Put Them In Jail, Not Back In School

[Orton's Arm]

Like you'd even know an intelligent debate if it bit you in the ass.

That's your excuse for using name-calling instead of engaging in intelligent debate?

[Ramius]

I'd add Bungee Jumper and Ramius to the list of those who prefer name-calling to intelligent debate.

 

Since you lack the necessary intelligence to even have a halfway realistic debate, i'll resort to something more on your level of intelligence...name calling.

[Orton's Arm]

Since you lack the necessary intelligence to even have a halfway realistic debate, i'll resort to something more on your level of intelligence...name calling.

Your excuse is just as lame as Bungee Jumper's! Two peas in a pod . . .

[/dev/null]

Putting them in jail might hurt their self esteem

 

Besides why waste the jail space on them when we should be focusing on more deserving criminals. Like border patrol agents who shoot drug smugglers crossing the border

[jjamie12]

I'm going to give this one more try.

You said:

1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice!

And I responded:

And it really helps further the debate to paint everyone on one side of a political spectrum with a convenient brush so as to dismiss them. As a counter-point to your example, Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as someone who could be labeled as 'far-left' who responds to arguments in a lucid manner. Now, whether or not you agree with those arguments is another story...

Now, you've said:

All I did was state the facts about Kucinich. Are you going to deny/disagree with these facts? How is stating fact(s) "typical of the actual level of 'debate' in our country"? I'm glad the facts about your boy Kucinich are highly entertaining to you. I'm sure they are a hysterical for people in Cleveland. The guy has demonstrated through his own actions that he is not qualified to lead a cub scout den. Moreover, when presented with Kucinich's record by me(go look it up), you start complaining? The guy bankrupted Cleveland on his own, what does that have to do with me?

First of all, Kucinich is not 'my boy'. Second, those 'facts' have nothing to do with the context in which Kucinich was brought up. You said something ridiculous, namely: "Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice!". I called you on it by giving one example of millions of people who respond to arguments without the typical name-calling. Your original statement is just plaing wrong. Third, the reason that this is typical of the level of debate around here is that when called on something silly you said, you spin it around and start talking about Dennis Kucinich's record as the mayor of Cleveland, which had absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand. So, yeah, you're lowering the level of debate about this particular topic.

No, I understand the point your are attempting to make. My issue with it is this: it makes no sense. How much money a guy makes is no guarantee of success! Your logic defies fact!

Are you serious? I thought for sure that you were a 'market-based solution' kind of guy (or gal, I don't know) Our whole American way of life is based on the fact that, in general, the most talented people will advance the farthest and make the most money. This isn't even up for debate, is it? Of course it doesn't 'guarantee' success, there are plenty of people who aren't as talented as others and make it further than they should, Ken Lay (he was obviously not talented enough to be CEO, was he?)being a great example of that. Of course it doesn't disprove the point, either. I'm not suggesting that raising pay would eliminate ALL bad super's, same as sky-high CEO pay doesn't eliminate ALL bad CEO's. I'm simply saying that this may be one way in which you could eliminate most of the bad super's, along with the Board's ability to have wide discretion in firing power, as proposed in the first post of mine. This is the crux of the market-based economy. If the above isn't true, then why do people make different amounts of money?

 

People of all walks of life, that make all levels of money, have to be responsible for the authority they are given. Most managers take great pride in the fact that their people rely on them to do the right thing, at the right time. Money has nothing to do with that! What part of this don't you get? Perhaps you have never led? Perhaps you have not been a manager yet? I dunno? But the simple fact is: any real leader will tell you that there is always a time when everyone in their group, platoon, squad, conference room, etc., stops what they are doing, and looks to them to make a decision. It is at that point in time that the leader either earns the respect of his/her people or doesn't. I guarantee you no one(the leader or the team) is thinking about how much money they each make at that point in time. Dude - check the quotes in the article - every one is about leadership/management decisions. I don't see one where a teacher is saying: "Well, if the Superintendent made more money....."

For whatever reason, you just don't seem to get what I'm trying to say, so I'll try again. Everything you've said above, I agree with. That doesn't change the fact that this super was, obviously, not very talented. One way in which to get more talented people to become super's (and, as a consequence, eliminate more and more of the incompentent super's) is to raise the pay of super's. It is basic economics, no? Higher pay will lead to increased competition which will lead to higher competence. Just think about it. I think you own your own business, right? (I thought I read that from awhile back) What if you were looking for someone to work for you, and every person you hired, for whatever reason, just wasn't competent enough to do the job you were hiring them for. You go through this, say, 6 times over the course of 2 years. Wouldn't your next step be to raise the pay you were offering for this particular job in order to attract better candidates? Why would it be different for educators?

The guy should be fired, period. Not because he lacks talent, but because he just lost the respect of the people he is supposedly "leading".

Doesn't the fact that he lost the respect of the people he was supposedly leading lead you to believe that he doesn't have a talent for leadership? That is the first thing that I think.

 

The following statements in quotes are your questions to me, followed by my answers.

 

"I can see where you wouldn't get the reference."

I didn't understand what the 'beasts of burden' meant and where that came from.

 

"How about answering some simple questions"

OK.

 

"What qualifies you to sit in judgment of this situation such that you can make a definitive statement that simply adding money to this equation will solve all problems?"

The same thing that qualifies you to blindly dismiss adding money to the situation in your previous posts. In short, it is an opinion, same as yours. Also, I NEVER said that "adding money to this equation will solve all problems" -- please don't put words in my mouth. I said very clearly this: "In any event, I believe that someone could make a good case for more $$ for schools based on this example" Notice that I didn't say that it was my idea, or that this would solve all problems, or that this is the only possible solution... just that someone could make a case that should be listened to, not just blindly dismissed.

 

"And, how do you "know" that will work?"

I don't. How do you 'know' it wouldn't? You are the one dismissing opinions around here, not me. You seem to be advocating market-based solutions to the school problem. Hey, MY suggestion was market based, too, how about that?

 

"Why is this the only thing you have offered as a solution?"

Because I was responding to a post of yours in which you were denigrating the idea that adding money to the situation would be fruitless and dumb. Specifically, I was responding to post #9 in this thread (8 too, but mostly 9).

 

"Why are you suggesting that "talent" has a direct relationship to money?"

Really? You DON'T think so?

[Orton's Arm]

I'm going to give this one more try.

I normally have a great deal of respect for OCinPhilly's posts. But in this discussion, he's not up to his usual standard. While he's right to imply that most people on the far left eschew intelligent debate in favor of name calling, that characterization isn't true of all radical leftists. And you're right to imply that raising the salary of superintendents could improve the quality of the applicant pool.

 

But I can't agree with everything you've written either.

 

I'm not suggesting that raising pay would eliminate ALL bad super's, same as sky-high CEO pay doesn't eliminate ALL bad CEO's. I'm simply saying that this may be one way in which you could eliminate most of the bad super's, along with the Board's ability to have wide discretion in firing power, as proposed in the first post of mine. This is the crux of the market-based economy. If the above isn't true, then why do people make different amounts of money?

The crux of a market-based economy is to allow the pricing mechanism to communicate information about relative scarcity. If, for example, gold suddenly becomes much harder to mine, the price will go up, and those who value gold use the least will seek out alternatives. The pay raise you suggest would give us superintendents whose qualities the school board would value most highly. But the qualities valued by a local government bureaucracy aren't necessarily the same qualities that would be valued by a free market. If you want to instill free market-style accountability, you have to allow the use of school vouchers.

[OCinBuffalo]

I normally have a great deal of respect for OCinPhilly's posts. But in this discussion, he's not up to his usual standard.

Whaaaaa! Please don't apply me or my posts to your standards of "intelligent" debate - it is too funny.

[Orton's Arm]

Whaaaaa! Please don't apply me or my posts to your standards of "intelligent" debate - it is too funny.

Dude, jjamie12 got the better of you in this thread. And it's your fault for leaving yourself open to the objections he raised. I suggest you deal with that fact. Blaming the messenger just makes you look like a sore loser.

[molson_golden2002]

We have an update:

 

http://buffalonews.com/101/story/27975.html

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm going to give this one more try.

Don't you think that the number of "tries" might be a hint that you are wrong - or at least not seeing the issue 100% clearly?. You seem completely unable to see beyond one, mind-numbing, conclusion:

 

Good talent = Good money.

 

I have news for you: there are plenty of people who have lots of "TALENT" that purposely CHOOSE jobs that don't necessarily have big $ attached. Conversely, people who have little or no talent MAKE BIG MONEY. Why? Any number of reasons: they might know somebody, they might be some WASP who has gotten lucky with who Daddy is, they might be a minority who was "affirmative-actioned" beyond their capabilities(and before you start yelling please know that a black guy just SUED his employer because of this last year) , they might be part of, or left over from, someone with real talent's baggage train, and many, many others. MONEY != TALENT in every case, actually this is quite common. So here's the real conclusions:

 

For some people:

Good talent = GOOD MONEY

For other people:

Good talent = BAD MONEY

For still other people:

Bad talent = GOOD MONEY

 

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that there is more than one relationship between talent and money. Correlation is not CAUSATION. There may be some correlation between money and talent, but tell that to the Harvard MD I met last week who works for a non-profit. I guarantee you he has a TON OF TALENT, but he only makes paltry money by anyone's standards. There are TONS of examples of people who forgo big $ for other things in life(kids, passion, boredom, etc.)

 

So let's take my third conclusion, and ask a rational question-> How would your proposed "adding money" plan MAKE a guy who simply got his job because of Daddy(or the other examples?) more EFFECTIVE?

Short answer - it won't.

Moreover-> How would your proposed "adding money" plan motivate a Superintendent who was already INTRINSICALLY motivated - because they feel their job is super important, or because they know no one else is willing to do it, etc., more EFFECTIVE?

Short answer - it won't.

 

I am not arguing most of your points, which are firmly WITHIN the first conclusion. Yes, for people that have Talent and desire for money first, Money can be a motivating factor. And yes, limitation of money for a certain job, like Superintendent, may limit the talent pool. Great job on the analysis of CONCLUSION 1 . I'M NOT ARGUING THAT! GET A CLUE!

 

My problem with your conclusion is that you are offering it as the ONLY conclusion, when clearly it is not, regardless of what you are posting now -> that is what you are saying. I am saying that you are, like most liberal thinkers, MASSIVELY OVERSIMPLIFYING THE ISSUE.

 

As far as the left and the name-calling thing, How do you resolve the fact that they have, 90% of the time, said nothing of substance other than the equivalent of "Bush Sucks"? Do you really need me to show you examples? Are you that blind? Look, I'm not necessarily a big Bush fan(based on poor results - not blind ideology), but that doesn't let Michael Moore, Howard Dean, MoveOn.org, Dan Rather, KUCINICH and the rest off the hook: they are doing exactly what they accuse the President of - lying - ALL THE TIME! How does one resolve name calling and stretching/spinning the truth? Simple. DECLARE YOURSELF SUPERIOR, and now everything is ok for you do to. That's what I see: Liberals think they are better - it seems merely because they are liberals, therefore they are entitled to do whatever they need to ensure that they are in power, no matter how intellectually dishonest, or morally vacuous, or bad for the country, that their tactics are. I also see: Every time a liberal policy doesn't produce results, or produces unintended consequences, it's ALWAYS SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT, never the fault of the liberal who came up with it. It's circular reasoning at it's best. And, before you start, I would be just as pissed at Republicans if the situation was reversed.

I think you own your own business, right? (I thought I read that from awhile back) What if you were looking for someone to work for you, and every person you hired, for whatever reason, just wasn't competent enough to do the job you were hiring them for. You go through this, say, 6 times over the course of 2 years. Wouldn't your next step be to raise the pay you were offering for this particular job in order to attract better candidates? Why would it be different for educators?

Doesn't the fact that he lost the respect of the people he was supposedly leading lead you to believe that he doesn't have a talent for leadership? That is the first thing that I think.

As far as you need to know yes, I guess I(and others and soon to be many others) own a "business"(Not making fun of you it's just funny to hear it that way - it was exactly like that at one time). And yes, your example is correct, but once again, your LEAVING OUT parts of the reality. It's different for Educators for two reasons:(I assume you mean teachers - not administrators - but I will cover both)

1. Teachers cannot be fired if they have tenure, Administrators require long term contracts that have huge no-cut consequences(means they get big $ if they are fired) - I can fire anybody I want any time, for just about anything, since we only do non-"At-Will" contracts for very few people(and that you don't need to know ). So the "market" is automatically skewed. I can "upgrade my roster" any time I want with whatever money I want to spend, where that simply does not exist in the land of Educators. Moreover, Administrators are hired by a School Board(bunch of politico wanna-bes IMO), not a company Board of Directors, - and I can absolutely guarantee there is a large difference in the TALENT level there.

2. The Feds, States, and Local communities REGULATE this so-called Educator market to the point that it cannot be classified as a market at all. Why does this matter? Because IF I had to pay each person on one of my teams a fixed amount, I cannot reward TALENT. Nor can I identify specific goals for one individual, and base their salary increases on their performance, since I am required by law to have that person in the first place/have to through hell to get rid of them/have to pay them the same as everybody else regardless of their performance. If they know that(which they do), it puts me in a one-down position at negotiation time. Under this same example, don't forget that there are lawyers circling around me just waiting for me to mess up on just one of these regulations so that they can sue me for millions.

 

No, the Educator "market" is no market at all, so your rationale, based on normal market-based tendencies, simply doesn't apply here AT ALL! Edit: Maybe that is too strong - how about "It's application is SEVERELY limited".

 

"What qualifies you to sit in judgment of this situation such that you can make a definitive statement that simply adding money to this equation will solve all problems?"

The same thing that qualifies you to blindly dismiss adding money to the situation in your previous posts. In short, it is an opinion, same as yours. Also, I NEVER said that "adding money to this equation will solve all problems" -- please don't put words in my mouth. I said very clearly this: "In any event, I believe that someone could make a good case for more $$ for schools based on this example" Notice that I didn't say that it was my idea, or that this would solve all problems, or that this is the only possible solution... just that someone could make a case that should be listened to, not just blindly dismissed.

Fine, you aren't saying it's the only solution. Good, you are saying that there are other options. Ok, why can I "blindly dismiss" your "adding money" strategy? Because after DECADES of being told that if we just "add some more money" and doing that over and over, without clear results, it clearly ain't "adding money" that solves this problem. I am saying that there has to be something besides not "adding enough money" that is the ROOT CAUSE for the issues we see here.

"And, how do you "know" that will work?"

I don't. How do you 'know' it wouldn't? You are the one dismissing opinions around here, not me. You seem to be advocating market-based solutions to the school problem. Hey, MY suggestion was market based, too, how about that?

NO, for the reasons I have already stated, you have posed a false choice -> geared at simply "adding more money" to this situation. Until the "Educator Market" actually acts like a market, market-based solutions do not apply, and therefore, yes, I can easily dismiss them.

 

For the record: I love market-based solutions as much as I love Government based solutions, or any combination of the two, PROVIDED THEY GET RESULTS. The difference here is that you are trying to put me in a box(market-based) and I don't fit in your, or anyone else's, box. Market-Based is superior for some situations (privatize social security), not for others(EPA, DOD). What I don't like is the transaction that substitutes reason for ideology/cheap vote-getting. And in this case, you seem willing to cash that check blindly without consideration of other aspects/rationales.

 

Now, for the good news: We(and yes I do mean me as well) are working on this. We have already proven that there is a root cause for this that has nothing to do with $! I ain't gonna tell you about it because I would be sued by my own company! But yes, I am on this now, right now, and having done the unbiased, objective research/analysis I do, same as on every job I have ever done, therefore yes, I am dismissing your opinion. I promise that if we decide to go forward(not 100% in my hands and because it's a huge investment for us), what we have in mind will help immensely - or it will fail miserably , but I think it's worth the effort regardless - if nothing else to learn what not to do - based for the first time on empirical evidence rather than emotional pining.

"Why is this the only thing you have offered as a solution?"

Because I was responding to a post of yours in which you were denigrating the idea that adding money to the situation would be fruitless and dumb. Specifically, I was responding to post #9 in this thread (8 too, but mostly 9).

It will be fruitless and dumb, just as this argument been proven to be so for DECADES, because there is no way to measure what money, where, and when, actually produces a result! But don't worry, there is a better way to allocate these resources, and based on sound principles and methodology - for once, the result may come out that in fact more money is required, but this conclusion will be, for the first time, based on reason and reproducible data - rather than emotion. And yeah, I really want to apply what I got - I think it will help a lot of people. But of course, I could be wrong - we start two proof-of-concepts next quarter.

"Why are you suggesting that "talent" has a direct relationship to money?"

Really? You DON'T think so?

Yes for all the reasons I already stated - there may be a CORRELATION here, but certainly no CAUSATION, and you can't create, well responsibly create, FISCAL POLICY at any level, based on a mere correlation. Why? Because you can't control all the variables, in an effort to "PROVE" a particular approach works. Ask Holcomb's Arm about correlations - he loves them and thinks that they rule the universe - but that is why he keeps coming up wrong on so many things.

[OCinBuffalo]

Dude, jjamie12 got the better of you in this thread. And it's your fault for leaving yourself open to the objections he raised. I suggest you deal with that fact. Blaming the messenger just makes you look like a sore loser.

Please - read my last, not even close. "Getting the better" isn't why I post here - is that why you post here? I don't use this board to derive any personal satisfaction out of "being right". Do you? Trust me when I say that I get plenty of satisfaction doing what I do in the REAL WORLD. Do you? I post here because I get to see others points of view(which can be highly entertaining/intellectually stimulating) and respond in a forum that basically has no consequential effect on my life(other than the time I spend reading/responding to nonsense like this), ever! Let me assure you that people "getting the better" of me makes me more likely to be interested in this board than not. Why? Because I like learning new things, and contributing when I(think) know something. But I especially like it when somebody points out something I am wrong/didn't think about. Do you?

 

Answer my questions truthfully to yourself and deal with those facts. I dare you.

[OCinBuffalo]

Wow! First off, I never called you any names at all in my reply. You are dreaming up insults to be outraged, I guess. Secondly I only offered a silly reply because your post was silly. You went off on some rant that had nothing at all to do with the story, my position on it or anyone else's postion associated with the story. Who has said more money was needed for this situation? No one. You made that up just like you made up my insulting you. Do you know what the scarecrow was in the Wizard of Oz? He was a strawman. Much like your arguments. I said fire the guy, not pay him more money. Stick to the facts. Maybe if you would do that you wouldn't get so hung up on people thinking they are smart or not.

Right - I created a strawman.(How did I know you would say this? Could it be because you never address the issue in question until I "beat" it out of you?)

 

I figured I would to a "tounge in cheek" to share some analysis I have done recently, albeit in a ridiculous light, to shed some light on how some of these people ACTUALLY think. You can't deal with the reality - so you blame the media? How does your post address the fact that you blamed someone else, this time it's the media , for the clear failure of "add money no matter what" liberal policy, rather than the policy itself for being flawed?

 

Quick Hint: It doesn't. The only Strawman argument here is, again, your wholesale blaming the of media, rather than identifying why/what in the "always add money" policy works and what does not. Yeah it's all the media's fault - you sound like Rush Limbaugh! All I am doing is attempting to explain to you, but mostly others, how easily someone can be goaded into blaming others, post after post, like you have been, when you believe the things I posted that Liberals seem to believe. You can B word at me all you want, but you are the one who is 2/2 on blaming others when flaws in Liberal policy are identified. How else do you explain being so obviously predictable?

[Orton's Arm]

Please - read my last, not even close. "Getting the better" isn't why I post here - is that why you post here? I don't use this board to derive any personal satisfaction out of "being right". Do you? Trust me when I say that I get plenty of satisfaction doing what I do in the REAL WORLD. Do you? I post here because I get to see others points of view(which can be highly entertaining/intellectually stimulating) and respond in a forum that basically has no consequential effect on my life, ever! Let me assure you that people "getting the better" of me makes me more likely to be interested in this board than not. Why? Because I like learning new things, and contributing when I(think) know something. Do you?

 

Answer my questions truthfully to yourself and deal with those facts. I dare you.

I read your above post. The last little bit sounds like you're simply echoing the view of me that Ramius has worked so hard to create. Do you honestly remember a specific example of me confusing correlation with causation? I doubt it, because there haven't been any.

 

Statistical science simply isn't the right tool to answer questions about causation. Statistics can, however, tell us about correlations. Rigorous real world thinking, in combination with equally rigorous statistical methodology, can help us answer the question of causation. I enjoy intelligent debate about possible real world explanations for observed correlations. Is a given correlation a coincidence? The result of some underlying factor? Is A causing B, or is B causing A? Unfortunately, my attempts to participate in that kind of cerebral discussion have generally been drowned out by the name-calling of the Bungee Jumpers and the Ramiuses of these boards.

 

You raised a number of strong points in the rest of your post. That doesn't make jjamie's earlier post any weaker though. I'll agree with you on the following:

- Liberals and radicals very often eschew intelligent debate in favor of name-calling. It seems to come naturally to a lot of them anyway, but name-calling has actually been orchestrated by Democratic Party strategists; as well as by people working for organizations further to the left.

- Many leftist organizations (including just about every radical leftist organization) engages in intellectually dishonest tactics.

- Throwing money at schools won't solve their problems. We already spend more per child than anyone else in the world, yet our schools produce the worst results of any industrialized nation. But that's not really addressing jjamie's point. He merely pointed out that increasing the superintendent's salary would improve the quality of the applicant pool. Presumably, anyone willing to work as a school administrator for $50K would also be willing to do the job for $500K. But that added salary would bring in additional applicants, some of whom might be better qualified than the man who currently has the job. The question is whether the school board would hire the best qualified applicant, or whether it'd hire the applicant with the most friends on the school board.

- The heavy regulation of the school system prevents market forces from producing an efficient outcome. The inefficiency takes two forms: money is being wasted, and children aren't being educated.

[DC Tom]

I read your above post. The last little bit sounds like you're simply echoing the view of me that Ramius has worked so hard to create. Do you honestly remember a specific example of me confusing correlation with causation? I doubt it, because there haven't been any.

 

Statistical science simply isn't the right tool to answer questions about causation. Statistics can, however, tell us about correlations. Rigorous real world thinking, in combination with equally rigorous statistical methodology, can help us answer the question of causation. I enjoy intelligent debate about possible real world explanations for observed correlations. Is a given correlation a coincidence? The result of some underlying factor? Is A causing B, or is B causing A? Unfortunately, my attempts to participate in that kind of cerebral discussion have generally been drowned out by the name-calling of the Bungee Jumpers and the Ramiuses of these boards.

 

Yeah, it's our fault he thinks you're an idiot. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that you are an idiot.

[Ramius]

I read your above post. The last little bit sounds like you're simply echoing the view of me that Ramius has worked so hard to create. Do you honestly remember a specific example of me confusing correlation with causation? I doubt it, because there haven't been any.

 

i havent created anything. You do a great job of that all on your very own. OC is perfectly capabale of realizing that you're an idiot all by himself, based on the way you have tried to argue in this thread.

[OCinBuffalo]

I read your above post. The last little bit sounds like you're simply echoing the view of me that Ramius has worked so hard to create. Do you honestly remember a specific example of me confusing correlation with causation? I doubt it, because there haven't been any.

Yes, I remember last year when we were talking about stats, etc., and I was trying to explain how I do part of my job. I believe you were using a model that is common in Psychology, and I was talking about - OH YEAH! I remember now - we were talking about Offensive Line day one draft picks, and I was critical(and right ) about how you weren't holding something constant, or something like that. Yeah self fulfilling prophecy problems - you conclusion was based on your variables, which were pre-disposed to your conclusion. Whatever, the issue was you were representing a correlation as a causation. You did some good work, it just had that one flaw, whatever it was.....I think playoffs + O line draft picks = good O line draft picks. Yep, of course making the playoffs means you probably drafted/signed good O Lineman, whatever round they were drafted. The correlation was good line = playoffs. We were saying - no schit.

Statistical science simply isn't the right tool to answer questions about causation. Statistics can, however, tell us about correlations. Rigorous real world thinking, in combination with equally rigorous statistical methodology, can help us answer the question of causation. I enjoy intelligent debate about possible real world explanations for observed correlations. Is a given correlation a coincidence? The result of some underlying factor? Is A causing B, or is B causing A? Unfortunately, my attempts to participate in that kind of cerebral discussion have generally been drowned out by the name-calling of the Bungee Jumpers and the Ramiuses of these boards.

I'm not those guys so I don't care what they do - if it's wrong, don't worry about it because each of us that posts here is fairly capable of seeing that for ourselves. I just thought Holcombian Evolution was hysterical - that's it. Come on, you have to admit that was funny. In all seriousness, you always have something intelligent to say(and we know that) - it's just that every time one of these guys picks on you, you respond. Feeds the flames. I am as guilty as anyone on this, and if it really bothers you I will cut it out. (Until the next time you say Holcomb is better than JP of course ) Plus, with your handle, you aren't necessarily endearing yourself to anyone. Don't get me wrong, I respect that you didn't chuck your handle - I bet a lot of posters would have, but you have to expect some arrows heading your way.

You raised a number of strong points in the rest of your post.

Thanks!?

That doesn't make jjamie's earlier post any weaker though.

Not saying he is wrong about the one simple point he is making. I am saying he is only making one point, and a true solution requires a hell of a lot more than that. He has been screaming "Why am I wrong about this one point", and I have been screaming "I don't care about your one point - you have to look at things on the whole - it only solves things for some poeple". Look, he has already acknowledged that "adding money" is not the "only" solution. I'm taking that a step further and saying that I see the same problems in education, and I see the same dumb thinking, and I see the same non-solutions, and I see the same lack of accountability, and I see the same lack of communication, and I see the same lack of workflow management/issue resolution/analytic tools(and much more), that I saw in healthcare and utilities. Therefore the strength or weakness of his one point is immaterial compared to the holistic solution I envision.

I'll agree with you on the following:

- Liberals and radicals very often eschew intelligent debate in favor of name-calling. It seems to come naturally to a lot of them anyway, but name-calling has actually been orchestrated by Democratic Party strategists; as well as by people working for organizations further to the left.

- Many leftist organizations (including just about every radical leftist organization) engages in intellectually dishonest tactics.

You know its getting to the point where I am tired of saying this. It's so obvious, and it's so obvious that some here are blinded by this, that I'm questioning why I should bother pointing it out. I mean - what good will it do? But it does make for some fun.

- Throwing money at schools won't solve their problems. We already spend more per child than anyone else in the world, yet our schools produce the worst results of any industrialized nation. But that's not really addressing jjamie's point. He merely pointed out that increasing the superintendent's salary would improve the quality of the applicant pool. Presumably, anyone willing to work as a school administrator for $50K would also be willing to do the job for $500K. But that added salary would bring in additional applicants, some of whom might be better qualified than the man who currently has the job. The question is whether the school board would hire the best qualified applicant, or whether it'd hire the applicant with the most friends on the school board.

We HAVE to go beyond this. It's not good enough to say: Talented Guy + Good Money = Results as Superintendent, because all of that assumes a POINT IN TIME, and, once the decision is made to hire the Super, the assumption is that it will remain a good decision OVER TIME. You know that is not the case. We need better tools to evaluate(well how about first we need tools to understand) performance of Supers/Principals/Teachers. We need a way to reward good behavior based on palpable results. (I'm not in the punishment business - I just advise clients to have short conversations with those who don't want to be accountable)

- The heavy regulation of the school system prevents market forces from producing an efficient outcome. The inefficiency takes two forms: money is being wasted, and children aren't being educated.

There is a way to deal with all of this - that's what I do - it's merely a question of getting it done.

[Orton's Arm]

Yes, I remember last year when we were talking about stats, etc., and I was trying to explain how I do part of my job. I believe you were using a model that is common in Psychology, and I was talking about - OH YEAH! I remember now - we were talking about Offensive Line day one draft picks, and I was critical(and right ) about how you weren't holding something constant, or something like that.

I remember that discussion. I ran a regression which showed that for each starting offensive lineman a team obtains in the first round of the draft, it will (on average) win two additional games per year. I found a weaker correlation between 2nd and 3rd round picks and additional wins. Someone--it may have been you--pointed out that this correlation isn't necessarily unique to the offensive line. It could just be a question of your team winning more games because its first round picks (in general) work out. As a control, I should have run the same regression for other positions. But it's time-consuming enough that I haven't yet gotten around to doing so.

 

This regression, BTW, was something I threw together on a spur-of-the-moment impulse. I didn't realize that months later, people would be making assumptions about me based on whatever shortcomings it may have had.

I'm not those guys so I don't care what they do - if it's wrong, don't worry about it because each of us that posts here is fairly capable of seeing that for ourselves. I just thought Holcombian Evolution was hysterical - that's it. Come on, you have to admit that was funny.

I don't remember who came up with that--it may have been Ramius. Whoever it was, I vaguely remember finding his whole personality so intensely annoying that I wasn't going to be overly amused by anything he had to say. Especially when he was using humor as a vehicle to communicate his own misconceptions about evolution.

In all seriousness, you always have something intelligent to say(and we know that) - it's just that every time one of these guys picks on you, you respond. Feeds the flames. I am as guilty as anyone on this, and if it really bothers you I will cut it out. (Until the next time you say Holcomb is better than JP of course ) Plus, with your handle, you aren't necessarily endearing yourself to anyone. Don't get me wrong, I respect that you didn't chuck your handle - I bet a lot of posters would have, but you have to expect some arrows heading your way.

I've tried ignoring the flames. But Bungee Jumper will say something, and Ramius will respond, and Bungee Jumper will respond back. Sooner or later someone else will find some humor in one of their wisecracks. The flames seem to feed themselves, even without my help. That said, I realize there have been times when I've written well thought-out, intelligent responses when the people I was responding to didn't deserve anything better than a one-line put-down.

Not saying he is wrong about the one simple point he is making. I am saying he is only making one point, and a true solution requires a hell of a lot more than that. He has been screaming "Why am I wrong about this one point", and I have been screaming "I don't care about your one point - you have to look at things on the whole - it only solves things for some poeple". Look, he has already acknowledged that "adding money" is not the "only" solution. I'm taking that a step further and saying that I see the same problems in education, and I see the same dumb thinking, and I see the same non-solutions, and I see the same lack of accountability, and I see the same lack of communication, and I see the same lack of workflow management/issue resolution/analytic tools(and much more), that I saw in healthcare and utilities. Therefore the strength or weakness of his one point is immaterial compared to the holistic solution I envision.

Agreed. I'll go one step further and say that additional money isn't necessarily part of the correct answer at all.

 

You know its getting to the point where I am tired of saying this. It's so obvious, and it's so obvious that some here are blinded by this, that I'm questioning why I should bother pointing it out. I mean - what good will it do? But it does make for some fun.

 

We HAVE to go beyond this. It's not good enough to say: Talented Guy + Good Money = Results as Superintendent, because all of that assumes a POINT IN TIME, and, once the decision is made to hire the Super, the assumption is that it will remain a good decision OVER TIME. You know that is not the case. We need better tools to evaluate(well how about first we need tools to understand) performance of Supers/Principals/Teachers. We need a way to reward good behavior based on palpable results. (I'm not in the punishment business - I just advise clients to have short conversations with those who don't want to be accountable)

 

There is a way to deal with all of this - that's what I do - it's merely a question of getting it done.

No question there. It's a failed system, and adding money to a failed system gives you a failed system plus a huge debt. I don't see the existing institutions as salvageable. Individual teachers? In many cases, yes. But not the institutions. So yes, what's needed is a holistic solution where we start from scratch.

[molson_golden2002]

And yet another update! Now a grand jury is going to be involved. Good to know my post here got noticed and people are finally doing something about this:

 

http://buffalonews.com/101/story/28549.html

[DC Tom]

And yet another update! Now a grand jury is going to be involved. Good to know my post here got noticed and people are finally doing something about this:

 

http://buffalonews.com/101/story/28549.html

 

Yeah, I'm sure the DA was trolling the internet and found your posts. It's entirely your doing.

[molson_golden2002]

Yeah, I'm sure the DA was trolling the internet and found your posts. It's entirely your doing.

Our society needs doers!