| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Bard, an insightful observation. But while intent may not be discriminatory, the impact may well be. On education, you need to argue from statistics, not an isolated case. Anecdotes can prove anything. I have no doubt that I would have taken my kids out of Oakland schools, and I have a first grader now, reading above 4th grade level, where I am tempted to tell his parents to consider private schools. He is smart enough to be in college by 16. But those are isolated cases.
I doubt Hawaiian schools are all that bad, but this is an interesting article about the impact of the high cost of living, which leads to turnover. While experience doesn't make you gifted as a teacher, it makes you better every year if you are working at it.
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2013/09/05/19820-how-come-so-many-teachers-bail-on-hawaiis-public-schools/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My beautiful blonde niece taught in Kahului for 3 years. She had her sights on the Aloha spirit and living in Paradise.
She said the locals treated her poorly. In fact abusively. It wasn't as much about the money, (although important), as it was she was a liberal trying to make a contribution to the world. They even had free rent at my pad to get them started on their adventure.
The names she was called, and the stories she told would make anyone sick. She finally gave up.
Don't you think that a little red school house might just be better? No federal mandates. Just state guidelines. My son says he could get everything done in 2 hours a day as he gets done in 7 at school. Balancing checkbooks, work ethic, community involvement are tops in my book. Public schools doesn't seem to push this on most students. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That really surprises me, given this:
Why Hawaii Is the Most Liberal State in the Country
from http://tinyurl.com/opanhm3 .
(Why the article says to put aside Fox News escapes me, as at least Bill O'Reilly agrees, based on its legislative disregard for the welfare and protection of its children and its countless other extreme Left "principles". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hawaii is a mess. As it turns out a pleasant mess.
On the downside, I received a cat scan 2 years ago for a kidney stone. The tech apologized because "the machine was an 8 slice, not a 64 slice like on the mainland".....Not to worry he was a nice guy.
2 years later I find out it wasn't a kidney stone. I went through 2 years of pain until I was diagnosed with a better machine. It wasn't a kidney stone. All I needed was a pill, and presto, I'm good.
Hawaii has one of the most responsive and liberal medical systems in the US. The problem is the technology is 1980's. UFR!!!! Does anyone get the gist of my comment? This is how they pay for their liberal system. It's like getting fuc$ed in the ass with a lot of KY. Not so bad until you realize what' happening to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bard--I would suggest that you get out more, but if you are actually interested in schools, read Diane Ravitch. She was the #2 or #3 person in the Bush I administration (the one with the brain), and has solid Republican credentials. This is just wrong:
| Quote: | | Don't you think that a little red school house might just be better? No federal mandates. Just state guidelines. My son says he could get everything done in 2 hours a day as he gets done in 7 at school. Balancing checkbooks, work ethic, community involvement are tops in my book. Public schools doesn't seem to push this on most students. |
Looking back towards "Little House on the Prairie" days, for education or anything else, is a fantasy. Virtually everything that depends on an educated public is better now, and the United States continues to lead the world, despite the complaints about the failing education system.
Ravitch's new book makes the very salient point that the education systems in China and South Korea are better at teaching students to memorize facts useful in taking tests--but poor at stimulating the areas of education that result in innovation and creativity. Both countries are looking at the US system for guidance on that score. In her book, from Vivek Wadhwa, an Indian American technology entrepreneur, on American education and independence and social skills: | Quote: | | "They learn to experiment, challenge norms, and take risks. They can think for themselves and they can innovate. This is why America remains the world leader in innovation." |
Ravitch also makes the point that much of the political force behind the "choice" movement comes from businesses that want to capture the revenue stream in education. Charter schools represent only a tiny fraction of US Students, and cannot possibly account for the gains made in education over the last three decades. But like all American business interests, they will advertise--and some will be susceptible. (By the way, Michelle Rhee, controversial former head of D.C.'s public schools has raised millions of dollars through her StudentsFirst organization, but misunderstands, or misrepresents, the results of much of testing. She also doesn't respond to letters, I have found.)
Certainly not all of the political support for better education is corporate or privatist, and there are definitely schools--mainly in poor rural and urban areas--that are doing a terrible job. But you have to be careful when a substantial amount of the money behind the movement is coming from the far-right Broad foundation, and the policy work is being done by ALEC.
However, I would agree with you that the Federal government should have a smaller, not greater role, in public education. I think that both Bush and Obama have gotten it wrong. Innovation, and the best responses to local school failures do not come from top down policy, but from local support for better schools. As Ravitch recommended during her tenure under Bush I, the best role for the Federal government is to develop, but not mandate, better curriculum. While that will leave some states and local districts to dumb down their teaching, or try to add bible studies, it will avoid having the Federal government as a symbol that diverts attention from effective reform.
The new Core Standards are a curious example, and I have been working with them for most of a year now. They are a result of the corporatist reform efforts, with push coming from the Gates' foundation and from the Obama administration. They have been adopted by most states. The improvements in math teaching at the primary school level are phenomenal. There is a much better conceptual framework for understanding, rather than memorizing, much of the structure of mathematical operations. It has been hard on the teachers, but, I think, will eventually help the transition to conceptual math from computational math. For about 6 years, the principal had me pull out the kids who were strong in math, and getting bored, and teach them more advanced skills. I struggled to find material, and used everything from "Math Contests" to Mensa logic problems. Virtually all of what I taught is now mainstreamed, in a much better framework.
On the other hand, I am not much impressed with the reading and language skills aspects of the Common Core. I teach them to first graders, and can see the emphasis on better grammar with kids who haven't learned it at home. But the best way to teach language skills is to get them writing, and edit their work, and they aren't really ready for that until fourth or fifth grade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14890
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | Hawaii is a mess. As it turns out a pleasant mess.
On the downside, I received a cat scan 2 years ago for a kidney stone. The tech apologized because "the machine was an 8 slice, not a 64 slice like on the mainland".....Not to worry he was a nice guy.
2 years later I find out it wasn't a kidney stone. I went through 2 years of pain until I was diagnosed with a better machine. It wasn't a kidney stone. All I needed was a pill, and presto, I'm good.
Hawaii has one of the most responsive and liberal medical systems in the US. The problem is the technology is 1980's. UFR!!!! Does anyone get the gist of my comment? This is how they pay for their liberal system. It's like getting fuc$ed in the ass with a lot of KY. Not so bad until you realize what' happening to you. |
you crack me up with your out of context justifications. Do you really think through your thoughts before you puke them out. You really need to think before you puke in public.
Hawaii is a SMALL friggen island that is far away from the mainland. The population of the largest city in Hawaii does not have the cost benefit to being able to afford state of the art machinery. If it did a private company would come in with a scan machine if the hospitals did not have the proper tool. Just like I bet I could not find state of the art manufacturing machines in Hawaii. You just do not have a population that could justify it, so I bet there just a lot of simple 3 axis CNC machines, not the complex ones for a population of 800k people as the largest city.
Of the super computers in the USA how many are in Hawaii? does that mean because Hawaii has socialized medicine they are not there too?
Now another one is Massachusetts that has socialized medicine, with your il-logic stated/implied theorem that would mean the top hospitals in not only the USA but the world that are based in Boston can not be there because they would own old technology machines like Hawaii.
As I said as the norm you seem to talk from your arse vs thinking through obvious things that need to be taken into consideration before one should be shouting out in public with their hate rants. Do you have no shame?
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Democrat Alabama State Representative Alvin Holmes just made his controversial rant in which he claimed that white Republicans would support abortion if their daughter became pregnant by black man even more weird. After Holmes made that outrageous statement on the floor of the Alabama House, he vow to sell his house and bring $100,000 in a briefcase if anyone proved him wrong.
Some time later, Jeremy and Beverly Owings organized at the Alabama House. The protesters consisted of white families in Alabama who had adopted black babies. They demanded that Holmes honor his bet and pay up. Holmes would not respond to media inquiries on that day. However, he did offer a response when he called into a radio show that had the host, the Owens, the listeners, and now people across the nation scratching their heads.
This is the new pollution. There is a war on Whites on the fringes of liberal progressives, and you wonder why there is no polite discourse in congress? This guy should be driven out like David Duke and the KKK. (but he won't be, because he's got a D on his shirt) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A white family adopting a black child is a whole lot different than if a daughter of a white family gets pregnant from a black man. Anybody who has ever been to Alabama knows how whites feel about blacks in their midst, and especially if they are messing around with their women.
Given the fact that white Republican Christians are big opponents of abortion, State Representative Holmes is really stirring the pot. For a pregnant white Christian woman, it would be hard to say what would be worse, having a black child and living with it, or having the secret abortion and living with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| swchandler wrote: | A white family adopting a black child is a whole lot different than if a daughter of a white family gets pregnant from a black man. Anybody who has ever been to Alabama knows how whites feel about blacks in their midst, and especially if they are messing around with their women.
Given the fact that white Republican Christians are big opponents of abortion, State Representative Holmes is really stirring the pot. For a pregnant white Christian woman, it would be hard to say what would be worse, having a black child and living with it, or having the secret abortion and living with that. |
I would assume that the pregnant white Christian woman chose to sleep with the black man of her own free will. Why would it be any more difficult? IT IS HER PRECIOUS LITTLE BABY.......why would she kill her own child? How could her choice to sleep with a black man then that be construed to mean she's choose abortion over God and her own baby? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | | swchandler wrote: | A white family adopting a black child is a whole lot different than if a daughter of a white family gets pregnant from a black man. Anybody who has ever been to Alabama knows how whites feel about blacks in their midst, and especially if they are messing around with their women.
Given the fact that white Republican Christians are big opponents of abortion, State Representative Holmes is really stirring the pot. For a pregnant white Christian woman, it would be hard to say what would be worse, having a black child and living with it, or having the secret abortion and living with that. |
I would assume that the pregnant white Christian woman chose to sleep with the black man of her own free will. Why would it be any more difficult? IT IS HER PRECIOUS LITTLE BABY.......why would she kill her own child? How could her choice to sleep with a black man then that be construed to mean she's choose abortion over God and her own baby? |
Maybe he assumed that because he was black,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, oh, never mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
