Sorry, I mistakenly thought you were espousing that view rather than explaining that they are held by some conservatives.
I’m not sure what you mean. Conservatives do not object to poor people sending their children to public schools.
Regards,
Shodan
For someone who IIRC earlier claimed he’d always scored above 99% of other students on every standerized tests he’d taken you seem to be dramatically misreading what people are saying.
I would hope not. I merely meant that if the reason for objecting to people who qualify for assistance accepting said assistance is that they don’t pay taxes, then logically the same people should not be allowed to take advantage of free public education either.
However, some conservatives object strongly to poor folks sending their kids to *their *public schools, at least based on many statements I have heard from friends of my sister in law, who lives in an affluent suburb with an excellent school system. The idea seems to be that the kids from what these conservatives refer to as “Little Margaritaville” (a small area within the town’s limits where many Hispanic and Chicano families live) should be sent to a neighboring, poorer school system, so as not to divert tax money from their own kids.
These same folks call another suburb not far away “West Chicano” and think themselves very witty, so I do not offer them as examples of the best and brightest of conservatives. But they’re out there, and they are well-educated people you’d expect to know and think better.
I realize I digress, but then most of this thread is digression…
It is a common pattern here, especially among those who claim to score very high on standardized test (most infamously in the IQ threads.)
Yes, absolutely. I tend to resist the claim, often pushed by the right, that the Great Society was an “abject failure” or whatever. But that part of it–the public housing skyrises–was indeed a spectacular failure, and it really does point to the dispersion approach being a much better idea to pursue.
No, because that was a clear implication of what he said, even if he doesn’t want to stand behind it when challenged. Let’s review:
SlackerInc:
Huck:
Okay, so **huck **is saying that paying to send one’s children to private school instead of public school is comparable to paying to “provide ample and nourishing meals for them, and make sure that they have clean clothes that fit them and are in good repair”. Right? But the comparison can only work if the other choice is something different from that (because no one is denying that there is a difference between public and private school). So the only reasonable inference is that if sending his kids to private school is like providing them with good nutrition and clean, well-fitting clothes that are in good repair, failing to send them to private school must be like failing to provide children those things.
If this is a “dramatic misreading”, please explain in a specific, logical manner how so.
That’s easy. Per-student budget and underpaid, uncertificated teachers aren’t the entire story of education.
Frequently the private schools have a more demanding curriculum, more devoted teachers, more required parent-teacher interaction, and most importantly, the recognition of the fact that if you’re paying above and beyond property taxes to educate your children, you will be more involved and expect more out of those children than otherwise.
That’s why private schools are attractive; they don’t have to fuck around with the lowest common denominator who doesn’t value education or want to be there.
As to why public schools aren’t attractive, it’s because they have to be all things to all people; babysitting for parents who don’t give a shit, academically vibrant to G&T students, adequate to normal students, do well on standardized tests to the state, and try and bring up underperforming kids from households that don’t value education.
If you want your kid to be as academically successful as possible, you want to put your child in an environment that will foster that, and the local school where 50% of the kids are on free lunch and in ESL or remedial classes isn’t that environment.
But that’s not “easy”. You can’t, if you have any kind of scientifically rigourous mind, rule out the possibility that a cherry-picked group of students like that would do just as well in most public schools.
Oy.
One more time–I did not back down when challenged, I explained what I really meant, and apologized for the inference that could be drawn from what I said.
The idea that public school is equivalent to not feeding and clothing your kids adequately would be utterly bizarre and alien to me. Therefore, I did not realize that someone who didn’t know me could draw such an inference from what I said.
Slacker doesn’t know me (doesn’t even know I’m a “she”) and stranger ideas than the one he thought I was expressing have been posted on this board.
There is no inference to be drawn about Slacker’s test scores from this miscommunication. I’m not sure why he won’t take me at my word at this point, but then again I guess he doesn’t have to.
Huck, my argument there was mainly with Ibn over his “dramatic misreading” charge and the general insinuation about my intellectual faculties.
ETA: Sorry I took you for a “he”, although you do have to admit this is likely to happen often with a handle like “huck”!
So, no?
I made no insinuation. I merely said that for a person who claimed to score so highly on repeated standardized tests(the top 1%) you seemed to show a below average ability to understand what people were saying.
I have no doubt you’re correct when you claim to be a genius since I know a former professor at Yale and a current professor at Rutgers who haven’t scored so well on standardized tests.
Meh.
It’s always fun to make your opponents into strawmen.
Why do conservatives like it?
Not for me in particular, but I just would like an admission that that’s what it was. But I’m not allowed on this forum to call it what I think it really was.
It’s hardly just conservatives who engage in strawman arguments.
Funny (in a “pot, kettle” way) about this charge of misunderstanding what people are saying, since I really think you need to provide a cite for when I called myself a “genius”; and you have yet to back up the assertion that my post was a “dramatic misreading”. You could however enlighten me as to what the Yale and Rutgers professors have to do with any of this.
Apologies, most people would think that when one claims that one has scored above 99% of all test takers on multiple standardized tests one is at least implicitly claiming to be a genius.
Beyond that, I have no desire to continue this conversation and if you really need to be “enlighten[ed]” on my posts then it’s safe to say that those who claim that standardized tests are over-rated know what they are talking about.
Anyway, not insult was intended so none should be taken.
Beyond that, I’m not sure the meaning of your “pot kettle” reference, since I have never made any claims at all about how I scored on standardized tests.
Was there something else you were thinking of?
If so, I’d recommend taking it to the pt so we can have a proper conversation.
Ahahaha. Yeah. Didn’t think so. Right on: school is out, son. That’ll be all.
Fantastic. Well done, Shagnasty. This nails it.