Scott Walker recall takes an unexpected turn.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

False dilemma. I would improve the public schools, and not abandon anybody. Giving up is not an option. Unless you are a conservative.

Have you read the link I gave you?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Terr

Have you read the link I gave you?

I'm sure there is a pony in there somewhere. Why don't you just paste the relevant conclusion?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

False dilemma. I would improve the public schools, and not abandon anybody. Giving up is not an option. Unless you are a conservative.

Charter schools are not giving up, they are an idea that sprouted from nothing else working. But perhaps that was premature, as we have yet to hear your ideas on how to improve public schools.

So, what do you propose?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by magellan01

So, what do you propose?

I propose that public schools redefine their task to take into account the lack of basic instruction kids get at home.

Simple.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I'm sure there is a pony in there somewhere. Why don't you just paste the relevant conclusion?

Money is not the answer. But of course you won't accept this. But you won't read the clink either. Interesting.

Just the usual, "I really don't know squat about charter schools or the topic in general, but my ideology says that charter schools are bad, bad, bad, so they must be. Even if they can be shown to work."

So, once again, let's hear your ideas on how to improve things. I, for one am mighty excited to hear them. Just think, with you ideas posted here you could begin to fix the entire system. Think of the kids. Share your insights and let them be showered with the light of the education they deserve.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I propose that public schools redefine their task to take into account the lack of basic instruction kids get at home.

Simple.

Okay. Do you think you can get the teachers' unions on board? Let's start with what some schools do: a workday that goes to 6:30, or a 6-day school week. You on board? Think the unions will be on board?

Oh, and there's the little problem of being able to fire teachers without turning it into a year or two-long affair. Whataya say, you in?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Okay. Do you think you can get the teachers' unions on board? Let's start with what some schools do: a workday that goes to 6:30, or a 6-day school week. You on board? Think the unions will be on board?

Oh, and there's the little problem of being able to fire teachers without turning it into a year or two-long affair. Whataya say, you in?

Studies have shown that does not improve overall test scores. To quote Terr, why should we try something that has been proven to fail?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Studies have shown that does not improve overall test scores. To quote Terr, why should we try something that has been proven to fail?

What are you talking about? What studies are you talking about?

You said you wanted to do what the charter schools were doing to take into account the home environment. I told you what those things were. So, which is it? Do you maintain what you said here:

I propose that public schools redefine their task to take into account the lack of basic instruction kids get at home.

Or not?

If there rare other things you think they should do beyond or aside from what I mentioned, what are they?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by magellan01

What are you talking about? What studies are you talking about?

Post #770

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Post #770

What? That post has nothing to do with what we were just discussing. Never mind that I responded with Post 773 that explained why you were using the wrong metric.

As it stands, you claim you want public schools to adopt those things that have worked for successful charter schools. I point out what those things are and ask if you are in favor of public schools adopting them, and if you think the unions will embrace them. So, here we are again:

You said you wanted to do what the charter schools were doing to take into account the home environment. I told you what those things were. So, which is it? Do you maintain what you said here:

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I propose that public schools redefine their task to take into account the lack of basic instruction kids get at home.

Or not?

If there rare other things you think they should do beyond or aside from what I mentioned, what are they?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I'm sure there is a pony in there somewhere. Why don't you just paste the relevant conclusion?

The conclusion is for 20 years they threw enormous amounts of money at the problem. Way more than the other school districts got. They got no results. And they won't - not until they can remove the destructive minority of the students from the schools. They tried your "I would improve the public schools, and not abandon anybody.". For 20 years and huge funding. They failed. What do you propose they do to achieve your goal?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Terr

The conclusion is for 20 years they threw enormous amounts of money at the problem. Way more than the other school districts got. They got no results. And they won't - not until they can remove the destructive minority of the students from the schools.

Provide examples of communities that improved their test scores by abandoniing problem students.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Provide examples of communities that improved their test scores by abandoniing problem students.

Since public schools are not allowed to select their students - it cannot be shown with public schools. But - every time someone points out a private or charter school that spends less per pupil and gets much better results, the mantra of the liberals is "that's because they don't have to take every student that comes in". Are they wrong?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Provide examples of communities that improved their test scores by abandoniing problem students.

How about you provide what you think should be done.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Terr

Since public schools are not allowed to select their students - it cannot be shown with public schools. But - every time someone points out a private or charter school that spends less per pupil and gets much better results, the mantra of the liberals is "that's because they don't have to take every student that comes in". Are they wrong?

No. That does not make it a good plan to pursue.

Buses can be guaranteed to always run on time if they don't have to stop to pick up passengers.

Besides, I have been assured that charter schools are required to accept all students. Was I misinformed?

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Is this thread not about Walker?
Could you start a GD thread about charter schools rock/suck?


Walker held a brat fry to reach out to the Dems. Some Democratic pricks would not come, but it was a success over all.

Note, it is braaaaat not brat like a spoiled kid. I can't believe Rachael Ray and Alton got it wrong.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Provide examples of communities that improved their test scores by abandoniing problem students.

I believe Houston Texas was (im)famous for this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-591676.html

All in all, 463 kids left Sharpstown High School that year, for a variety of reasons. The school reported zero dropouts, but dozens of the students did just that. School officials hid that fact by classifying, or coding, them as leaving for acceptable reasons: transferring to another school, or returning to their native country.

***snip***

Sharpstown High wasn't the only "outstanding" school. The Houston school district reported a citywide dropout rate of 1.5 percent. But educators and experts 60 Minutes checked with put Houston's true dropout rate somewhere between 25 and 50 percent.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by A nice guy with an opinion

The left got it in 2010.

They liked it so much they asked for more in 2012.

Tonight theyfinally got it.

They hardly finally got it if they already got it in 2010, did they?

Originally Posted by Lochdale

So why then, for example, do low-income blacks vote in such vast numbers for the Democrats? Literacy rates are probably low in those communities

Black adult illiteracy rates are 1.6%. Hardly likely to be a factor in the election (how could they tell which candidate to vote for anyway?), though I do agree with the sentiment that the Republicans should find it easier to attract illiterate voters.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Republican programs tend to foster self-reliance.

Which? Remember:

Originally Posted by Chomsky

Thomas Jefferson, the leading Enlightenment figure in the United States, along with Benjamin Franklin, who took exactly the same view, argued that dependence will lead to "subservience and venality", and will "suffocate[s] the germs of virtue". And remember, by dependence he meant wage labor, which was considered an abomination under classical liberal principles.

Republican positions tend to foster reliance on an employer of some sort in order to survive. That's the opposite of the classical liberal position.

Religious Freedom Amendment: recognises the right to pray in public schools. Reliance on the divine.
Sanctity of Life Act: Foetus requires protection of federal government, can't fend for itself.
Pentagon expenditure
Natural collapse of industry
Workforce Development Programs Act 2011, with $4.3bn for local employment and training, requiring state workforce boards be comprised of no less than 2/3rds of representatives of the business community.
Subsidies
NDAA: indefinite meals and roofing for US citizens.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Not at all. I want them to eat until their bellies are full -- full with fish they learned how to catch, with dignity, instead of standing there as supplicants, with hands out, asking for largess from the government.

Ooh, I love fish metaphors! I remember some effete Jewish working class intellectual expounding something like this?

Originally Posted by Luke

Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.

And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Originally Posted by Luke

Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

Christ, just some socialist, sorry.

Originally Posted by Bricker

You denigrate those who wish to keep the fruits of their labor

Anarchists? See the bit about dependence above.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Republican positions tend to foster reliance on an employer of some sort in order to survive. That's the opposite of the classical liberal position.

Actually, the Republican position would be, "Hey, start your own business and be your own master. In the process you'll be able to help a bunch of other people put food on the table for their families while they figure out how to start their own business." That and some people would just prefer to not have their own business but still have to feed their families.

And do you not find it ionic that you're using a quote from over 200 years ago from a member of the slave-owning landed gentry?

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Hey, start your own business and be your own master. In the process you'll be able to help a bunch of other people put food on the table for their families while they figure out how to start their own business.

One isn't one's own master. There are finite resources in the country and owning a means of production means that it deprives another individual from that ownership. Property rights are unique in that matter, since others rights are not binary. Appropriation of surplus labour through prior access to the means of production is not benevolence. Putting food on the table of their workers is not the motivation. The motivation is to ever perfect the machine that extracts sweat from the back of another.

No, I don't consider it ironic, I consider it hypocritical. The slave owners of the South made the same "two wrongs" plea, claiming that black slaves in their capable hands were better off than the exploited workers in the factories of the North East.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

One isn't one's own master. There are finite resources in the country and owning a means of production means that it deprives another individual from that ownership. Property rights are unique in that matter, since others rights are not binary. Appropriation of surplus labour through prior access to the means of production is not benevolence. Putting food on the table of their workers is not the motivation. The motivation is to ever perfect the machine that extracts sweat from the back of another.

One needn't own land or equipment to start one's own business. have you head of the service sector. There's a trade off people make: do I want to start my own business, including doing freelance work, or work for someone else. Both have advantages and disadvantages. as far as extracting sweat from the back of another, people have and can extract sweat from my back because I CHOOSE to enter in that agreement. If I find it a net benefit to me, I'll accept the arrangement. If not, I won't, and either look for another employer or try to start my own business. You realize that people do this every day, right?

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

No, I don't consider it ironic, I consider it hypocritical. The slave owners of the South made the same "two wrongs" plea, claiming that black slaves in their capable hands were better off than the exploited workers in the factories of the North East.

This is where you go off the rails. A slave relationship is not similar to an employer-employee relationship. If you think it is you have zero grasp of what it means to be a slave. Particularly of the chattel variety that was found in the U.S.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

I believe Houston Texas was (im)famous for this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-591676.html

Well, thats a bit extreme. I think Terr is imply7ing that you could kick out a handful of troublemakers at each school and noticably improve the educational environment.

This is not a novel idea and it has worked in other countries. Of course you end up giving up on some kids while they are still very young and the kids that get put on the "lets just keep them out of jail" category are overwhelmingly the children of the poor and once you are in that category, its pretty hard to get back out BUT, it does make a significant difference for the rest of the kids. So how many kids are you willing to throw under the bus to grease the axle so taht the other kids can make it further?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

So how many kids are you willing to throw under the bus to grease the axle so taht the other kids can make it further?

So, how many kids are you willing to drag down educationally in order to prevent kicking the handful of troublemakers from school?

[elucidator]

Some troublesome kids can be salvaged. Others, presumably, cannot, and are destined for one of our nations many fine penal institutions, where a troublesome and antisocial kid can be transformed, with care and training, into a full blown sociopath.

But fifteen, sixteen? A little early to be written off.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by magellan01

A slave relationship is not similar to an employer-employee relationship.

?

Originally Posted by magellan01

have you head of the service sector

I haven't heard of a single job which didn't require materials of some sort. Land or equipment.

Originally Posted by magellan01

I CHOOSE to enter in that agreement

The anarchist/anarchosyndicalist position is that your choice is hindered in making such a decision when rent and property are endemic. You don't have the option between surviving on the land and performing wage labour for a master, you have the option of performing one or another job for wages.

Edit: Oh, elucidator, I was just reading this. Was fascinating.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Actually, the Republican position would be, "Hey, start your own business and be your own master.

In practice, the GOP is not the friend of small businesses.

[BigAppleBucky]

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...a4bcf887a.html

Gov. Scott Walker used almost $10,000 of his controversial legal defense fund to pay a public relations bill, according to a quarterly report filed with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

According to the report, the Scott Walker Trust paid $9,988 for “public relations” on May 15 to Chicago-based APCO Worldwide Inc.

“This doesn’t seem to square with what the governor said he needed that money for,” said Mike McCabe, executive director of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the election watchdog organization that first reported the filing. “He said over and over, he just needed to pay lawyers to help him with the investigation.”

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...a4bcf887a.html

And perhaps the lawyers said to him, "If you allow you opponents unopposed access to the media, they will shape the narrative and public opinion of this criminal investigation, which will hurt any trial chances and may in fact give rise to a trial even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing."

Question for you: was the use of that money for that purpose illegal?

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And perhaps the lawyers said to him, "If you allow you opponents unopposed access to the media, they will shape the narrative and public opinion of this criminal investigation, which will hurt any trial chances and may in fact give rise to a trial even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing."

Question for you: was the use of that money for that purpose illegal?

Last I read, the Walker people were putting it under the broad umbrella of legal fees. Kind of like a lawyer proclaiming his client's innocence on the steps of the courthouse.

If purely public relations, it might be illegal. Probably a nitpick, if so.

At this point Walker has used up most of the funds he transferred out of his election campaign so he may be transferring more.