0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
tOSU is terrified by the idea of UC threatening their dominance not bringing another major media market to the Big Ten network, which is the only reason middleweight teams are allowed in.
In what sports?
I don't think that's the reason. From 1950 on OSU would have beat UC 9 times out of 10.
Kasich's new "education plan" is a sop for his cronies in the charter school business. Parents who can already afford to send their children to private schools will get our tax money to send their children to private school. It will be about a billion dollars of state revenues that will go to these corporations.
IN-DEPTH: Kasich's budget gives county coffers a bumGov. John Kasich’s tax plan would result in a three-year windfall for counties thanks to expanding the sales tax to services, but the state would take over counties’ rates to prevent too big a boon.
Quote from: Boreas on February 06, 2013, 01:44:03 AMKasich's new "education plan" is a sop for his cronies in the charter school business. Parents who can already afford to send their children to private schools will get our tax money to send their children to private school. It will be about a billion dollars of state revenues that will go to these corporations.Seriously? Of the Facebook friends I have in the education sector (only one of which works for a for-profit charter), all of them looked genuinely relieved when the budget proposal came out. NPR has a decent rundown of the changes; the budget obviously supports vouchers more than you're comfortable with because you wouldn't be comfortable with anything short of completely eliminating them, and tries to give districts more labor flexibility, which I'm sure you also oppose. That said, I really don't see any dramatic changes to the status quo here:http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2013/02/04/whats-gov-kasichs-2013-budget-does-for-education/
Quote from: Gramarye on February 06, 2013, 03:12:12 AMQuote from: Boreas on February 06, 2013, 01:44:03 AMKasich's new "education plan" is a sop for his cronies in the charter school business. Parents who can already afford to send their children to private schools will get our tax money to send their children to private school. It will be about a billion dollars of state revenues that will go to these corporations.Seriously? Of the Facebook friends I have in the education sector (only one of which works for a for-profit charter), all of them looked genuinely relieved when the budget proposal came out. NPR has a decent rundown of the changes; the budget obviously supports vouchers more than you're comfortable with because you wouldn't be comfortable with anything short of completely eliminating them, and tries to give districts more labor flexibility, which I'm sure you also oppose. That said, I really don't see any dramatic changes to the status quo here:http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2013/02/04/whats-gov-kasichs-2013-budget-does-for-education/While I'm not a huge fan of vouchers at least the organizations that get the money tend to be trustworthy. The problem is any expansion of charter school funding, particularly those run by for-profit companies. That's where Kasich's ties to folks like Brennan are an issue certainly worth discussing.At the end of the day, however, the problem with both charter schools and vouchers is that they'll only improve educational outcomes marginally while leaving behind the most troubled students in public schools with even less funding. The math is a bit complicated, but a big part of what it comes down to is that funding for special education services is rarely enough to cover the costs of the mandates imposed by state and local governments, and these are the kids that are generally denied access to parochial and charter schools. There are other issues, such as who actually has the time and resources to access schools of choice, too.
More broadly, the education "problem" we have in the US at the moment is not one of cognitive ability, good teaching, funding, or anything else related to education. Rather, it's a tradition of racial and economic exclusion in the US that is determining most of the education "gap". Until we get to the root problems inherent (and often praised) failures of late American capitalism - such as chronic underemployment, low wages, a 24/hour economic cycle, and a lack of job security - we will be dealing with the same problems for generations.
Quote from: westerninterloper on February 10, 2013, 04:08:40 AMMore broadly, the education "problem" we have in the US at the moment is not one of cognitive ability, good teaching, funding, or anything else related to education. Rather, it's a tradition of racial and economic exclusion in the US that is determining most of the education "gap". Until we get to the root problems inherent (and often praised) failures of late American capitalism - such as chronic underemployment, low wages, a 24/hour economic cycle, and a lack of job security - we will be dealing with the same problems for generations. It's a policy that, like many in America, is a train wreck of "personal freedom" meets "political corretness" meets a massive bureaucracy. And it makes nobody happy.
While I'm not a huge fan of vouchers at least the organizations that get the money tend to be trustworthy. The problem is any expansion of charter school funding, particularly those run by for-profit companies. That's where Kasich's ties to folks like Brennan are an issue certainly worth discussing.At the end of the day, however, the problem with both charter schools and vouchers is that they'll only improve educational outcomes marginally while leaving behind the most troubled students in public schools with even less funding. The math is a bit complicated, but a big part of what it comes down to is that funding for special education services is rarely enough to cover the costs of the mandates imposed by state and local governments, and these are the kids that are generally denied access to parochial and charter schools. There are other issues, such as who actually has the time and resources to access schools of choice, too.
I could give you 100 examples from my old life of urban planning, but here's one from my new life in medicine: It's common practice to offer a woman a tube tie while she's getting a C-section. Rationale: she's just had a kid, she might not want any more, and you're already in there so you're saving time and money. A lot of women do it. But, it's illegal to offer it to a low-income mother. The state is afraid that doctors would "abuse their position of power and sterilize the poor." It's one of the small ways that America now has more births poor single mothers than rich partnered ones. That's a promising future.
Quote from: Clevelander17 on February 10, 2013, 02:40:34 AMWhile I'm not a huge fan of vouchers at least the organizations that get the money tend to be trustworthy. The problem is any expansion of charter school funding, particularly those run by for-profit companies. That's where Kasich's ties to folks like Brennan are an issue certainly worth discussing.At the end of the day, however, the problem with both charter schools and vouchers is that they'll only improve educational outcomes marginally while leaving behind the most troubled students in public schools with even less funding. The math is a bit complicated, but a big part of what it comes down to is that funding for special education services is rarely enough to cover the costs of the mandates imposed by state and local governments, and these are the kids that are generally denied access to parochial and charter schools. There are other issues, such as who actually has the time and resources to access schools of choice, too.There are costs to taking the potential high achievers out of traditional failing urban public schools, true. But there are costs to leaving those potential high achievers in those unconscionably hostile learning environments, too--namely, that that potential will never actually be realized, because critical learning years of youth will be lost. They will be held back by the need to teach to the median (or below it) when that median is unacceptably low; many of these schools do not have the resources for gifted programs (as you note, what resources they do have are often required to go to special education first, and they can't even cover those needs). In addition, in some of those schools, the academic culture is so hostile that enrolling in a gifted program might as well paint a target on one's back. Akron Buchtel high school, at least as of a couple of years ago, offered all of one AP exam. AP tests are huge for talented but poor children because they can shorten the amount of quarters or semesters that one actually needs to be in college, significantly reducing both the expenses of higher education and the time before one can start earning a paycheck with a college degree.If leaving the potential high achievers in the traditional public school environment meant only a small loss of performance for the gifted but serious gains in performance for median-level students, then I'd be more supportive. The hard evidence for that is extremely thin, however; as best I can tell, the exhortations to leave these students where they are because others will benefit from their presence seems to be mostly wishful thinking. More accurately, the gifted are neglected and unchallenged while the school's resources and attention are focused on the problem populations; the school's administration in many cases simply has no choice. That means that the status quo is unacceptable and promises of internal reform are meaningless because they come from administrations that could not deliver such internal reforms even if they wanted. Refusing to allow high performers a way out of that system does a tremendous disservice to both the students and to the community.
^It's a very serious problem because people can't participate as normal functioning members of society when they work all these nights and weekends.
Care to elaborate? Do you feel it's good for the economy when people have to go to bed at 6pm, have to sleep all day or work at 4 am on a Sunday? Do you like working those kinds of hours? How did your spending habits change when you did?
The logic behind 3 manufacturing shifts is sound. What I don't understand, however, is rotating shifts. One of my best buddies works at Lincoln Electric and is on 1st shift one week, 2nd shift the next week, and 3rd shift the next. No regular sleeping paterns f's with the mind.
