i think that scalia is a gifted satirist, but someone recently said that its getting to the point where he treats these cases like taking a bucket of golf balls to the driving range.
One thing that's always struck me about Scalia's opinions is that he seems incapable of restraint. For example, if he's writing a dissent and the majority opinion was authored by Kennedy, he can't help but vicously ridicule Kennedy even though he knows he's gonna need Kennedy if he's going to prevail next time around.
Stacks, I am flattered that you say I sound like your Mom, regardless of her education or political views, she appears to have raised a damned good son. We'll just have to disagree on the topic as I don't believe you can legislate ambition. I have found that in the two big cities I live near, any parent and/or child who wants to work hard and maximize their public education can do so by taking advantage of Charter and "Magnet" schools regardless of race or poverty level. You can provide a horse with water but you can't force them to drink if they don't want to. What I would like to hear is the view of an inner city High School teacher on what can be done to encourage(or even force) low income children, who's parents don't give a rat's ass, to get a better education. Obviously, not all poor parents feel this way, but worse case scenario, that is what we are facing in today's Public Schools.
Rich
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Stacks, I am flattered that you say I sound like your Mom, regardless of her education or political views, she appears to have raised a damned good son. We'll just have to disagree on the topic as I don't believe you can legislate ambition. I have found that in the two big cities I live near, any parent and/or child who wants to work hard and maximize their public education can do so by taking advantage of Charter and "Magnet" schools regardless of race or poverty level. You can provide a horse with water but you can't force them to drink if they don't want to. What I would like to hear is the view of an inner city High School teacher on what can be done to encourage(or even force) low income children, who's parents don't give a rat's ass, to get a better education. Obviously, not all poor parents feel this way, but worse case scenario, that is what we are facing in today's Public Schools.
Rich
Hey Rich,
I agree you can't legislate ambition; however, if you're educated in a sub-standard educational environment, you can be assured of a lower likelihood of success in life. Too much research supports this conclusion, dating way back to Carter G. Woodson. So, what effects do you think this has on ambition among lower-income, urban youth? I'm not justifying bad behavior, I'm just saying poor resources, ineffective teaching, etc. that are inherent in urban schools precipitate bad behavior, poor effort, and underachievement. My own Research Methods project as an undergraduate examined the effects of county per-pupil expenditures, average teacher experience, student-teacher ratio, etc. on SAT scores for counties in North Carolina. Invariably, counties with lower expenditures, like say Hoke County, also had less experienced teachers, higher teacher-student ratios and, not surprisingly, significantly lower SATs than counties like Orange (where UNC-Chapel Hill is located). You think this is an accident that a poor rural county has fewer resources than an affluent one, with negative effects on SATs? This scenario plays out in nearly every major city in the country. It's just idealistic to think that kids in underfunded districts can compete fairly with affluent kids whose resources are incomprehensible to the former. Sure, exceptions can occur (as my wife loves to bring up), but on average, lower success is probable in such instances; hence, the term educational apartheid.
I have found that in the two big cities I live near, any parent and/or child who wants to work hard and maximize their public education can do so by taking advantage of Charter and "Magnet" schools regardless of race or poverty level.
I am guessing you mispoke a little here. My guess is that even if a child knew and wanted to take advantage of a charter or magnet school, only a parent can get the child in. Children in foster care or with parents who can't be bothered are SOL.
Here in Portland we use magnet schools to achieve racial balance. It worked pretty good for a while, but the system has completely broken down. The magnets in Black neighborhoods have been dismantled. What's left of Jefferson's dance magnet students can take advantage of while taking their academic classes at their neighborhood school. Any way my point is that to take advantage of magnets or better schools a parent has to be aggressive and savvy as the schools fill up quick. If you don't get in you are stuck with your neighborhood school. Charters tend to have bad track records.
Some people are unstoppable. Like August Wilson who got mad at a teacher dropped out of school in the 9th grade and spent his school days in the public library educating himself. Went on to win a Pulitzer prize as one of Americas best playwrights.
Most people are like me. I need all the help I can get, now and when I was a kid.
It's just idealisticmindless to think that kids in underfunded districts can compete fairly with affluent kids whose resources are incomprehensible to the former.
It's just idealisticmindless to think that kids in underfunded districts can compete fairly with affluent kids whose resources are incomprehensible to the former.
While it's a noble cause, and something many think is worth pursuing, isn't it just as mindless/idealistic to think that the poor will ever have the same opportunities as the rich in any society on any level??
I have found that in the two big cities I live near, any parent and/or child who wants to work hard and maximize their public education can do so by taking advantage of Charter and "Magnet" schools regardless of race or poverty level.
I am guessing you mispoke a little here.
My insinuation was thet the child would have to work hard in school as the Magnet/Charter Schools here do not tolerate slackers.
It's just idealisticmindless to think that kids in underfunded districts can compete fairly with affluent kids whose resources are incomprehensible to the former.
While it's a noble cause, and something many think is worth pursuing, isn't it just as mindless/idealistic to think that the poor will ever have the same opportunities as the rich in any society on any level??
i love the inherent assumption that this is the way things should be
It's just idealisticmindless to think that kids in underfunded districts can compete fairly with affluent kids whose resources are incomprehensible to the former.
While it's a noble cause, and something many think is worth pursuing, isn't it just as mindless/idealistic to think that the poor will ever have the same opportunities as the rich in any society on any level??
i love the inherent assumption that this is the way things should be
I'd say it's more an observation as to how it's always been.
i find myself agreeing with stacks and rock. the disdvantages stack up quickly. by kindergarten and first grade, there are already clear educational disparaties between poor and middle class kids. from my experience in philly public schools (as a student for 10 years, and working for 5 years in several grade schools and 4 years in a high school) parenting is the deciding factor in the equation. and when there is not a history of education in families, it seems to be the exception to the rule for the children to break through to higher levels of academics.
public schools are of course underfunded. and teachers are often inexperienced an ineffective. but they are not dealing with rooms full of rapt pupils. At the earliest levels, teachers are faced with incredible challenges from students bringing the baggage of disfunctional families to the classroom. many parents do care. and many more don't. ive seen countless kids enter kindergarten without ever having held a book in their hands. this situation compounds itself...by junior high school, the students who are still academically motivated and receive proper support from home and school are the minority. many of the good elementary school students slip into the growing pool of knuckleheads.
remedies i have seen are the masterful teachers who are highly organized, structured ,demanding and never absent. these people are saints. then there are the rare principles who turn around a school and see to every detail and make it their life's work. ive seen a couple schools run like this.
by high school, most teachers give up on the many and latch onto the few who are still trying to pull the Booker T. most of these students have strong families behind them. on a rare occasion, you have that young soldier who battles on perseveres, probably with some random mentor. But many high school teachers are only able to keep going because of this minority of students who are still committed to the embattled public educational system. and from what ive seen, these students get a lot of doors opened for them.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
It's just idealisticmindless to think that kids in underfunded districts can compete fairly with affluent kids whose resources are incomprehensible to the former.
While it's a noble cause, and something many think is worth pursuing, isn't it just as mindless/idealistic to think that the poor will ever have the same opportunities as the rich in any society on any level??
To answer this question, I don't think so. I thought quality compulsory education (K-12) was a legal right and not a privilege. The 14th ammendment (and Civil Rights Act of 1964), thus striking down Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), should guarantee equality in education. Knowing this feeds my utter disgust with the U.S. educational system, along with the negative after-effects of undereducating a sizable proportion of our populace (e.g., arrest rates, mortality rates, national economic performance, welfare expenditures, prison expenditures, etc.). Your question has some pretty ugly implications. A poorly educated society can have disastrous effects for all of us, and I wish the powers-that-be would understand.
It's just idealisticmindless to think that kids in underfunded districts can compete fairly with affluent kids whose resources are incomprehensible to the former.
While it's a noble cause, and something many think is worth pursuing, isn't it just as mindless/idealistic to think that the poor will ever have the same opportunities as the rich in any society on any level??
No it is neither mindless/idealistic to think the poor should have as good an education as the wealthy.
As you said it is a noble cause. It is something our country should right away.
I will be sharing my school space next year with an early childhood/parent literacy class. Parents will be learing how to read to their children. This sounds like a good program to me.
I will be sharing my school space next year with an early childhood/parent literacy class. Parents will be learing how to read to their children. This sounds like a good program to me.
you can have them read Motown's 10 trillion word Iraq War essay to each other.
I will be sharing my school space next year with an early childhood/parent literacy class. Parents will be learing how to read to their children. This sounds like a good program to me.
you can have them read Motown's 10 trillion word Iraq War essay to each other.
Right! Because only liberals would be trying for a better life for their children.
Just to note: other societies other than ours seem to have a far easier time leveling that playing field. So no, it's not idealistic to think America could achieve the same.
We're not talking about something as crazy as, say, de-arming our society
It's just idealisticmindless to think that kids in underfunded districts can compete fairly with affluent kids whose resources are incomprehensible to the former.
While it's a noble cause, and something many think is worth pursuing, isn't it just as mindless/idealistic to think that the poor will ever have the same opportunities as the rich in any society on any level??
To answer this question, I don't think so. I thought quality compulsory education (K-12) was a legal right and not a privilege. The 14th ammendment (and Civil Rights Act of 1964), thus striking down Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), should guarantee equality in education. Knowing this feeds my utter disgust with the U.S. educational system, along with the negative after-effects of undereducating a sizable proportion of our populace (e.g., arrest rates, mortality rates, national economic performance, welfare expenditures, prison expenditures, etc.). Your question has some pretty ugly implications. A poorly educated society can have disastrous effects for all of us, and I wish the powers-that-be would understand.
Comments
yeah, he's kind of screwed himself that way.
I am flattered that you say I sound like your Mom, regardless of her education or political views, she appears to have raised a damned good son. We'll just have to disagree on the topic as I don't believe you can legislate ambition. I have found that in the two big cities I live near, any parent and/or child who wants to work hard and maximize their public education can do so by taking advantage of Charter and "Magnet" schools regardless of race or poverty level. You can provide a horse with water but you can't force them to drink if they don't want to. What I would like to hear is the view of an inner city High School teacher on what can be done to encourage(or even force) low income children, who's parents don't give a rat's ass, to get a better education. Obviously, not all poor parents feel this way, but worse case scenario, that is what we are facing in today's Public Schools.
Rich
Hey Rich,
I agree you can't legislate ambition; however, if you're educated in a sub-standard educational environment, you can be assured of a lower likelihood of success in life. Too much research supports this conclusion, dating way back to Carter G. Woodson. So, what effects do you think this has on ambition among lower-income, urban youth? I'm not justifying bad behavior, I'm just saying poor resources, ineffective teaching, etc. that are inherent in urban schools precipitate bad behavior, poor effort, and underachievement. My own Research Methods project as an undergraduate examined the effects of county per-pupil expenditures, average teacher experience, student-teacher ratio, etc. on SAT scores for counties in North Carolina. Invariably, counties with lower expenditures, like say Hoke County, also had less experienced teachers, higher teacher-student ratios and, not surprisingly, significantly lower SATs than counties like Orange (where UNC-Chapel Hill is located). You think this is an accident that a poor rural county has fewer resources than an affluent one, with negative effects on SATs? This scenario plays out in nearly every major city in the country. It's just idealistic to think that kids in underfunded districts can compete fairly with affluent kids whose resources are incomprehensible to the former. Sure, exceptions can occur (as my wife loves to bring up), but on average, lower success is probable in such instances; hence, the term educational apartheid.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
I am guessing you mispoke a little here. My guess is that even if a child knew and wanted to take advantage of a charter or magnet school, only a parent can get the child in. Children in foster care or with parents who can't be bothered are SOL.
Here in Portland we use magnet schools to achieve racial balance. It worked pretty good for a while, but the system has completely broken down. The magnets in Black neighborhoods have been dismantled. What's left of Jefferson's dance magnet students can take advantage of while taking their academic classes at their neighborhood school. Any way my point is that to take advantage of magnets or better schools a parent has to be aggressive and savvy as the schools fill up quick. If you don't get in you are stuck with your neighborhood school. Charters tend to have bad track records.
Some people are unstoppable. Like August Wilson who got mad at a teacher dropped out of school in the 9th grade and spent his school days in the public library educating himself. Went on to win a Pulitzer prize as one of Americas best playwrights.
Most people are like me. I need all the help I can get, now and when I was a kid.
Pretty sure the rollback is under way already.
We gonna party like it's 1949!
While it's a noble cause, and something many think is worth pursuing, isn't it just as mindless/idealistic to think that the poor will ever have the same opportunities as the rich in any society on any level??
My insinuation was thet the child would have to work hard in school as the Magnet/Charter Schools here do not tolerate slackers.
I'd say it's more an observation as to how it's always been.
the disdvantages stack up quickly. by kindergarten and first grade, there are already clear educational disparaties between poor and middle class kids. from my experience in philly public schools (as a student for 10 years, and working for 5 years in several grade schools and 4 years in a high school) parenting is the deciding factor in the equation. and when there is not a history of education in families, it seems to be the exception to the rule for the children to break through to higher levels of academics.
public schools are of course underfunded. and teachers are often inexperienced an ineffective. but they are not dealing with rooms full of rapt pupils. At the earliest levels, teachers are faced with incredible challenges from students bringing the baggage of disfunctional families to the classroom. many parents do care. and many more don't. ive seen countless kids enter kindergarten without ever having held a book in their hands. this situation compounds itself...by junior high school, the students who are still academically motivated and receive proper support from home and school are the minority. many of the good elementary school students slip into the growing pool of knuckleheads.
remedies i have seen are the masterful teachers who are highly organized, structured ,demanding and never absent. these people are saints. then there are the rare principles who turn around a school and see to every detail and make it their life's work. ive seen a couple schools run like this.
by high school, most teachers give up on the many and latch onto the few who are still trying to pull the Booker T. most of these students have strong families behind them. on a rare occasion, you have that young soldier who battles on perseveres, probably with some random mentor. But many high school teachers are only able to keep going because of this minority of students who are still committed to the embattled public educational system. and from what ive seen, these students get a lot of doors opened for them.
hard work pays off.
but the odds are so stacked against these kids.
To answer this question, I don't think so. I thought quality compulsory education (K-12) was a legal right and not a privilege. The 14th ammendment (and Civil Rights Act of 1964), thus striking down Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), should guarantee equality in education. Knowing this feeds my utter disgust with the U.S. educational system, along with the negative after-effects of undereducating a sizable proportion of our populace (e.g., arrest rates, mortality rates, national economic performance, welfare expenditures, prison expenditures, etc.). Your question has some pretty ugly implications. A poorly educated society can have disastrous effects for all of us, and I wish the powers-that-be would understand.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
R.A.T.S.
No it is neither mindless/idealistic to think the poor should have as good an education as the wealthy.
As you said it is a noble cause. It is something our country should right away.
I will be sharing my school space next year with an early childhood/parent literacy class. Parents will be learing how to read to their children. This sounds like a good program to me.
you can have them read Motown's 10 trillion word Iraq War essay to each other.
Right! Because only liberals would be trying for a better life for their children.
We're not talking about something as crazy as, say, de-arming our society