• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

RChildress107 said:
No he said don't penalize the parents who want to help their kids just because some parents don't want to help their kids (because our education system should be built around the needs of parents or something)

I then asked him what was to be done about the kids whose parents are shitty. I presumed it was agreed upon that we as a society have a responsibility to take care of those who can't care for themselves (including six year olds with shitty parents).

Apparently not. 2&2 seems to think that its up to the parents and if they don't get the job done then those 6 year olds better make sure they have sturdy bootstraps.
Click to expand...

Yeah, okay.
My point is that you don't make the system worse for those who want to choose better for their children simply because some people won't take advantage of it. You don't lock them into shitty schools because some parents don't care if those schools are shitty. You let the ones who want to get out get out, and then you try to make due what you can for those who don't care. Which is exactly what is happening here. This proposal is to take the 5 worst schools in the state and try to fix them. Which should be a pretty clear cut goal. Yet of course, you object, because it isn't some sort Soviet Olympic style program where every kid is taken from their parents at 6 months old to protect them from their parents' own stupidity. So if you want to keep the status quo then go ahead, but then you lose any right to complain when traditional public schools continue to suck.
 
RChildress107 said:
I absolutely agree that there is no substitute for an involved family in educating a child. But millions of children don't have that. The solution isn't to take away the second-best solution in the truly dumbfounding belief that shitty parents will cease being shitty if they know that there is no safety net for their child.
Click to expand...

Nobody is taking it away. They are trying to improve it in spite of the parents' lack of family structure. Holy shit.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Nobody is taking it away. They are trying to improve it at five schools out of 2,500 in spite of the parents' lack of family structure. Holy shit.
Click to expand...

While simultaneously cutting funding and driving teachers out of the other 2495 schools. Not to mention continued slashing of the public higher education budget. So, sure, let's try the 5 school pilot program and hope it helps, but let's not pretend that the general assembly is trying to improve anything anywhere else in the public education system. As usual, you and Childress are talking past each other.
 
Deacon923 said:
While simultaneously cutting funding and driving teachers out of the other 2495 schools. Not to mention continued slashing of the public higher education budget. So, sure, let's try the 5 school pilot program and hope it helps, but let's not pretend that the general assembly is trying to improve anything anywhere else in the public education system. As usual, you and Childress are talking past each other.
Click to expand...

Eh, you are automatically correlating funding with results. If the results suck under the current model, why is funding a barometer of results? If you can pay $100 for shit or pay $5 for the same shit, why would you pay the $100? If you can successfully switch to a better system, the funding of that system may or may not have any correlation to current funding.
These things go hand in hand. I think everyone on here agrees that one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem, with education is the administrative bloat (which is the perfect PC excuse because it allows blame without blaming the teachers, students, or parents, but I again digress). So the charter schools are mostly designed to avoid that administrative bloat. So, presumably, the cost of the education itself should come down. But then when the funding drops that is a major cause for concern. But isn't the point to get better results, regardless of the funding? The point isn't to simply throw money at something as a replacement for results and try to use that funding as a measure of results.
 
jhmd2000 said:
That's not what he said, but I imagine that that misstatement is much easier to argue with.

What I believe he means, and what I agree with is, that there is no substitute for an involved family in educating a child, even the benevolent hands of the all-providing State. The State will always be the second-best solution, and if we ask poor kids to settle for second-best, I'm sure the bureaucracy will continue to deliver.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the best way to develop involved families is to make sure the kids who don't have involved families today are educated in a manner that will increase their chances of creating involved families in the future.
 
DeaconSig said:
Seems to me the best way to develop involved families is to make sure the kids who don't have involved families today are educated in a manner that will increase their chances of creating involved families in the future.
Click to expand...

Mentor-By-Asians program?
 
RChildress107 said:
I absolutely agree that there is no substitute for an involved family in educating a child. But millions of children don't have that. The solution isn't to take away the second-best solution in the truly dumbfounding belief that shitty parents will cease being shitty if they know that there is no safety net for their child.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the policy-by-lowest-common-denominator-theory, but it just doesn't work.
 
DeaconSig said:
Seems to me the best way to develop involved families is to make sure the kids who don't have involved families today are educated in a manner that will increase their chances of creating involved families in the future.
Click to expand...

If Lobo ran our social policies, this is the approach he would take. Punt to the future, hope nothing goes wrong in the present, maybe that will buy enough time for someone else to solve the problem. The Left needs a Dave Clawson, badly.
 
But you correlate lack of funding with results.

And reduce public school bureaucracy so the funds are going to students.

Good link, Townie. 3 and 4 are linked. Let teachers decide how many students they can handle and still get the job done and pay them accordingly.
 
PhDeac said:
But you correlate lack of funding with results.

And reduce public school bureaucracy so the funds are going to students.

Good link, Townie. 3 and 4 are linked. Let teachers decide how many students they can handle and still get the job done and pay them accordingly.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying we don't know, so focus first on finding a system that works and then adjust the budget accordingly. What we do know is that we pay an obscene amount of money for shitty results (from #5 in Townie's article $105k when $40k is the magic number). So whether funding of the current structure goes up or down, it isn't going to affect anything. So stop bitching about it either way. Do what this proposal is trying to do by finding a better structure, and then we can worry about the funding.
 
Different students are going to require different funding in order to get the best results.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Eh, you are automatically correlating funding with results. If the results suck under the current model, why is funding a barometer of results? If you can pay $100 for shit or pay $5 for the same shit, why would you pay the $100? If you can successfully switch to a better system, the funding of that system may or may not have any correlation to current funding.
These things go hand in hand. I think everyone on here agrees that one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest problem, with education is the administrative bloat (which is the perfect PC excuse because it allows blame without blaming the teachers, students, or parents, but I again digress). So the charter schools are mostly designed to avoid that administrative bloat. So, presumably, the cost of the education itself should come down. But then when the funding drops that is a major cause for concern. But isn't the point to get better results, regardless of the funding? The point isn't to simply throw money at something as a replacement for results and try to use that funding as a measure of results.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But it seems premature to cut funding when we don't know the cost or results of the proposed alternative.
 
jhmd2000 said:
If Lobo ran our social policies, this is the approach he would take. Punt to the future, hope nothing goes wrong in the present, maybe that will buy enough time for someone else to solve the problem. The Left needs a Dave Clawson, badly.
Click to expand...

Good deflection, but you are missing the point, counselor. You have spent millions of bytes of data decreeing that two parent families are the best way to raise folks out of poverty. I tend to agree with this point. The question that naturally follows is "how can we make sure that people born into single-parent homes do not repeat the mistakes of their parent(s)?" Quality education is the single easiest way to solve that problem. Unfortunately, that solution takes 20 years to manifest itself.

Your solution to that problem? Castigate the school system, claim teachers are the enemy, resist any notion that pairing kids from good families with kids from bad families might help the kids from bad families get better educations, and try and get taxpayer funds to go to people who want their kid to get educated at the local madrasas. All of which is a lot of talk to cover up your true desire: make it where I don't have to pay so much in taxes.

We can either take the reigns of the school system today and do our absolute best to provide services to kids unlucky enough to be born into a family that doesn't prioritize education, or we can continue to dump money into the prison system. As a fellow God-fearing man who loves Jesus, I am confident that you will support the former, rather than the latter.
 
DeaconSig said:
Good deflection, but you are missing the point, counselor. You have spent millions of bytes of data decreeing that two parent families are the best way to raise folks out of poverty. I tend to agree with this point. The question that naturally follows is "how can we make sure that people born into single-parent homes do not repeat the mistakes of their parent(s)?" Quality education is the single easiest way to solve that problem. Unfortunately, that solution takes 20 years to manifest itself.

Your solution to that problem? Castigate the school system, claim teachers are the enemy, resist any notion that pairing kids from good families with kids from bad families might help the kids from bad families get better educations, and try and get taxpayer funds to go to people who want their kid to get educated at the local madrasas. All of which is a lot of talk to cover up your true desire: make it where I don't have to pay so much in taxes.

We can either take the reigns of the school system today and do our absolute best to provide services to kids unlucky enough to be born into a family that doesn't prioritize education, or we can continue to dump money into the prison system. As a fellow God-fearing man who loves Jesus, I am confident that you will support the former, rather than the latter.
Click to expand...

*sigh* As you point out, that's not a cost saving measure, and while not what anybody I know on the right is arguing, is admittedly downhill skiing to argue against. Straw men e'erywhere this a.m....

If I wanted to return the courtesy, I would ask you why you don't believe in poor parents commitment to their children. I don't though, I'd rather actually debate what you're saying. Which I will do when I get back from my meeting. Peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top