Palin resigns abruptly

MBer wrote:

<quoted text>
Inner city kids will be worse off then they are now because they will still be there after everybody else has left (some might move but not most). This is the way it's played out so far, hasn't it?

This makes no sense. In Wash DC, the kids who took the vouchers WERE the "inner city" kids. They did very well in the private school. The outcry against OBama's decision to kill the vouchers was so great (by the inner city parents), Obama was forced to let current vouchers continue until graduation.

In reading all these posts (40 since this morning), I see the clear divide here. You and FR seem to think that kids stuck in inner city schools are really to blame for their own poor education. You seem unwilling to admit even a slight possibility that the administration could be at fault.

OTOH, the conservatives want to fix the problem. Obviously the unions are very strong, especially in the inner cities. Vouchers seem like the only way to get things moving. And there is no doubt they worked in Wash DC.

TomFromPV wrote:

<quoted text>
Two things you don't consider:
1. Society has already decided to foot the bill to send other peoples kids to school. Hopefully you aren't arguing this is wrong!
2. The Wash DC private school was CHEAPER than the public school.
3. What the hell business is it of yours if I want to send my kid to X school instead of Y school?
FR - you would have an argument if some public schools weren't awful. I live in PV and the schools here are great. Same with Torrance, RB, ES, etc. But Pedro and Westchester are among the worst in the county. It isn't a problem with the race of the child as you imply, its a problem with the administration of LAUSD. But given the stranglehold of the unions, there is no way out. Vouchers would be wonderful for those parents.

I never said or implied that they didn't do well because of their race. I said that not knowing the language is an impediment. BIG DIFFERENCE.

It IS my business what schools your kids go to if I am paying for it. I already pay for public schools. That is what society has agreed to pay for. Your child goes to the public school near your home. Public schools do not discriminate on the basis of race, culture, religion or ability to pay. Private schools can and do. I refuse to pay to send your child to a school where they will be taught religion. The state and the money that comes from taxpayers has no place in religious schools. If you don't want me to have any say in what school your kid goes to then take your hand out of my pocket and pay for it yourself.

TomFromPV wrote:

<quoted text>
. You and FR seem to think that kids stuck in inner city schools are really to blame for their own poor education. You seem unwilling to admit even a slight possibility that the administration could be at fault.

That's a total and willful mischaracterization of what I have said. I never said that it was the kids fault. I never said that the DC schools were not at fault. I said that you can't claim that ALL public schools are of that poor a quality; they are not. I also said that involved parents make the biggest difference in education. You can get a good education anywhere if you are given the tools to do it. ALL kids can learn. This elitist attitude that only private parochial schools can produce results is a little prejudice of yours. It smacks of classism and a sense of christian superiority.

You have also failed to answer my question- how do religious schools maintain their autonomy when they are dependent on taxpayer funds?

Let's say for the sake of argument that the best high school in a given area happens to be a Catholic one. And let's say that we have a student who wants to attend this school with his voucher- but he is openly gay. Can the school refuse to admit him if they are funded publicly? Can they punish him for holding hands with his boyfriend in the halls when they are doing it with taxpayer money? How is it that you don't see that this will undermine their religious freedom?

TomFromPV wrote:

<quoted text>
This makes no sense. In Wash DC, the kids who took the vouchers WERE the "inner city" kids. They did very well in the private school. The outcry against OBama's decision to kill the vouchers was so great (by the inner city parents), Obama was forced to let current vouchers continue until graduation.
In reading all these posts (40 since this morning), I see the clear divide here. You and FR seem to think that kids stuck in inner city schools are really to blame for their own poor education. You seem unwilling to admit even a slight possibility that the administration could be at fault.
OTOH, the conservatives want to fix the problem. Obviously the unions are very strong, especially in the inner cities. Vouchers seem like the only way to get things moving. And there is no doubt they worked in Wash DC.

Why I am not surprised Tom that you don't understand this issue but that you would comment on something you know nothing about?

I have to admit I took it for granted when Muddled Thinker claimed the DC Voucher was a big success, but when Tom said so as well, I said, "Wait a minute. That Tom usually doesn't know what he's talking about. I need to look into this."

So I took the trouble to look things up. I found this the current evaluation of the DC Voucher Program "Evaluation of the DC Opportunity
Scholarship Program Impacts After Three Years" official study found here: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094050/pdf/2009... to verify these claims.

Guess what? Both of you are full crap about the effectiveness of the DC voucher program and a number of my points are supported by this study. Keep in mind that this study is after only 3 years of the program and is obviously limited in scope, but here are some key points from the study, simplified for brevity sake:

1. After 3 years only reading has improved (by 3.1 months of additional learning). No math improvement was observed.(After two year mark no additional improvement had been observed in either reading or math.) Is this what you mean by did "really well.", Tom? I would expect after three years to see significant improvement in all phases. The fact that there was NO improvement in math is especially revealing.

2. Not all subgroups improved. Generally only the students from the better schools and the better students improved. This casts serious questions about the applicability of vouchers for under performing students in general. One can hazard a number of possible reasons for this but I won't for fear of disabusing even more sacred cow preconceived notion by Muddled Thinker.

3. While 56% of the participating private schools were faith based, 86% of the students selected faith based private schools. While not definitive, this supports my contention that vouchers are nothing more than a means to finance a religious education. It is no wonder the right supports vouchers.

4. 25% of the students who applied for the scholarship never used it. Of those that used the scholarship only 41%(of those that applied and accepted) used it for the entire three years. This supports my contention that only some students,(and those with strong religious concerns and those who probably are serious about education anyway), would use this program.

I don't claim that this is proof of any of my views only that the data tends to support my views and not Muddled Thinker with his right wing biases and the unthinking sheep like Tom.

It's really a shame that both of these gentlemen probably attended decent schoold but still do not have the wherewithal to overcome the right wing talk radio brainwashings and their own personal prejudices.

TomFromPV wrote:

<quoted text>
This makes no sense. In Wash DC, the kids who took the vouchers WERE the "inner city" kids. They did very well in the private school. The outcry against OBama's decision to kill the vouchers was so great (by the inner city parents), Obama was forced to let current vouchers continue until graduation.
In reading all these posts (40 since this morning), I see the clear divide here. You and FR seem to think that kids stuck in inner city schools are really to blame for their own poor education. You seem unwilling to admit even a slight possibility that the administration could be at fault.
OTOH, the conservatives want to fix the problem. Obviously the unions are very strong, especially in the inner cities. Vouchers seem like the only way to get things moving. And there is no doubt they worked in Wash DC.

BTW we ALL want to fix the problem, if you can manage to get your self congratulating ego out of the way. We just don't agree on what is the best solution and obviously you weren't paying attention when I said that discontinuing the DC voucher program in particular may have been a bad call.

MBer -- you really need to get over yourself. You've told us twice now how you were at the top of your class. And that last message was insufferable.

I read the report. It underscores what I said. The kids attending the private school are ahead in reading, by 3 months over the course of 3 years. The parents are far happier with the voucher. The $7500 IS cheaper than what the public school charges.

What you didn't bother to report was the reduced violence, especially in the minds of the parents. Nowhere does the report say that any of the private schools teach "religion" or doctrine as you would have us believe. Nor does it claim these lost resources, loss of racial diversity and all the other claims you make.

Yes, I'm sure you read what you wanted to read and drew conclusions that supported your view. Thats why you are at the top of all your classes. You are a legend, as you tell us. I read the same report and concluded that the education was no worse in any area, better in reading, better environment, happier parents, and all for less money.

I can't really respond to your fear of parochial school. I have no idea what happened to you that would foster such a distorted view. I suppose I could some of the people who went to and send their children to parochial schools who turn out fine, but I doubt that would do anything to overcome your fears.

This is the difference between us. I prefer to let individuals decide how to raise their own children, you don't. I think if we force people to pay taxes to educate all children, then we give those people the right to control what their children learn. Certainly all schools receiving public money must meet standards of education.

But in the end, the parents and children are the ones who prosper or suffer as a result of the education system. Not the bureaucrats, not the teachers, not the union bosses. Therefore the people with skin in the game make the call.

You express a lot of fear about parochial schools, like MBer. If you read the report MBer referred to, you will see none of the private schools discriminated on race or religion. Yes indeed, ability to pay is a big deal for a private school since it can't tap taxpayer funds. But thats a good thing when its CHEAPER than the public school.

In short, I can see you will never support vouchers, no matter what the data shows. I am not so fixed in my views. I support public schools when they do the job, and vouchers when the public schools fail. All in all, I think the rigid approach of your side is the reason so many public schools do poorly.

formerly really wrote:

<quoted text>
It IS my business what schools your kids go to if I am paying for it. I already pay for public schools. That is what society has agreed to pay for. Your child goes to the public school near your home. Public schools do not discriminate on the basis of race, culture, religion or ability to pay. Private schools can and do. I refuse to pay to send your child to a school where they will be taught religion. The state and the money that comes from taxpayers has no place in religious schools. If you don't want me to have any say in what school your kid goes to then take your hand out of my pocket and pay for it yourself.

formerly really wrote:

<quoted text>
BTW we ALL want to fix the problem, if you can manage to get your self congratulating ego out of the way. We just don't agree on what is the best solution and obviously you weren't paying attention when I said that discontinuing the DC voucher program in particular may have been a bad call.

At least you admit there is a problem with some public schools. That is a victory in itself. And you're right, I don't recall you ever saying the DC voucher program might have been OK. Perhaps you and MBer need to talk.

TomFromPV wrote:

<quoted text>
At least you admit there is a problem with some public schools. That is a victory in itself. And you're right, I don't recall you ever saying the DC voucher program might have been OK. Perhaps you and MBer need to talk.

Then go back and read it.

Please don't consider my stated opinions a "victory" because they have not changed, and certianly not due to anything you have posted. I never claimed that public schools didn't have problems, in fact I said the exact opposite, that the poorest schools were saddled with a number of obstacles, after which you called me a racist. Obviously you read my post but you read it through the conservofilter which automatically assumes that anything a non conservative says must be wrong.

Please note that I have said repeatedly that the comparison between the best private schools and the worst public schools, which you continue to make, is on its face manifestly unjust. You condemn the entire public system and all the students in it based on the lowest performing schools.

The public school system works. It educates millions of children. Some schools do not do a good job but that does not mean the entire system is a failure or that the appropriate response is to send all kids to christian schools.

As for your assertion that private schools don't discriminate- you're wrong. They can, do and have asserted their right to do so under the First Amendment protections for religion. There are private schools who will not hire or admit non christians or atheists. They are a little more circumspect about their views on gays, but I anxiuosly await your many examples of openly gay teachers working at Catholic schools.

TomFromPV wrote:

This is the difference between us. I prefer to let individuals decide how to raise their own children, you don't. I think if we force people to pay taxes to educate all children, then we give those people the right to control what their children learn. Certainly all schools receiving public money must meet standards of education.
But in the end, the parents and children are the ones who prosper or suffer as a result of the education system. Not the bureaucrats, not the teachers, not the union bosses. Therefore the people with skin in the game make the call.
You express a lot of fear about parochial schools, like MBer. If you read the report MBer referred to, you will see none of the private schools discriminated on race or religion. Yes indeed, ability to pay is a big deal for a private school since it can't tap taxpayer funds. But thats a good thing when its CHEAPER than the public school.
In short, I can see you will never support vouchers, no matter what the data shows. I am not so fixed in my views. I support public schools when they do the job, and vouchers when the public schools fail. All in all, I think the rigid approach of your side is the reason so many public schools do poorly.
<quoted text>

I went to Catholic school from 5th grade through college. I think I got a better education at the grade school level in public school, but I wouldn't trade my high school and college education for a public school education.

But there is a disparity in public schools, and I think it has more to do with SIZE of the school district than being public vs. private.

LAUSD is so vast that there are problems that are similar to a bloated federal government. So much bureaucracy that it can bog things down.

Other smaller local school districts (Torrance, Redondo, etc.) don't face those problems and have better performing students on average.

Your statement, "I think if we force people to pay taxes to educate all children, then we give those people the right to control what their children learn", is true. But those people DO have a right to control what is taught - there are school boards that serve that purpose. the problem with LAUSD is that it covers schools from San Pedro to Chatsworth, not Carson St. to Sepulveda Bl.!

I don't agree with vouchers, even though I have/will send my kids to Catholic schools. If I don't drive a car, I don't get a "voucher" for riding a bus, or a refund of taxes that go to repair rods, etc.

Child-less adults don't get tax refunds for schools they will never send children to.

Our government should provide basic services, including education, transportation, police/military, etc. If I choose to use a private education source, or private transportation, or hire my own security personnel, that is my prerogative, and not worthy of a voucher, IMO.

Here We Go -- the bottom line for me is to fix those public school systems that are failing. Something like 10 years ago we had a vote on vouchers in California. The teachers promised to fix the schools if we would defeat the measure. Well it was defeated and nothing changed.

Here's the deal to me. If a student gets a bad education at a public school, the only person hurt is the kid. The teacher gets the same salary, the taxes stay high, the principal keeps his job, and the district stays in business.

Go to a private school now. Kid gets a bad education, the school closes. The teachers get fired, etc.

How do you fix a system where nobody pays a price if they screw up?

I do agree with you that LAUSD is way way too big. But again, how can that be fixed? I get a ton of criticism for it, but the only way I see are vouchers that allow parents to move their kids out.

FR - Look up "charter school" sometime. A charter public school reject kids based on test scores and aptitude. Thats discrimination. Not every kid can go to a public charter school

To test your claims about parochial schools, I randomly picked a Catholic School (the only one I know in this area), went to its website and checked to see how much they discriminate. Do they admit Jews, I wondered? What about swarthy people? FR is so adamant Catholics are closet bigots.

Well, turns out they don't discriminate at all. They talk a lot about Jesus and all that, but the bottom line for discrimination is this:

"Mary Star of the Sea High School, mindful of its mission to be a witness to the love of Christ for all, admits students of all race, color, disability, sex or national and/or ethnic origin to all the rights, privileges, programs and activities generally accorded or made available to the students at the school."

Hmmm, they seem nicer than a lot of Democrats I know!

TomFromPV wrote:

Here We Go -- the bottom line for me is to fix those public school systems that are failing. Something like 10 years ago we had a vote on vouchers in California. The teachers promised to fix the schools if we would defeat the measure. Well it was defeated and nothing changed.
Here's the deal to me. If a student gets a bad education at a public school, the only person hurt is the kid. The teacher gets the same salary, the taxes stay high, the principal keeps his job, and the district stays in business.
Go to a private school now. Kid gets a bad education, the school closes. The teachers get fired, etc.
How do you fix a system where nobody pays a price if they screw up?
I do agree with you that LAUSD is way way too big. But again, how can that be fixed? I get a ton of criticism for it, but the only way I see are vouchers that allow parents to move their kids out.

I think we all agree that LAUSD is a horrible distrct for everyone involved- kids, parents, teacher, everyone. It's a bloated beast that can't possibly run because it's too top heavy and the 7 admins for every 3 teachers ratio is killing us.

I think the answer is break up the district into smaller functional units. Make them answerable to the locals and no tenure for teachers at the elementary level. Tenure was intened to protect academic freedom- not an issue at the K-8 level. MAYBE high school, but tenure is really only appropriate and needed at the college level. No more taking a bad principal or teacher and just moving them to a school across town. Let them find their next job on their own, competing with everyone else if they lose it. That's the way the rest of the business world works.

TomFromPV wrote:

FR - Look up "charter school" sometime. A charter public school reject kids based on test scores and aptitude. Thats discrimination. Not every kid can go to a public charter school
To test your claims about parochial schools, I randomly picked a Catholic School (the only one I know in this area), went to its website and checked to see how much they discriminate. Do they admit Jews, I wondered? What about swarthy people? FR is so adamant Catholics are closet bigots.
Well, turns out they don't discriminate at all. They talk a lot about Jesus and all that, but the bottom line for discrimination is this:
"Mary Star of the Sea High School, mindful of its mission to be a witness to the love of Christ for all, admits students of all race, color, disability, sex or national and/or ethnic origin to all the rights, privileges, programs and activities generally accorded or made available to the students at the school."
Hmmm, they seem nicer than a lot of Democrats I know!

Openly gay , Tom, that's what I asked you about. You'll note that sexual orientation is not on the list. How many non Catholics are on the teaching staff? It's all very well and good to write a nondiscrimination statement for the college catalog, but how does it play out in real life? If you look at the application for Mary Star they ask for your religion and what church you attend. Are you telling me that they just put that on the form because they don't pay attention to it?

Vanguard University requires a reference from your pastor to apply to the school. True, this is at the college level, but it's a local religiously based school.

Test scores are not discriminatory unless the test itself can be shown to be discriminatory. Admitting based on stadardized tests like the PSAT is not discrimination. However, that's a good point to make against vouchers. Charters and private CAN and will reject students that don't perform as well. What do we do with the rest of them, just consign them to the public school that can now only admit students at the lowest common denominator because no one else will take them? Now you've given those kids NO chance. That's not solving the problem or helping the public schools improve, it's just concentrating the worst students.

TomFromPV wrote:

Here We Go -- the bottom line for me is to fix those public school systems that are failing. Something like 10 years ago we had a vote on vouchers in California. The teachers promised to fix the schools if we would defeat the measure. Well it was defeated and nothing changed.
Here's the deal to me. If a student gets a bad education at a public school, the only person hurt is the kid. The teacher gets the same salary, the taxes stay high, the principal keeps his job, and the district stays in business.
Go to a private school now. Kid gets a bad education, the school closes. The teachers get fired, etc.
How do you fix a system where nobody pays a price if they screw up?
I do agree with you that LAUSD is way way too big. But again, how can that be fixed? I get a ton of criticism for it, but the only way I see are vouchers that allow parents to move their kids out.

Although I attended Catholic schools, I have been involved as a coach at an LAUSD high school for about 20 years. We've graduated kids that went on to college and graduated. We have had a graduate become a surgeon, and at least two that went to Ivy league schools. Many school teachers and law enforcement officers. Almost none that turned out to be dregs of society.

The bottom line is that if a student has the motivation to succeed, and parents that stay on top of his/her education, then that student can get a good education in a public school, even LAUSD.

Don't blame the teachers. I tried to teach at the high school level, and I knew in a matter of weeks that I couldn't do it. There were way too many kids that didn't give a rat's hind end about their education. That is learned behavior, if you ask me.

Talking school seriously was expected when I grew up. From what I saw when I taught, it was not the highest priority in the household of many of these kids. the problem wasn't the school district or teachers, it was with the priorities set in these kid's lives.

Vouchers won't fix that problem, the most prevailing problem, IMO.

formerly really wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the answer is break up the district into smaller functional units. Make them answerable to the locals and no tenure for teachers at the elementary level. Tenure was intened to protect academic freedom- not an issue at the K-8 level. MAYBE high school, but tenure is really only appropriate and needed at the college level. No more taking a bad principal or teacher and just moving them to a school across town. Let them find their next job on their own, competing with everyone else if they lose it. That's the way the rest of the business world works.

Lets see. Is it more realistic to think we could accomplish the above -or- is it more realistic to think we can get vouchers so some kids can escape?

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but the naivete of your solution is astonishing. Politicians, teachers, unions LIKE the way things are in LAUSD! They all get what they want. Don't you see that? In the same way that we'll never break up LA City, we'll never break up LAUSD. Or any district for that matter.

Again, if someone wants to make change rather than spin dreams -- vouchers are the only answer that seems practical.

formerly really wrote:

<quoted text>
Openly gay , Tom, that's what I asked you about. You'll note that sexual orientation is not on the list. How many non Catholics are on the teaching staff? It's all very well and good to write a nondiscrimination statement for the college catalog, but how does it play out in real life? If you look at the application for Mary Star they ask for your religion and what church you attend. Are you telling me that they just put that on the form because they don't pay attention to it?

What do we do with the rest of them, just consign them to the public school that can now only admit students at the lowest common denominator because no one else will take them?

Again, try not to take offense BUT this is where you seem to display a rather bigoted outlook on things. How does an "openly gay" teacher differ from one that isn't? Are you saying that "openly gay" people look different? Teach differently? Do they exude a different smell or something? Or, are you one of those folks who think that way?

A lot of people are gay and it doesn't matter. Period. I have no idea if my elementary, secondary or college teachers were gay. It never came up. I can't imagine why it would come up.

As far as I could tell, the tuition rates vary depending on whether one is a Catholic and attends mass (and donates, I'm sure) or not. I suspect a kid whose parents believe in witchcraft probably wouldn't qualify for MaryStar (but not sure of that). But then, such a kid would not qualify a Science Academy type of public charter school either.

Finally, you're presenting the classical false choice on what happens to all the kids. First, I think the threat of vouchers would change a lot of attitudes in poorly performing public schools. Maybe enough to change the union rules on firing bad teachers. Second, I think of lot of people (like you) would balk at using the voucher because you're a public school booster.

Look, all I want is change. The only practical way to get it is thru vouchers.

Here We Go wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't blame the teachers. I tried to teach at the high school level, and I knew in a matter of weeks that I couldn't do it. There were way too many kids that didn't give a rat's hind end about their education. That is learned behavior, if you ask me.
Talking school seriously was expected when I grew up. From what I saw when I taught, it was not the highest priority in the household of many of these kids. the problem wasn't the school district or teachers, it was with the priorities set in these kid's lives.
Vouchers won't fix that problem, the most prevailing problem, IMO.

You seem to be saying there is nothing wrong with LAUSD except the students. In your view, a kid at Grape Street can apply himself and go off to Harvard or be lazy wart and end up dead at 17. Its all up to the kid.

If thats what you're saying, well its wrong. There are some schools in the LAUSD system where only 10% of the school is at grade level. There are schools where 12 year old girls are routinely raped in the restrooms or on the way to/from school. If you look at overall statistics, less than 50% of LAUSD kids, across the district, graduate with a diploma.

Do teachers or administrators get a pay cut when a girl gets raped? Does the taxpayer get a refund when 1/2 the students don't graduate? Nope. They get raises, fully paid health care, and a pension most of us would love.

Vouchers WOULD help to scare those teachers and administrators into thinking their jobs are on the line. Did you know that LAUSD pays something like 160 teachers to stay home because they can't be trusted in class? Yes, its true. Some of them are perverts but can't be fired due to union rules. The LA Times printed that story.

So, yes I do blame teachers and administrators for at least Part of the problem. Sure, maybe some kids have awful attitudes -- but wouldn't you too if crime was rampant and the teachers didn't give a damn?

Gee, I better read the article again....I would have sworn it was about Palin resigning!! Obviously there was something between the lines that I missed.

TomFromPV wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, try not to take offense BUT this is where you seem to display a rather bigoted outlook on things. How does an "openly gay" teacher differ from one that isn't? Are you saying that "openly gay" people look different? Teach differently? Do they exude a different smell or something? Or, are you one of those folks who think that way?
A lot of people are gay and it doesn't matter. Period. I have no idea if my elementary, secondary or college teachers were gay. It never came up. I can't imagine why it would come up.
As far as I could tell, the tuition rates vary depending on whether one is a Catholic and attends mass (and donates, I'm sure) or not. I suspect a kid whose parents believe in witchcraft probably wouldn't qualify for MaryStar (but not sure of that). But then, such a kid would not qualify a Science Academy type of public charter school either.
Finally, you're presenting the classical false choice on what happens to all the kids. First, I think the threat of vouchers would change a lot of attitudes in poorly performing public schools. Maybe enough to change the union rules on firing bad teachers. Second, I think of lot of people (like you) would balk at using the voucher because you're a public school booster.
Look, all I want is change. The only practical way to get it is thru vouchers.

Let me see if I have this right. You said a kid who's parents believe in witchcraft probably would qualify for a science academy, but you call me bigoted?

Let me explain the concept of openly gay to you. Smell, indeed. Don't be offensive. Are you so naive that you don't believe that gays are discriminated against? That in order to stay employed many lie about it? Were you not awake during the Boy Scouts banning gays and athiests from their ranks? Have you slept through soldiers getting discharged because they admitted they were gay? Have you somehow missed the schism in the Episcopalian church over gay ministers? Have you not heard the Pope declare that homosexuality is a sin and an abomonation? No, Tom, I don't think gays teach any differently, but I'm not Catholic or running a Catholic school. THEY DO THINK THAT. Or were you napping through that part, too?

If you think that the unions won't allow a breakup of LAUSD, what makes you think they will allow vouchers? Your solution isn't any easier than mine. Frankly, I'm stunned that you won't accept that public schools will concentrate the worst students whil charters and privates take the cream of the student crop- that's exactly what's happening now. That's one of the reasons LAUSD and the DC schools are in so much trouble; public schools can't pick and choose their students.