) can be spent on public schools, yet they continue to offer less & less to the students.

[OCinBuffalo]

If you read through my school board experience you would see the effort to bring rhetoric into policy is much more complicated and nuanced than "Obama sucks"

 

Yes - I think the GOP is out of touch with reality. They have no pragmatic alternative to the ACA, no pragmatic executable policy on immigration, they still focus much too much time on losing social commentary, do not recognize global warming (I am not going AG on you), I also think that a huge problem - maybe the biggest we have - is the lack of middle class income growth. I do not see the GOP getting their arms around this. It seems the GOP victories these days are due to redistricting and it makes me sick to see the efforts to change voter laws to constrict voting. Hey - let's win by having better ideas.

 

Want proof the GOP is out of it. A black community activist with a losing record, an Islamic father, and an Islamic name just kicked the GOP candidates ass in the last election.

 

I consider myself "R" and don't vote D....but I am terribly disappointed with where the GOP is right now. Our country needs a strong GOP.

You're being a dumbass, here, is why you get called dumbass, here.

There's a simple solution: Stop being a dumbass, here.

 

You want to talk about external examples like your experience vs. mine? No you don't. You wouldn't last one day in my job: Largely because you have a bad habit of dropping thoughtless assertions, and can never back them up. You don't even try. Then? You avoid answering tough questions, here, that wouldn't even be being asked of you, if you hadn't made a dumbass assertion, and begged these questions in the first place. That's "endangering the sale/project" here, and you get fired for that.

 

Sorry, but compared to what I do, which is the NFL in every way, especially in terms of "complicated and nuance"? You are playing intramurals with your school board stuff. If your experience had taught you anything, you'd know better than to keep thoughtlessly walking yourself into one self-generated land mine after the next.

 

And here's an example of thoughtless assertion-->land mine: "The GOP has no pragmatic alternative to the ACA"

 

Yes they do, dumbass. Your problem: you are ignorant of them. They have put all sorts of plans together. The problem isn't lack of plans, the problem is: getting everybody behind one plan. Which, if you actually did your own work/thinking, instead of parroting, you'd realize is a good problem to have: this time the "new ACA" or, the "plan to replace ACA" plan is actually going to have to stand on it's own merits, and be defensible, unlike what the Democrats rammed through.

 

We'll start with this single example of your dumbass assertion, which specifically denies the nuance and level of complication surrounding the GOP efforts to replace ACA with something better, before we move on to the rest of your dumbass assertions.

 

Give the above: what exactly proves you aren't a dumbass?

Edited March 19, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'll never disagree on the point that government programs or projects are inefficient. many public schools are already dropping things like advanced art courses and band from their curricula directly because of such inefficiencies. it just boggles my mind that so much money (how much is spent on average per student per year? it has to be an awful lot) can be spent on public schools, yet they continue to offer less & less to the students.

If you ask baskin, he'll tell you to blame healthcare.

[Azalin]

If you ask baskin, he'll tell you to blame healthcare.

yep, because we all know that school districts weren't experiencing out of control budgets before health care became an issue.

[boyst]

What type of national health care do you think would save the nation money and be feasible?

 

That's horrible. Sports were and are such a part of school that I couldn't even imagine them not being there. Sports teaches young people so many life skills that it is just as important as the academic subject. Hard work, team work, how to lose gracefully--Tom??--dedication, fair play and fitness. I suppose Music and art are important, too, but I just know sports first hand help so many kids. not to mention it gets a lot of kids into the schools and learning. Many probably wouldn't even go if they didn't play sports.

id hate to have you on any team i was on. I'd have run you off Johnny Martian style.

 

Youre too weak and it shows.

 

 

Because it's cheaper for the tax-payer, would largely be paid for by businesses, would be far more inclusive and cast a wider participation net, has been far more effective in other countries at achieving all of those goals, and, ultimately, produces a better product.

 

So, if your goals are higher inclusion and wider participation, better delievery and service, cheaper administration, and a better product: then my suggestion is the proven model for success; and is already being advocated for by MLB and MLS

 

If you're opposed, you've tethered yourself to a less effective system, primarily because you favor government involvment in those arenas, and that makes you an ideologue.

I agree with what you're saying with the only exception being the industrial arts/trades.

 

Follow the European model and get kids to develop trades while they're able to and can then contribute to society immediately.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I agree with what you're saying with the only exception being the industrial arts/trades.

 

Follow the European model and get kids to develop trades while they're able to and can then contribute to society immediately.

The prior system we had in place, focused on private apprenticeship, worked far better.

[boyst]

 

The prior system we had in place, focused on private apprenticeship, worked far better.

maybe I missed it and I am not trying to be rude in asking, but please at least give me a quick recap.

 

Who is we? What was the system? I'm guessing it was before my time (70's) As per my knowledge - the industrial arts really took off in the 70's and music was before that - at least by my account of watching Mr Hollands Opus.

[3rdnlng]

maybe I missed it and I am not trying to be rude in asking, but please at least give me a quick recap.

 

Who is we? What was the system? I'm guessing it was before my time (70's) As per my knowledge - the industrial arts really took off in the 70's and music was before that - at least by my account of watching Mr Hollands Opus.

 

Rowena was hot in that flick. Not so much afterwards.

[TH3]

My point with HC is this: I worked budgets for 6 years and HC costs are such a budget buster for everyone, public, private...young old....if our HC costs were on par with the rest of the world life would be easier on so many fronts. That's all.

Edited March 21, 2014 by baskin

[Tiberius]

id hate to have you on any team i was on. I'd have run you off Johnny Martian style.

 

Youre too weak and it shows.

 

 

I'm weak? That's funny!

 

You base that upon what? Ignorance is all you have for this and every other argument you make.

 

 

[boyst]

I'm weak? That's funny!

 

You base that upon what? Ignorance is all you have for this and every other argument you make.

You would be a crappy team player. You view your ideals too strongly and based on weak principle which means you'd be mentally weak, a bad team player and find excuses or causes on your errors. If you lead a block or had to make a play there would be a reason you would fail before you even attempted. There would be a bounty on you if you ever make the practice field.

 

I don't know you as a person but I know how you'd stack up on a team. It is not personal. You just wouldn't cut it.

 

My point with HC is this: I worked budgets for 6 years and HC costs are such a budget buster for everyone, public, private...young old....if our HC costs were on par with the rest of the world life would be easier on so many fronts. That's all.

I wonder who you used to be in your previous user name life.

[OCinBuffalo]

My point with HC is this: I worked budgets for 6 years and HC costs are such a budget buster for everyone, public, private...young old....if our HC costs were on par with the rest of the world life would be easier on so many fronts. That's all.

Yet again you drop another thoughtless assertion.

 

Our health care costs ARE on par with the rest of the world's. The difference is: we report our health care cost straight up, all of them.

 

They do not. They look at what "they" are paying, ONLY in terms of what the government is paying. They don't account for side payments(because they are illegal, but everybody does it) or private insurance in their "per capital health care spending" charts.

 

You need to understand the very real difference between what is actually happening, and some report you get sitting at your school board meeting. They are not the same thing.

 

What you will get if we do what "everybody else" does: sure, you'll get your nice report that says costs have gone down, and therefore your district has to pay less. And, if that's all you care about, getting that report, then fine, but: it's a lie. It's a lie, because instead of really paying for health care, the government is just setting an abritrary, low reimbursement rate, and then? The providers start taking the "side payments" to deliver care/see your health care enrollees first, which make them whole.

 

The teacher's union will work something out with the local hospital, so teacher's get first crack, but you aren't in that union, so either you grease some palms at the emergency room, or, you wait for 3 days.

 

That's the reality of the rest of the world's fake, "low health care costs" here. You want nice cost reports that show you're doing a good job on the school board? Hell, I can print out all sorts of nice reports for you using this: http://d3js.org/ but the underlying data will all be a lie.

 

Rather than actually cutting costs, all the rest of the world does: move those costs from one payer to another, and report on the difference.

 

Single Payer: one of the biggest lies ever, because in any Single Payer system, you will always find multiple payers. Always.

 

You want to focus on costs, fine, let's do that. But, just stop with this is "rest of the world" crap. Again, your assertion is completely false.

[Tiberius]

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2013/11/bring-them-in

 

 

It takes a village?? That's his solution to poverty?

 

Look at any thriving marriage, friendship, church, charity, Little League, historical society, theater company, PTA, neighborhood or business. What makes America exceptional – and life worth living - is not simply individual freedom, but the heroic, empowering communities that free individuals form.

Free enterprise and civil society operate in the natural human space - between the isolated individual and the impersonal state - where we live, and love, and flourish… where everyone can earn a good living and build a good life… where the strong and the vulnerable alike can pursue their happiness, and find it… together.

 

And how do we get there??

[TH3]

Yet again you drop another thoughtless assertion.

 

Our health care costs ARE on par with the rest of the world's. The difference is: we report our health care cost straight up, all of them.

 

They do not. They look at what "they" are paying, ONLY in terms of what the government is paying. They don't account for side payments(because they are illegal, but everybody does it) or private insurance in their "per capital health care spending" charts.

 

You need to understand the very real difference between what is actually happening, and some report you get sitting at your school board meeting. They are not the same thing.

 

What you will get if we do what "everybody else" does: sure, you'll get your nice report that says costs have gone down, and therefore your district has to pay less. And, if that's all you care about, getting that report, then fine, but: it's a lie. It's a lie, because instead of really paying for health care, the government is just setting an abritrary, low reimbursement rate, and then? The providers start taking the "side payments" to deliver care/see your health care enrollees first, which make them whole.

 

The teacher's union will work something out with the local hospital, so teacher's get first crack, but you aren't in that union, so either you grease some palms at the emergency room, or, you wait for 3 days.

 

That's the reality of the rest of the world's fake, "low health care costs" here. You want nice cost reports that show you're doing a good job on the school board? Hell, I can print out all sorts of nice reports for you using this: http://d3js.org/ but the underlying data will all be a lie.

 

Rather than actually cutting costs, all the rest of the world does: move those costs from one payer to another, and report on the difference.

 

Single Payer: one of the biggest lies ever, because in any Single Payer system, you will always find multiple payers. Always.

 

You want to focus on costs, fine, let's do that. But, just stop with this is "rest of the world" crap. Again, your assertion is completely false.

 

For one - i have not proposed ANY HC programs - so get off my back.

Second - got ANY reports etc that show these "shadow costs" that other countries have?

[TH3]

Apparently Not!

[3rdnlng]

Apparently Not!

 

Now you've gone and done it! You should not have poked the bear.

[TH3]

Now you've gone and done it! You should not have poked the bear.

 

Bueller......