Maybe you all should go back to citing blog quotes after all?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

In a recent conversation with one of the more brilliant members of this board, we established that public schools are capable of being good, but not great. For me, the question is how to make sure they're all good, not just the one's in some towns or districts, while getting my kids a great education.

I happen to think the first thing you want is a unionized, well-paid teacher pool, so all the power and influence in a public school district isn't left with peter principalled administrators and elected boards of busy-bodies. Between the three groups, I'd prefer to trust kids to the teachers.

Once you're paying your teachers enough to attract decent ones, it's mostly a matter of keeping class size down, keeping the administrators out of the way, and letting teachers and parents do their thing. And, in some districts, keeping the kids alive and in one piece.

You can't create a system where all schools are at least good. Nothing works that way. There will be exemplary institutions and there will be laggards. I think the better emphasis would be programs that find and reward talented kids. There ought to be more structures through which exceptionally bright kids stuck in shitty schools can be plucked out and placed elsewhere. Trying to save entire schools of kids is an untenable plan.

They also ought to overhaul curriculum to stop teaching kids esoteric crap they don't need. The curriculum ought to be 75% math, sciences and languages (Read: Not French, but Mandarin, and Arabic, and other languages that will make kids competitive). English, history, etc... should be downplayed.

A kid from a shitty part of town will not excel in things like English or History because a good bit of that has to do with nurture.* But he may be gifted with a mind that picks up those you-can-either-grasp-it-or-you-can't subjects like math and science. If a kid in a shitty area can deal drugs, he's got a head for math. We should engage him by playing to his strengths, and not alienate him teaching him a bunch of liberal arts subject matter. Particularly in a global job market where knowledge of that subject matter is less and less valued every day.

*I can write because my folks had me reading the Journal and Times daily from age six, and my father reads voraciously and had a large library. Does that make me smart? No. I means I read a bunch of shit.

ETA: As Sidd noted below, however, this does not mean I can read well.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

It wasn't the kids' father he lives in the town. It was the mom's father. I don't think Grandpa's county of residence makes much difference here.

I missed that. So what the hell was stopping her from moving in with grandpa and making honest children of them?

Nothing like teaching your kids to lie at an early age. It really gives them a leg up in this world.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't understand why we're discussing this story. This woman had the option of buying a home in a better school district. She didn't. She had the option of falsely declaring that the children lived with her ex, which people get away with all the time. She didn't. She had the final option of giving custody to the ex, if only as a sham to create a defense to the allegation her kids didn't live in the district. She didn't.

Once more, from the article:

But it wasn't her Akron district of residence, so her children were ineligible to attend school there, even though her father lived within the district's boundaries.

Her father. Not her daughters' father. This isn't even close -- it's not like the woman just sent her kids to the wrong school and then stopped when she got caught.

I agree with your first sentence, but the reason is that Club portrayed this (half-jokingly.....but only half) as a story about "liberals hate children." I'm sure that wealthy conservative suburban districts are happy to have kids from other districts flocking to their public schools.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I missed that.

I blame your poor reading comprehension on the teachers' unions.

I blame Sebby's on cheap scotch.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I blame your poor reading comprehension on the teachers' unions.

I blame Sebby's on cheap scotch.

I've been sucking down Laphroaig Quarter Cask! What does one have to drink to meet your standards?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Once more, from the article:



Her father. Not her daughters' father. This isn't even close -- it's not like the woman just sent her kids to the wrong school and then stopped when she got caught.

I agree with your first sentence, but the reason is that Club portrayed this (half-jokingly.....but only half) as a story about "liberals hate children." I'm sure that wealthy conservative suburban districts are happy to have kids from other districts flocking to their public schools.

You assume no incest... in Ackron?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can't create a system where all schools are at least good. Nothing works that way. There will be exemplary institutions and there will be laggards. I think the better emphasis would be programs that find and reward talented kids. There ought to be more structures through which exceptionally bright kids stuck in shitty schools can be plucked out and placed elsewhere. Trying to save entire schools of kids is an untenable plan.

They also ought to overhaul curriculum to stop teaching kids esoteric crap they don't need. The curriculum ought to be 75% math, sciences and languages (Read: Not French, but Mandarin, and Arabic, and other languages that will make kids competitive). English, history, etc... should be downplayed.

A kid from a shitty part of town will not excel in things like English or History because a good bit of that has to do with nurture.* But he may be gifted with a mind that picks up those you-can-either-grasp-it-or-you-can't subjects like math and science. If a kid in a shitty area can deal drugs, he's got a head for math. We should engage him by playing to his strengths, and not alienate him teaching him a bunch of liberal arts subject matter. Particularly in a global job market where knowledge of that subject matter is less and less valued every day.

*I can write because my folks had me reading the Journal and Times daily from age six, and my father reads voraciously and had a large library. Does that make me smart? No. I means I read a bunch of shit.

I don't buy most of your assessment of the problems. There are a lot of great students, including in english and history, in urban districts. One of the biggest problems is that they're taught to have shit for expections : yeah, you really know your shakespeare, but we're going to laugh if you even think about one of those fancy private colleges. This happens in poor rural districts as well.

It's entirely possible to have a good school in a tough neighborhood or town: my mother taught in one in a very poor town in upstate NY. It's not easy, but its possible. From a public policy perspective, I'd let the rich towns take care of their own and focus state and federal efforts entirely on bringing the schools with challenges up to par.

I do agree with you on teaching languages. Absolutely lunatic that we teach so many kids French. It's become just a little local language spoken by a handful of backward looking Europeans as a first language (and a few Canadians).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've been sucking down Laphroaig Quarter Cask! What does one have to drink to meet your standards?

It's good stuff. And amazing how different the taste is from other Laphraoigs.

My goal is to drink every Laphraoig on the market this year. You've got to have aspirations in this world.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's good stuff. And amazing how different the taste is from other Laphraoigs.

My goal is to drink every Laphraoig on the market this year. You've got to have aspirations in this world.

I like it quite a bit. The smell's a bit at first, but I took Less's recommendation and sipped it with an ice cube and it really is fantastic. Of all the single malts I've had it's the only one that's been truly distinctive (and comes at a decent price). I will probably follow you through the line to see what the others offer. I can't imagine a distiller getting one so right could produce another I wouldn't find equally inrteresting and enjoyable.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

yeah, you really know your shakespeare, but we're going to laugh if you even think about one of those fancy private colleges. This happens in poor rural districts as well.

The odd thing is that they might actually get some preference in applying for those fancy private colleges.

I still remember my high school English teacher asking me if I would mind being called a "quota nerd" when discussing whether to apply those schools. The answer was of course not, but I still didn't get in. Just another white kid from the suburbs with good grades, strong test scores, lots of extra curriculars but nothing truly outstanding.

I do agree with you on teaching languages. Absolutely lunatic that we teach so many kids French. It's become just a little local language spoken by a handful of backward looking Europeans as a first language (and a few Canadians).

I guess I'm okay with letting kids decide what languages they want to take, but when I was in high school, the absurdity was that it was basically impossible to take four years of language and four years of arts (band, choir, orchestra, etc).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've been sucking down Laphroaig Quarter Cask! What does one have to drink to meet your standards?

Sorry, mixed you up with Adder momentarily.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'd let the rich towns take care of their own and focus state and federal efforts entirely on bringing the schools with challenges up to par.

This seems sensible. But I'd still like to see the shift toward more hard science and math. The argument we should be "well rounded" is bullshit. We should learn to think more critically. That doesn't come with studying history or political science. It comes with being exposed to as much math as possible as early as possible.

The difference between the rich and poor in this country has as much to do math skill as anything else. For the better of our society - for a more even spread of wealth - we should be pushing math on kids as soon as they're able to walk. A poor guy who can run the numbers isn't going to get taken by a fraud peddling mortgage broker.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is so mind-boggling moronic, even from you.

Congratulations. I know how hard you try at it.

my mentor, sidd finch, says that if em calls other people stupid em is probably more stupider.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Her father. Not her daughters' father. This isn't even close -- it's not like the woman just sent her kids to the wrong school and then stopped when she got caught.

actually here a grandfather with a real address is a golden ticket into the district. the question is whether there's selective enforcement- I mean hiring a PI to follow her is wacky if there are lots of other kids sneaking in (of course we cannot tell that there are others)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The difference between the rich and poor in this country has as much to do math skill as anything else.

You think so? I'm skeptical, but my world tends to be over-exposed to lawyers and business people, where writing, and more importantly oral communication skills, seem to be the difference makers.

Of course, my math education ended with high school calculus.