There’s something redundant about the phrase, "actual reality." I know that. But we have to make distinctions, when dealing our friends at SCRG, between the actual sort and their sort.
If I agreed with what these folks are advocating, I’d be embarrassed they’re on my side. I’ve gotten the impression that Karen Floyd is. But she’s sort of stuck; she’s their candidate.
Anyway, here is a partial breakdown of the problems that made the latest SCRG unpublishable by anyone except SCRG.
I should probably preface this by noting that on the pages of The State, we let (actually, we encourage it and facilitate it) folks who disagree with us say pretty much anything they want and call us any names they want — as long as they’re suitable for a family newspaper. You can call us left-wing; you can call us right-wing (they’re about equally popular, it seems); you can call us late for supper. You can say our mothers dress us funny.
What we won’t let you do is confuse readers by saying something that is objectively, obviously untrue. And that includes saying we said things we didn’t say. I mean, what’s the point of our taking the trouble to write something if we’re going to use our own space to let people say we said something else? Kind of a pointless exercise. Argue with what we say all you like, but no inventing false statements. (I suspect people do this because they think they have an answer for the phony statement, but they know they are incapable of contending with what we actually said. Whatever.)
Anyway, here’s the point-by-point:
- Goebbels? Joseph Goebbels? Isn’t this device in some sort of Over-The-Top Name-Calling Rhetoric Hall of Fame?
- Actually, Cindi likes school choice. You know, send your kids to any public school you want, whether you’re zoned for it or not; whether you even live in the district or not. And send them to any private school you want, but then you pay for it yourself instead of asking other taxpayers to do it for you. On this point she’s a lot easier than I. I’m suspicious of any movement that has to hide behind the word "choice." Whether it’s abortion or subsidizing private schools, people with bad ideas avoid saying what they’re actually for.
- "She used both of them in this diatribe with a shameless disregard for the facts or the truth." Hey, maybe she’s a Nazi, but the law doesn’t let you libel Nazis, either. We will now wait in vain for any assertions by SCRG that anything she said was untrue, much less "shamelessly" so.
- "Ms. Scoppe recklessly labels South Carolinians for Responsible Government and other groups’ activities as ‘white collar crime.’ " Uh, hello. No she didn’t. Reading comprehension problem time. Her actual text: "The poker barons were more dangerous, in the sense that street
crime is more dangerous than white-collar crime." It’s called an analogy. Look into it. - "She is a partisan, liberal Democrat." When they try to make a case for this one, I want to be in the room. It should be entertaining. One quick example: Cindi is the one who has to keep coming to Mark Sanford’s defense when I get fed up with him (it’s becoming a full-time job, and, truth be told, she’s starting to agree with me sometimes). For the record, no one on my editorial board is a partisan, or I wouldn’t have chosen him or her to work with us. That’s just insulting. The amusing part is when they call her "liberal" and "Democrat." Of course, there is no evidence offered here — circumstantial or otherwise. How could there be? None exists.
… tell you what — to save your time and mine, let’s just stop skipping over all the plain silly stuff (although all the stuff about her "screaming" — coming from people talking about Goebbels — is a lot of fun) and go to their out-and-out false assertions of "fact"…
- "While complying with all applicable laws." Say what? They can argue that the law is unconstitutional if they wish. But the fact is
that the law does require them to report their spending, and they have refused
to comply with it. - "She is doing it to advance liberal political candidates and causes." Such as? I can think of some folks we’ve endorsed over in the Democratic primary who might be described as "liberal" — but only here in South Carolina and few other places. But in the Republican primary, which is what we’re talking about here? Who? Where? In what sense?
- "Destroy your opponents’ credibility through lies and distortions." Once again, give us one example in which Cindi (as opposed to some other people we could name if we wanted to get picky) has done this. And remember the rule: You can’t make it up! She has to have actually done it, and you actually have to have a plausible argument that it’s untrue.
I realize we’re playing by tough rules, requiring actual facts and all, but publishing the op-ed page South Carolina’s largest newspaper is not the same as throwing junk on the Web site of some lame, ranting advocacy group. We’re kind of particular about this fact stuff, and if you don’t know what one is, you’re going to have trouble keeping up.
Related Posts
The shame of it all is that both sides bring important perspectives and ideas to the table, but can’t agree to sit at the table for meaningful dialogue.
The SCRG, many public school critics, and many on this blog seem more intent on bashing schools and educators, and on pushing the choice agenda than they are on reform itself. If you dare challenge their position, even to ask questions, you are dismissed as a defender of the status quo. As of yet, no one has provided evidence that choice is the silver bullet of reform.
Many educators and education advocates are guilty. There is an unwillingness to take a cold hard look at what’s wrong with our system. The symptoms are addressed but the illnesses go unchecked. We seem to absolve ourselves of responibility, redirecting it towards parents or the law.
Until we have leadership that sets the table of dialogue, true exhange of ideas, this battle of ideology will continue. I have beat the drum of reform because education is fundamental to the well being of our society. I hope this thread can be an exchange of ideas and not mere venting at our education system.
Well said, Randy. Any takers on that?
Brad,
I guess we can take it as read that the big-government folks at The State don’t like SCRG? Why not? What exactly is wrong with giving parents control over how the state’s education money is spent?
“many on this blog seem more intent on bashing schools and educators, and on pushing the choice agenda than they are on reform itself.”
The choice agenda is reform! Fiddling around on the margins with what passes for public school “reform” will have no more success than all the other much-ballyhooed “reforms” over the past 2 or 3 decades which invariably fizzle out over the next year or two.
It is my considered opinion that the current public school system has failed abysmally and can’t be reformed without introducing competition with private schools and other public schools, on a level playing field. The only way to do that is with universal vouchers, i.e. by giving each parent a voucher in an amount equal to what the school district currently spends per student, somewhere in the $8,000 to $9,000 range. Parents would then be free to leave their kids in their current public schools, transfer to another public school or send them to private school.
If public schools do a good job they have nothing to worry about as many parents will simply leave their kids in their current schools. Substandard schools do have something to worry about and rightfully so. It is simply unconscionable and immoral to force kids to remain in schools that don’t teach.
In fact, this is where public school advocates always lose me when they wail about “draining money from public education” etc etc. As long as the public schools do a good job there won’t be much money drained away and if they don’t, then how in the world can you justify forcing kids to stay in a substandard system?
Bottom line I’m all for public education, in teh sense that government should provide equal resources to every child’s education. I’m deeply opposed to the government actually running the schools, especially without giving poor kids in bad schools a way out.
It is true the SCRG has an agenda. In the interest of fairness and balance, here is the agenda of the NEA. I really doubt that a majority of S. Carolinians would want to adopt the NEA agenda items. Even though these are from their 1999 convention, most if not all are still valid for the NEA.
Excerpts from Resolutions Passed at the 1999 NEA Convention
A-10. Public School Buildings. The National Education Association believes that closed public school buildings should be sold or leased only to those organizations that are not in direct competition with public schools.
A-13. Federal Financial Support for Education. The Association believes that funding for federal programs should be substantially increased, not merely redistributed among states.
A-15. Financial Support of Public Education. Funds must be provided for programs to alleviate race, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination and to eliminate portrayal of race, gender, and sexual orientation stereotypes in the public schools. The Association opposes the use of public revenues for private, parochial, or other nonpublic pre-K through 12 schools.
A-19. Undocumented Immigrants. The National Education Association believes that, regardless of the immigration status of students or their parents, every student has the right to a free public education in an environment free from harassment.
A-26. Charter and Nontraditional Public School Options. The Association believes that when concepts such as charter schools and other nontraditional school options are proposed, all affected public education employees must be directly involved in the design, implementation, and governance of these programs.
A-27. Deleterious Programs. The National Education Association believes that the following programs and practices are detrimental to public education and must be eliminated: privatization, performance contracting, tax credits for tuition to private and parochial schools, voucher plans (or funding formulas that have the same effect as vouchers), planned program budgeting systems (PPBS), and evaluations by private, profit-making groups.
A-29. Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. The National Education Association believes that voucher plans and tuition tax credits or funding formulas that have the same effect undermine public education, reduce the support needed to adequately fund public education, and have the potential for racial, economic, and social segregation of children. The Association opposes all attempts to establish and/or implement such plans.
B-1. Early Childhood Education. The National Education Association supports early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age eight. The Association further believes that early childhood education programs should include a full continuum of services for parents/guardians/caregivers, and children, including child care, child development, developmentally appropriate and diversity-based curricula, special education, and appropriate bias-free screening devices. These programs must be available to all children on an equal basis and should include mandatory kindergarten with compulsory attendance.
B-7. Diversity. The National Education Association believes that a diverse society enriches all individuals. Similarities and differences among races, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, geographic location, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical ability, size, occupation, and marital, parental, or economic status form the fabric of a society. The Association further believes in the importance of observances, programs and curricula that accurately portray and recognize the roles, contributions, cultures, and history of these diverse groups and individuals.
B-8. Racism, Sexism, and Sexual Orientation Discrimination. The National Education Association believes in the equality of all individuals. Discrimination and stereotyping based on such factors as race, gender, immigration status, physical disabilities, ethnicity, occupation, and sexual orientation must be eliminated. Plans, activities, and programs must —
Eliminate discrimination and stereotyping in the curriculum, textbooks, resource and instructional materials, activities, etc.
Integrate an accurate portrayal of the roles and contributions of all groups throughout history across the curriculum, particularly groups who have been underrepresented historically
Eliminate subtle practices that favor the education of one student over another on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, physical disabilities, or sexual orientation
Offer positive and diverse role models in our society including the recruitment, hiring, and promotion of diverse education employees in our public schools.The Association encourages its affiliates to develop and implement training programs on these matters.
B-20. Educational Programs for Limited English Proficiency Students. The Association believes that LEP students should be placed in bilingual education programs to receive instruction in their native language from qualified teachers until such time as English proficiency is achieved.
B-29. Multicultural Education. Multicultural education should promote the recognition of individual and group differences and similarities in order to reduce racism, ethnic prejudices, and discrimination. Multicultural education encompasses an idea or concept, an educational reform movement, and a process.
B-30. Global Education. The Association believes that global education increases respect for and awareness of the earth and its people, and an appreciation of our interdependency in sharing the world’s resources to meet mutual human needs.
B-36. Family Life Education. The Association believes that programs should be established for both students and parents/guardians/caregivers and supported at all educational levels to promote the development of self-esteem.
B-37. Sex Education. The Association recognizes that the public school must assume an increasingly important role in providing the instruction. Teachers and health professionals must be legally protected from censorship and lawsuits. The Association also believes that, to facilitate the realization of human potential, it is the right of every individual to live in an environment of freely available information and knowledge about sexuality and encourages affiliates and members to support appropriately established sex education programs. Such programs should include information on sexual abstinence, birth control and family planning, diversity of culture, diversity of sexual orientation, parenting skills, prenatal care, sexually transmitted diseases, incest, sexual abuse, sexual harassment.
B-38. AIDS Education. The National Education Association believes that educational institutions should establish comprehensive acquired human immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) education programs as an integral part of the school curriculum.
B-40. Environmental Education. The Association supports educational programs that promote the concept of the interdependence of humanity and nature.
B-53. Standardized Testing of Students. The Association opposes the use of standardized tests when
Used as the criterion for the reduction or withholding of any educational funding
Results are used inappropriately to compare students, teachers, programs, schools, communities, and states.
B-65. Home Schooling. The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state requirements. Home schooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being borne by the parents/guardians/caregivers. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used. The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.
C-1. Health Care for All Children. The National Education Association believes that legislation should be adopted to provide comprehensive health care to all children.
C-7. Child Care. The Association encourages school districts and educational institutions to establish on-site child care for preschoolers, students, the children of students, and the children of staff members.
C-14. Extremist Groups. The National Education Association condemns the philosophy and practices of extremist groups and urges active opposition to all such movements that are inimical to the ideals of the Association.
C-22. Comprehensive School Health Programs and Services. The National Education Association believes that every child should have direct and confidential access to comprehensive health, social, and psychological programs and services. The Association believes that schools should provide:
A planned sequential, pre-K through 12 health education curriculum that integrates various health topics (such as drug abuse, violence, universal precautions, and HIV education).
The Association believes that services in the schools should include:
Counseling programs that provide developmental guidance and broad-based interventions and referrals
Comprehensive school-based, community-funded student health care clinics that provide basic health care services (which may include diagnosis and treatment)
If deemed appropriate by local choice, family-planning counseling and access to birth control methods with instruction in their use.
C-23. School Counseling Programs. The National Education Association believes that guidance and counseling programs should be integrated into the entire education system, pre-K through college.
C-31. Suicide Prevention Programs. The National Education Association believes that suicide prevention programs including prevention, intervention, and postvention must be developed and implemented. The Association urges its affiliates to ensure that these programs are an integral part of the school program.
D-20. Testing/Assessment and Teacher Evaluation. The National Education Association believes that competency testing must not be used as a condition of employment, license retention, evaluation, placement, ranking, or promotion of licensed teachers.
E-3. Selection and Challenges of Materials and Teaching Techniques. The Association deplores prepublishing censorship, book-burning crusades, and attempts to ban books from school libraries/media centers and school curricula.
F-1. Nondiscriminatory Personnel Policies/ Affirmative Action. The National Education Association believes that personnel policies and practices must guarantee that no person be employed, retained, paid, dismissed, suspended, demoted, transferred, or retired because of race, color, national origin, cultural diversity, accent, religious beliefs, residence, physical disability, political activities, professional association activity, age, size, marital status, family relationship, gender, or sexual orientation.
H-1. The Education Employee as a Citizen. The Association urges its members to become politically involved and to support the political action committees of the Association and its affiliates.
H-7. National Health Care Policy. The Association supports the adoption of a single-payer health care plan for all residents of the United States, its territories, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Association will support health care reform measures that move the United States closer to this goal.
I-13. Family Planning. The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom. The Association further urges the implementation of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel.
I-27. Freedom of Religion. The Association opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence.
I-29. Gun-free Schools and the Regulation of Deadly Weapons. The Association believes that strict proscriptive regulations are necessary for the manufacture, importation, distribution, sale and resale of handguns and ammunition magazines.
I-47. English as the Official Language. The Association believes that efforts to legislate English as the official language disregard cultural pluralism; deprive those in need of education, social services, and employment; and must be challenged.
I-50. Equal Opportunity for Women. The Association believes in equal pay for comparable worth. The Association supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (such as the Equal Rights Amendment) that guarantees that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state because of gender.
(Emphasis added; see glossary)
The NEA’s 1999 Lobbying Goals
Creation of a national database on early childhood care and education programs.
Federal programs to assist parents in gaining parenting skills and in understanding child growth and development.
Federal resources to enhance the availability and quality of public school child care programs, including preschool and before- and after-school programs.
Development and implementation of comprehensive, community-based drug and violence prevention programs that link community resources with schools and integrate services involving education, vocational and job skills training and placement, law enforcement, health, mental health, community service, mentoring, and other appropriate services.
Effective School-to-Work initiatives.
The NEA Will Work to —
Oppose proposals for Title I funds portability or super Ed-Flex.
Continue to align state and local academic standards with assessments, and provide educators with the tools to develop curricula aligned to standards and assessments.
Support an FY 2000 class-size reduction appropriation at least equal to President Clinton’s request, or preferably, a larger increase of $400 million to hire 15,000 new teachers.
Support key provisions in the Children’s Gun Violence Protection Act (S.735/H.R.1342), to protect children from firearm violence.
Oppose tax-free IRA withdrawals for private and religious school and home-schooling expenses.
Oppose all voucher plans.
Support an increase in the minimum wage for all employees, including youth.
NEA Political Activity
At its annual July convention, the NEA claimed that the 1998 elections “affirmed [voters’] strong support for maintaining the federal role in public education.” The NEA took credit for the “critical victories” of many NEA-backed candidates.
NEA officials pressed the convention delegates to contribute to NEA-PAC. At this year’s convention, members responded by donating $797,000 to NEA’s PAC, an average of $83 per delegate.
In his keynote address, NEA President Bob Chase praised Bill Clinton as “the best education president in history” and listed what the union considers its “biggest election victories” in 1998. He commended the NEA’s New York affiliate for “helping to defeat Sen. Al D’Amato and replace him with Chuck Schumer, and the North Carolina affiliate for defeating Sen. Lauch Faircloth and replacing him with John Edwards.” He vowed that “Jesse Helms is next.” He told his audience to “forget the media hype coming out of Minnesota,” and bragged that Lieutenant Governor Mae Schunk was “having no trouble handling [Governor] Jesse Ventura.”
At a Democratic Caucus breakfast, NEA Government Relations staffer Jerry Caruthers appealed to delegates to “dig deep to support the NEA Political Action Committee,” which has been renamed the “NEA Fund for Children and Public Education.” Caruthers told delegates: “I know that you want to give to the Democratic party, but you have a party also, and that is the NEA.”
The two-year fundraising goal for NEA-PAC is $7.7 million.
The Gay & Lesbian Caucus (GLC) is a powerful pressure group within the NEA. Caucus membership has increased from 200+ in 1993 to more than 700 in 1999. Its annual dinner attracts the union’s top leaders, including President Bob Chase. Its GLC buttons are worn by hundreds of convention delegates. The caucus works to introduce public school curricula supportive of gay and lesbian lifestyles, but its agenda is advanced under the guise of teaching safety, tolerance, and nondiscrimination.
Dave, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, that’s a bit much to read.
The NEA is a union so it’s biased. This doesn’t discount all their positions, but I “take them with a grain of salt.”
I believe the NEA makes some good points as do the critics of public schools and educators. Again, how do we put these perspectives to use?
Here’s a possibility. Choice has been offered as an initiative for reform. Simply giving parents vouchers to use at private schools poses several problems and issues which I have yet to see addressed:
1. Do these private schools want or can they handle an influx of new students?
2. Who will teach these new students at the private schools?
3. What evidence do we have that such choice reforms schools to the degree we want?
I believe that the accountability of schools and educators and empowerment of parents are necessities. Many if not most of our private schools are religion based. They are not designed to be reform based. Charter schools are. Why do we not focus on choice involving charter schools which are free from much of the meddling of the beauracracy?
It saddens me to see you trot out the same bogus questions as on the other thread. Anyway, once again with feeling:
“1. Do these private schools want or can they handle an influx of new students?”
Who knows, but what would be the problem with giving parents vouchers anyway? If the private sector doesn’t step up to the plate then parents would have to sign over their vouchers to, and students would simply stay in, their current public schools. Status quo and nothing lost. Of course, we all know that there would in fact be significant private investment in new schools once vouchers became available to large numbers of students, and that’s precisely why the educracy is fighting vouchers tooth and nail. Anything that would make the educracy directly accountable to parents is anathema.
“2. Who will teach these new students at the private schools?”
You know, this is a very strange question. Why would you even care where the teachers come from as long as they are qualified? Maybe some will come from the public schools. Others may come from people highly qualified in their field, as opposed to educrats who usually just take a bunch of worthless education school pap and often don’t know all that much about the actual subject they are supposed to be teaching. The military constantly has people leaving who would be highly qualified as teachers. This is just like any other business. I generally don’t care where a business gets its workers as long as they are qualified to do the job and are employed legally.
“3. What evidence do we have that such choice reforms schools to the degree we want?”
None, especially since you didn’t define the “degree we want”. But we do have plenty of evidence that the old approach doesn’t work. Just on that basis alone, we owe it to our kids to give school choice a try. Just think of it as the latest educational fad. If it was something dreamed up by the educracy you wouldn’t hesitate to give even the most harebrained schemes a whirl so why be so reluctant on this promising and eminently reasonable proposal?
Unequal education among the population is only a symptom of the much larger problem: supposed liberalism based on capitalism. In modernity, “all men are created equal” has to become “all people are equal”. Until we understand this precept, further debate is pointless.
Bogus? “Saddens me.” You make my point. Ask valid questions about a proposal and your are criticized.
“Who knows?” isn’t quite a solution to the problem. I doubt this response is accepted in the business sector.
“Why would you care where teachers come from?” With the shortage of teachers that we have now, the parents of students with no teacher will care where these teachers come from.
“Think of choice as another fad.” This is more than a little fad. Taking a wait and see approach to find out how these problems will be addressed is not something I would support.
“you wouldn’t hesitate to give even the most harebrained schemes a whirl” – as I wrote initially, there are factions more intent on bashing schools and educators than on solving our problems.
Does anyone else have input?
If you go with the overwhelming consensus research that shows that the socioeconomic status of students is a greater factor on student achievement than any other factor – including race, then how does the school choice faction say that providing these parents a voucher to go to another school will help their student learn? How does a voucher help me on my taxes when I don’t make enough to pay them anyway? How does the fact that I don’t value education – because I dropped out just like my momma and her daddy and her momma – and so I don’t encourage my child to read anyway, do homework (because I’m working third shift – or just drunk on the couch) – or make good grades in school – in fact I will take them out for long periods of time because I don’t have gas to get them to school, don’t want them to go to school, or send them to their aunt in Florida for a month because I am tired of them and need a break…..how does this deal of school choice and putting parents in charge help me? I’m already in charge and I don’t care!
It just seems like another way to let the public pay for the private schooling of the upper middle class and elite class where I clean their office buildings when I do go to work.
Randy, still no valid arguments, I see.
“”Who knows?” isn’t quite a solution to the problem. I doubt this response is accepted in the business sector.”
But of course it is! There are constantly new business ventures where there is no “proof” that they will ever work but if they do, the payoff could be enormous. Thus investors give it a try, sometimes to the tune of $billions.
“”Why would you care where teachers come from?” With the shortage of teachers that we have now, the parents of students with no teacher will care where these teachers come from.”
What teacher shortage? Link, please! You’d be surprised how many qualified people would be willing to teach if they didn’t have to contend with the stifling educracy.
“Think of choice as another fad.” This is more than a little fad. Taking a wait and see approach to find out how these problems will be addressed is not something I would support.
But then you are not the only one who decides these things. Fortunately there are numerous other people who would support this approach.
“you wouldn’t hesitate to give even the most harebrained schemes a whirl” – as I wrote initially, there are factions more intent on bashing schools and educators than on solving our problems.
Hey, I’m not part of the educracy which keeps coming up with these harebrained schemes! Blame them.
SAT scores of a community are directly proportional to the average size of the front yard.
You make a great point Frances. This is a major issue that has been overlooked in this whole state superintendent campaign. Mike Campbell is actually the only one that I’ve seen address this disparity.
Lex, when you come up with something more than bashing schools and educators and figure out those problems (including the ones Frances points out) inherent in your plan I’ll be glad to talk.
Back to Frances’ post…
Frances,
your post sounds suspiciously like blame-the-customer syndrome. Nothing is the educracy’s fault. It’s all those poor slobs of parents that are screwing everything up. Sure you’re right.
In case you missed it the upper middle class and the elite is already paying for private school if they so choose. I pay north of $10,000 a year for my daughter’s private school. Vouchers would be great but I will continue to send her to private school whether I get a voucher or not, simply because I want the best possible education for her and public school just ain’t it.
The real victims of the educracy are not the better-off people but the poor or lower middle class. People who, unlike me, don’t have the means to pay for private school. Their kids are the guinea pigs who have to suffer through every educational fad, the kids who are imprisoned in their substandard public schools even if they are absolute hellholes that no human being should be forced to attend. Their kids are the ones who all too often either don’t graduate at all or who finish HS unable to make change or to read at an 8th grade level.
Did you see this State article today: S.C. graduation rate ranked nation’s worst? These are the kids who are being failed by the educracy on a monumental scale. 52.5% graduation rate? Please!! Any private business with such a high failure rate would have been bankrupted decades ago. The educracy, however, couldn’t care less and would rather see another generation of kids fail than to allow the one option that would make the system directly accountable to parents.
Competition is GOOD. Choice is GOOD.
Frances, don’t bother him with details.
Again, where’s is the debate on equalling the playing field between SES levels in schools?
Schools do a poor job of maintaining standards for these lower level students. Parents and the public who vote for school board members play a role as well, which is your point.
Randy,
details or no details, it’s clear that you still don’t have a valid response to my arguments.
“Again, where’s is the debate on equalling the playing field between SES levels in schools?”
SES = socio-economic status? If so, public schools are inherently incapable of doing such levelling or equalling (if you don’t believe me, tell us how such levelling would occur in a public school setting!). As I pointed out before, better-off parents can already afford to send their kids to private schools and wouldn’t benefit from any levelling. The poor and lower middle class, on the other hand, would greatly benefit from school choice which would allow them to send their kids to better schools. Of course, that’s precisely what you are against. What exactly do you have against these poorer kids getting a better education than your dysfunctional public schools are currently providing?
“Parents and the public who vote for school board members play a role as well”
Who needs school boards whose members may or may not support your positions when parents under school choice could have direct, immediate and complete accountability from schools? Public and private schools which meet the expectations of their customers would retain their students. Schools who fail to meet those expectations would lose students and maybe even have to close completely. How much more direct and complete can accountability be?
Brad,
some questions about your original post:
“I’d be embarrassed they’re on my side. I’ve gotten the impression that Karen Floyd is.”
What exactly gives you that impression? I didn’t see anything on her website that would support such a conclusion.
You can call us left-wing; you can call us right-wing
I wouldn’t call you either one but I would call The State pro-big government and anti-indvidual, anti-people. Would you agree? Why?
What we won’t let you do is confuse readers by saying something that is objectively, obviously untrue.
Untrue defined by whom? Clearly you will have to admit that even the almighty State might not always be fully informed or aware of the truth. In addition, for a big-government fan the “truth” may not be the same as for one who believes that all power not specifically granted to the government should remain with the individual.
Cindi likes school choice. You know, send your kids to any public school you want, whether you’re zoned for it or not; whether you even live in the district or not. And send them to any private school you want, but then you pay for it yourself
Do you also believe that government should only support college students who attend public colleges? If not, why? What’s the difference between vouchers for private K-12 schools on one hand, and state grants and scholarships going to students attending private colleges on the other?
“Ms. Scoppe recklessly labels South Carolinians for Responsible Government and other groups’ activities as ‘white collar crime.’ ” Uh, hello. No she didn’t. Reading comprehension problem time. Her actual text: “The poker barons were more dangerous, in the sense that street crime is more dangerous than white-collar crime.” It’s called an analogy.
Funny that you picked on that one. Did you even notice that both poker barons and SCRG are compared to criminals? Nice touch. So unbiased…..
the fact is that the law does require them to report their spending
Could you provide a link to that law? That’s what bloggers normally do.
Some of the reading I have done about private schools shows that for the most part the successful ones “require” parental involvement in a much more direct and participative way than any public school does. Private schools have the advantage in that regard because once they set rules and if the rules are not complied with, the student can be expelled. We know that in the public school environment, that is a much different scenario. To a post above, I would not foresee a massive immediate shift from public to private schools. They can’t handle that kind of onslaught nor would they want that. It will be gradual and guess what, as the private schools develop, what are the odds that the public schools will smarten up very quickly and become more competitive? Studies show that that sort of competition, just like in business, is very healthy for the public schools also. When the administrators connect the dots and realize that if they lose enough “customers”, then maybe the district wont need the administrators, the pressure will be on to improve the quality to retain the customer base. Kind of like The State striving to retain and grow customers. It works.
I talked with a lifelong educator, not administrator, just recently. This person is as devoted to the education profession as one could ever be. She is unhappy with the governor’s effect on the public schools but is voting for Floyd. She thinks Floyd has the energy and talent to actually get some improvements implemented and Floyd will have the governor’s attention. ONe interesting comment was when she said Inez Tannenbaum took a whole, very critical year off from her job, to run for the US Senate. That hurt state education and left a leadership void that was not filled.
“Private schools have the advantage in that regard because once they set rules and if the rules are not complied with, the student can be expelled.”
And when they are expelled, where do they go to? Back to the public school, because public schools take them all and are charged with “leaving no child behind.”
One group that would definitely be left out would be learning disabled students. Your private and parochial schools are not going to take those students in mass. They don’t have the resources to meet the requirements for these students.
So where does that leave us again? All of the poor (for which a $7,000 voucher on their taxes is not going to do a bit of good in allowing them to get their child to the private school two counties over), the behavior problems (who won’t be taken or who won’t last – but who still need an education if our state is going to improve), and the special needs students will all go to the “failing schools” while the upper-middle class and elite class will take their voucher and go on to their “private” school that doesn’t have to meet the standards that the public schools have to – but where they can be educated in seclusion – away from those “other” people!
Sounds great to me.
Randy,
I share your concern over the teacher shortage as it will be even more critical in fast growing districts like Richland Two. With two new elementary schools this year and (I believe) an average of one new school per year for the next six years, that will mean finding approximately 500 more teachers over that timespan. It would be overyly optimistic to assume that the quality of applicants will remain high.
Richland 2’s reputation will end up being
negatively impacted within the next decade
due to the development philosophy of the county. Developers love the boom years but beware when the boom goes bust.
My prediction – rather than consolidate school districts like we should, we will see Richland 2 split into Richland 2 and
3, providing even more overhead and duplication at the administrative level.
My guess is that the “new” Richland 2
will include the lower performing schools
closer to Decker Blvd. so that the “new” Richland 3 will be able to claim to be
one of the best districts in the state.
Don’t be surprised when it happens.
Doug, Dave, and Frances make important points I believe.
There are a large number of teachers (and the population as a whole) that will retire soon. The sciences already face shortages. Fortunately for Lex 1, Lex 5, and Rich 2 many teachers at other districts want to get into these districts.
The biggest difference between public and private – the public schools are sevely restricted in how they remove students from school. At Cardinal Newman, if a kid cuts twice he’s out.
I intially liked Floyd as a candidate. BUT, as I studied her positions and watched her debate, I found her to be more of a polished politician than an energetic candidate. She made choice 1 of her 4 main points for reform, but during the debate it was like pulling teeth to get her to take a stand on the PPIC legislation.
I think they two most important points made were Doug’s reference to how Richland County is run and Dave’s point about parents being involved. This is a very complicated problem.
It’s unfortunate that The State (and Brad and Cindi) seem to keep harping on “out of state” interests with SCRG, etc.
Isn’t their newspaper owned by an out of state corporation in California? Why can they make endorsements within 45 days of an election – but a citizens group cannot?
I really thought that Cindi’s remarks went over the top in comparing the folks who want educational options to the video poker barons.
Ms. Scoppe clearly has learned Goebbels’ methods well.
Good Lord. Mr. Page ought to be ashamed of himself.
Is this the first time the laughably named SCRG has played the Nazi card, so to speak?
The only way to do that is with universal vouchers, i.e. by giving each parent a voucher in an amount equal to what the school district currently spends per student, somewhere in the $8,000 to $9,000 range.
i.e., a massive entitlement program. There is not one single reason why I should support that.
I don’t have children myself. I don’t at all mind paying taxes to support public education, but I would very much mind subsidizing your kids’ private school tuition.
You want to send your children to private school, you pay for it.
Let’s see…Ms. Scoppe says that SCRG “threatens to take control of the Republican Party.” Is this the same Republican Party whose national and state platform both support school choice?
Is this the same party whose executive committee voted unanimously in favor of school choice?
She then goes on to say that decry “their agenda of defunding public schools and throwing money at unaccountable, unregulated private schools.”
First of all, SCRG has never advocated defunding public schools. Public schools currently use about $7 billion…and the vast majority of SC students will always be educated in our public schools. SCRG has repeatedly railed – and rightly so – against the heavy spending on administration – and the low level of funds going directly to the classroom. It’s incredulous to conservatives as to why administrators can wine and dine at the public expense – while teachers have to buy copy paper for their students.
Additionally, any school receiving a voucher had to be accountable. Read the bill, Ms. Scoppe.
She then goes on to say that public education is the “lifeblood of our democracy”. Ms. Scoppe, first of all, we are not a democracy – we are a constitutional republic. Secondly, we flourished as a nation for a long time before public education.
Unfortunately, The State is dead set against program that would give educational options to parents. That’s truly sad.
Brad Warthen speaks of “reality” on the very day the reality of South Carolina’s education system is exposed as the most utterly failed school system in the nation. And what is the response of State Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum? “I’m incredulous.” Yet the data cited has been available through the Education Week Research Center for at least a year, and is the same data frequently cited by none other than SCRG. Ms. Tenenbaum is either using the “big lie” technique attributed to her defenders at The State, or she just doesn’t care enough to know what is going on in South Carolina schools.
The fact is those who should care about fixing problems in the schools are absorbed in partisan and ideological battles that have nothing to do with a child’s success or failure. The South Carolina Education Association and other NEA members will be endorsing homosexual marriage at their convention coming up in Orlando later this month. The resolution, which is expected to pass overwhelmingly, states that NEA will promote homosexual marriage in every avenue available, including textbooks, to all children, at all age levels, and without the permission or knowledge of parents.
Mr. Warthen doesn’t understand the word “choice.” Choice means that no family should be forced, against their will, to subject their own children to an education system at war with their family, where only half the kids make it out with a diploma, and where the administrators don’t even care enough to know how utterly failed the system is.
Here is a question, just to see if anyone takes the bait.
Can EDUCATION be fixed, and does IT need to be fixed?
In other words, is the lack of performance by many students in SC a result of the teaching, testing, and materials in SC’s public schools, or is it a product of the socioeconomic conditions, culture, and moral environments in which these students live?
And if the problem isn’t education, if it isn’t the books, teachers, and desks, why do we poor more money into schools and not try to focus on the real problems?
kc,
“i.e., a massive entitlement program. There is not one single reason why I should support that.”
I have news for you: that massive entitlement program already exists and you’re already supporting it!! The only difference with school choice would be that parents, not self-interested educrats, would get to decide which school gets that money.
As long as this state has people like the SCRG around,there will be plenty of dumb kids,but they do make a good argument for banning heterosexual marriage.
Yes, I speak of reality on the very day we’re reminded of the one statistic on which we do the worst.
You see, we face reality. We confront it. What we don’t do is pretend the situation is something other than it is, which is what SCRG and company do.
There are two stats that they love to cite and this is one of them. The other is SAT scores. They conveniently ignore that over the past six years, our state’s SAT average has risen faster (not just percentage, but raw scores) than anyone else’s in the nation. No, we haven’t caught up, but really — in terms of the effectiveness of current efforts to reform schools — how to you do better than to improve faster than anyone else is improving?
The dropout rate is a social disaster. It is, of course, ridiculous to cite it as an indication of the uselessness of public schools. Think about it. The problem here is that too many kids are failing to avail themselves of the public education that is available to them. In other words, it’s not the schools; it’s the fact that they aren’t STAYING IN the schools. Part of the reason for that is that schools have gotten more demanding. Few states require as many credits as we do for graduation, and our standards (under EAA) are some of the highest in the nation. If you already have a huge underclass of people who don’t finish school, and you raise your standards, do you think the dropout rate is going to rise or fall in the first few years of your reform efforts? I’ll give you a hint: It’s not likely to fall.
I truly don’t know what the answer to this is. We could certainly make the NUMBERS look better by lowering standards, but that would be unconscionable. Some of the recent new initiatives — such as the one passed by the Legislature last year that puts kids into career tracks to keep them academically engaged — hold a lot of promise. But I don’t expect anything to be a magic bullet on something with so many complex causes.
One thing I know WON’T work is to turn our backs on the public schools.
And to think that some people think tax credits would help would be hilarious if so many people didn’t actually (claim to) believe it. The kids who are dropping out are the absolute LAST kids likely to benefit from something like that. In fact, if you want to find a statistic that demonstrates the uselessness of PPIC more than any other, the dropout rate might be it.
It is obvious that the best The State can must er in lieu of debate is to smear those pushing education reform as being carpetbaggers.
Where was the outrage when “out of state interests” converged on South Carolina to demand removal of any flags and monuments of the Confederacy?
Oh, wait… THE STATE was all for those carpetbaggers. So let’s drop that silly smear, and discuss real problems of education, and evaluate suggestions for improvement, regardless of who has the ideas, or how they make a living.
LexWolf, how many times do I have to tell you? I don’t mind supporting public education. I’m happy to do it. It’s part of my obligation to society.
I do mind giving you eight thousand dollars per year.
Hmm,the antebellum cerebellum.
The only difference with school choice would be that parents, not self-interested educrats, would get to decide which school gets that money.
Why should only parents “get to decide?” Why shouldn’t I have a say? I’m a taxpayer, after all.
Tell you what, send ME $8K a year and I’ll decide which schools get the moolah.
While we’re at it, let’s initiate “highway choice.” Have the state send everyone a voucher and then they can individually decide which potholes they want to fix. And “law enforcement choice.” Just send me a voucher for X dollars and I’ll decide which law enforcement agencies are worthy of receiving it.
etc.
Frances – you said “One group that would definitely be left out would be learning disabled students. Your private and parochial schools are not going to take those students in mass. They don’t have the resources to meet the requirements for these students. “
The state spends more money on the learning disabled so the voucher dollars can be higher for them. With higher voucher dollars, private and parochial schools can and will take on these students. I think you are underestimating the marketplace. If there is demand, there will be a supplier.
KC – That $8,000 belongs to the taxpayers, not a state agency. It comes from the taxpayers and belongs to taxpayers. The state schools dont generate any money so remember whose money you are talking about.
The anti-reform crowd always uses the assumption that private school vouchers will have to equal the cost of public school, i.e. $8,000 to $12,000 per pupil.
In reality, only about 20% of that goes to the classroom in public schools. A private school with better management can educate a child for $4,000 and still pay the teachers and managers more than they were paid at public school.
Private schools have been doing that for decades, and educating poor students, inner city students, from miserable “home” lives with one or no parents. The models of such proven success at lower cost is what so frightens the government educrats.
“The dropout rate is a social disaster. It is, of course, ridiculous to cite it as an indication of the uselessness of public schools.”
Bullhockey. The dropout rate is an extremely relevant indicator for measuring the uselessness of public schools. If parents and kids thought their PS education were useful they wouldn’t drop out. While it’s clearly shortsighted to drop out they don’t see yet more useless courses as worth their time and effort. This is a clear failure of the PS system to provide a service so valuable that its customers are willing to forego immediate income.
“We could certainly make the NUMBERS look better by lowering standards, but that would be unconscionable.”
Yet another excuse. We have decided that 24 credits should be the standard, partially (just like the current kindergarten push) to provide more employment for educrats, yet now that almost 50% of our kids drop out it’s once again supposedly not the system’s fault but rather the fault of the customers. I’m all for higher standards but what good are high standards if half of the target group fails to meet them at all? Too-high and unattainable standards are just as bad as too-low standards.
“over the past six years, our state’s SAT average has risen faster (not just percentage, but raw scores) than anyone else’s in the nation.”
So what? It was so low it had nowhere else to go but up!
Here’s something to ponder for opponents of school choice:
“South Carolina SAT scores reveal that from 1998 through 2004, the independent schools outperformed South Carolina’s public schools by an annual average of 36 points and the religious schools outperformed South Carolina’s public schools by an annual average of 66 points.” SOURCE
I guess the elitists and snakehandlers aren’t doing all that badly, compared to the “foundation of our democracy”
“One thing I know WON’T work is to turn our backs on the public schools.
School choice is by no means turning our backs on the public schools. Considering that we’ve tried just about everything imaginable already, I submit to you that introducing competition into our schools is our last, best hope to finally get meaningful reform. It would finally get the educrats off their duffs, to meet their customers’ rightful expectations to a good education. And if they don’t, why should our kids continue to be imprisoned on the educrats’ plantation?
“to think that some people think tax credits would help would be hilarious if so many people didn’t actually (claim to) believe it. The kids who are dropping out are the absolute LAST kids likely to benefit from something like that.
Absolutely correct. Tax credits are indeed mostly useless to the people who would benefit the most from school choice. That’s why universal vouchers are so necessary. Have each kid be worth $8K, $9K, or whatever the school district currently spends per kid per year, and the school that the parents select gets the money. No taxes to mess with, just have the district allocate the money to the selected school.
I have no idea why The State insists on its thoroughly elitist position against school choice. The elite doesn’t have a problem with our failing public schools. They’ll simply send their kids to private school – in fact, one of The State’s head honchos sends his kid to the same private school my daughter attends. The only people truly harmed by the current failed system are the lower-income people who can’t afford to pay for their kids’ escape from that failed system. Why does The State insist on condemning those kids to a substandard education? Those kids deserve better!
Dave, every individual taxpayer with school-aged children doesn’t pay $8,000 per child in taxes.
KC is correct. Her tax dollars (or numerous other childless taxpayers) would be subdizing your kid’s private education. Yet, she wouldn’t get a say in where the money went. I don’t want tax dollars supporting schools which truly indoctrinate their brand of theology– whether it’s Catholicism, radical Islam or Southern Baptist seg academies.
Even your squirrelly logic falls flat on the face of it, but that’s never stopped you or Lee before.
Gee, Brad. You’re right. We are “playing by tough rules, requiring facts and all,” but you need to take a look at your own rants. You have a problem with name calling, but you’re just as guilty. Using terms like “SCouRGe” and referring to them as “some lame, ranting advocacy group” doesn’t exactly bolster your case to present yourself as a non-biased news source.
I’m also guessing that Mrs. Scoppe can defend herself pretty well without your help. Why not let her guest blog? Does she really need a gallant knight on a white horse to save the day?
THE STATE and other “news” outlets railed against groups like SCRG and Conservatives in Action with completely biased intentions. Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that. It’s human nature. You claim that “no one on my editorial board is a partisan, or I wouldn’t have chosen him or her to work with us,” but that statement alone is ludicrous because it implies that there is no bias. If there is no bias, there is no feeling one way or another on the subject being discussed. If there is no feeling, there can be no opinion. That line of thought doesn’t hold up because the entire purpose of the editorial board is to inject opinion.
Opinion is based on thoughts and feelings. Opinion is human nature. Heck, you know what they say about opinions. Don’t you, Brad?
Anyway, yes, the editorial board is partisan and based on thoughts and feelings instead of fact. If it were based in fact, there would be no editorial board. You’d be in the newsroom.
By the way, you offered a challenge. You wrote to “give us one example in which Cindi” has distorted fact. Here’s one, and it’s so basic it should taint anything else that was written about issue advocacy groups. She wrote, “And then, right in the middle of this year’s primary campaigns, the name “Conservatives in Action” suddenly replaced SCRG’s name on attack pieces — after the State Ethics Commission turned up the heat on SCRG.”
Guess again, big boy. If anyone had taken the 20 seconds (I timed it.) to go to the Secretary of State’s web site and search “conservatives,” Conservatives in Action would have popped up as one of two results. One more mouse click would reveal that the organization filed on 8/1/05. If cross-referenced with South Carolina election history, you would quickly see that there was a special election to fill the seat vacated by now Ambassador Wilkins.
Did Conservatives in Action distribute educational materials during that campaign? Yep. That was a four-way race, and there were differences among candidate ideologies – just like 2006.
Brad, Mrs. Scoppe was wrong. Conservatives in Action didn’t replace SCRG’s name on attack pieces. Conservatives in Action’s issue education campaign was already established – although it’s still in its political infancy.
There you go, Brad. Your challenge has been met. What do we get if we provide 2 examples? How about a set of steak knives or a year’s supply of Turtle Wax?
You’re right, Brad. There is a set of rules, but you seem to think that the only ones are those you decide.
Citizen groups have every right to report candidate positions and voting records. Frankly it’s no different than what the folks in your newsroom are charged with doing. The only differences between our publications are that we use more color in our publications and the ink won’t keep your hands dirty for a week.
News outlets are there to report the news. Citizen groups exist to report facts on more narrow topics. You exist to say whatever happens to be on your mind. This is America, and we’re talking about First Amendment rights.
Oh, one more thing. Remember Mr. Page’s “Goebbels” reference? To quote Brad Warthen, “It’s called an analogy. Look into it.”
RTH gets to the big objection – government losing control of young minds.
One reason government schools don’t do so well at teaching math, history and science is that those are not as high a priority as is raising citizens who will pay taxes and follow the leader without asking questions.
If an education is truly valuable to a person, they will find a way to borrow the money and acquire the education which will enable to repay the loan, and to make a lot more money.
Imagine it this way…
Wouldn’t it be an improvement if schools treated parents using a customer service paradigm instead of the current government handout paradigm? That’s the key thing you get from a private school that you can’t currently get from the public schools because they face no competition for the tax dollars we rain on the system.
You can’t get to that point without serious reform that includes choice — taxpayer moneys going where the involved taxpayer parents decide it should go — even if that does include private schools, and those run by “religious institutions”.
Kudos to Dave for the NEA post, as that’s the single biggest influence on the system as a whole, and the largest problem out there.
Brad Warthen, you hateful elitist: Go ask Becky Martin about SCRG’s lameness. Or Bob Staton.
Just because you think of yourself as The New York Times for Yokels, Brad, don’t make it so!
I see while I’ve been away this debate has digressed right back into partisan bickering as I pointed out in my first post.
The NEA is a union and is partisan. The SCRG is also partisan. As I’ve stated before, I don’t get my news from CNN nor Fox because both are biased. Similarly, I give little credibility to the positions of either of these organizations. But, they do make good points and there are good points being made on this thread:
1. Choice offers accountability, which is sorely lacking in education. Classrooms have traditionally been islands, with minimal oversight. Education also does not lend itself to evaluation like business. There is no single bottom line measured by a single metric.
2. There are terrible performances in our schools. I don’t have to preach to the choir, but I am dumfounded that there is so little outcry about the disparity between populations.
3. The responsibility does not rest solely on the backs of educators. How are parents absolved of responsibility, while critics bash only educators? If I cut school or tried to drop out of high school, there would be hell to pay AT HOME. When I made a low grade, I had to explain myself AT HOME.
The debate on the state superintendent of education has boiled down to private school choice versus public schools. Jim Rex and Karen Floyd are being given a “get out of jail free card”. They don’t have to discuss the tough issues and offer comprehensive reform with great detail. They now can rely on sound bites and demagoguery. She offers private choice and management as the silver bullet for our completely incompetent schools. He stands up for our schools vowing to keep the anti-public school factions at bay.
There is alot more to this issue than what this partisan bickering covers.
Can SCs education system be fixed? Is it broken?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Well, people may not be entitled to thier own facts, but there sure can interpret those facts differently. Take the education system in …
This is an interesting discussion, and I could write on and on about what I think are the subtleties of this issue — reasions why I think various school choice plans might or might not work and under which conditions. It’s not a simple matter, in my opinion, and I don’t think I’ll go into it all here and now.
Still, there were a few comments in this discussion that I thought deserved a response.
LEXWOLF WROTE: “In case you missed it the upper middle class and the elite is already paying for private school if they so choose. I pay north of $10,000 a year for my daughter’s private school.”
Since the expensive private school you pay for is better than public schools, and since you’re so concerned about the plight of the poor students failing in public schools, I do assume that your child’s private school will accept students with failing grades in public schools. It does take inner city kids who are reading two-three grade levels behind, doesn’t it?
Sadly, the private schools that I know of in my community refuse to take students failing in the public system. I guess the “choice” of those superior schools won’t amount to much.
LEXWOLF WROTE: “your post sounds suspiciously like blame-the-customer syndrome. Nothing is the educracy’s fault. It’s all those poor slobs of parents that are screwing everything up.”
It’s quite clearly important that education advocates — whether on the private or the public side — keep a focus on children and that blaming the victim is the wrong approach. But the fact is that many parents do not put enough effort into their kids’ education. It’s also a fact, I think, that the vast majority of kids whose parents are closely involved in their education do just fine….Some do better than others, and some attend better schools than others, but I’d guess that very few children whose parents are really on the ball end up dropping out.
Indeed, I’ve talked with leaders from the inner city, and while some have their criticisms of the public schools, they almost ALWAYS say that the most important thing to help kids do better in school is more parental involvement.
LEE WROTE: “RTH gets to the big objection – government losing control of young minds.
One reason government schools don’t do so well at teaching math, history and science is that those are not as high a priority as is raising citizens who will pay taxes and follow the leader without asking questions.”
It may be best to simply assume that Lee’s comments were simply bait and should be left alone.
But to take it at face value, I know a fair amount about public schools, and I’ve never encountered an “indoctrination” course. During what hour of the day does that occur? Do math teachers skip lessons so they can talk about the virtues of “big government?”
Seriously, I think the vast majority of public schools in South Carolina are bastions of community spirit and patriotism. And that’s coming from the experience of being around schools quite a bit.
LEE WROTE: “In reality, only about 20% of that goes to the classroom in public schools. A private school with better management can educate a child for $4,000 and still pay the teachers and managers more than they were paid at public school.”
Is this an assertion of fact? If so, it seems pretty flimsy to me. Only 20% of education dollars go to the classroom?
Now, I’m not going to argue that there’s not waste in many school district administrations — just as I think it would be incorrect to claim there’s no waste in corporations. And I’ve got some criticisms of the way public schools are managed. But this 20% claim? I just don’t buy it.
Indeed, the arch-conservative Policy Council helped paved the way for Mark Sanford’s choice proposal by claiming that less the 50% was spent in the classroom — not 20%. And their so-called study was questionable: It included as non-classroom expenditures librarians, who A.) are required by state law and B.) obviously play a vital role in education and literacy; guidance counselors who are required under state law; and one-time construction projects that either specifically funded and approved by the state legislature or were approved on the local level by VOTERS!!
Arguably flawed, that study has been cited time and again by private school choice proponents in SC.
And one more thing to deal with:
JOSHUA GROSS WROTE: “Kudos to Dave for the NEA post, as that’s the single biggest influence on the system as a whole, and the largest problem out there.”
The NEA is the single biggest influence? On South Carolina schools?
First of all, many, many SC teachers are not even members of the NEA or its affiliate here, the SCEA. Some are. Some are not.
Meanwhile, there are elements of being a union in the way that the SCEA operates. However, membership is not mandatory (again many teachers in SC do not belong). And the SCEA has no official seat at the table in a teacher’s contract negotions or in a district’s budgeting process or in local districts’ curriculum decisions.
I’m not a big fan of the SCEA or the NEA, but I think we should be clear about what they are and what they are not — at the very least as it pertains to education in South Carolina. I think that clearly the state legislature and local school boards have a FAR greater influence on what goes on this state’s public schools than those organizations. And I think that to assert otherwise is simply out of line with reality.
The “blame” for the high rate of H.S. should not be focused on the high schools.
Sure, there may be some issues related to
the curriculum not meeting the needs of
students who are not college bound. But
dropouts for the most part are products of a system that pushes along students through elementary school and middle school even if they have not mastered the basic skills required to achieve success. When we see schools holding back students until they meet the basic standards, we’ll see the dropout rate plunge.
For starters, why not prevent 8th grade students from moving on to high school until they achieve at least a BASIC score on the PACT test in English and Math?
Set up some type of transitional program at the middle school with focused attention on those core subjects. Let them spend another year before being fed to the wolves.
The drop out rate is the responsibility of educators and parents. My point is to not put the whole albatross around the necks of educators only.
I find it ironic that there is so much discussion about empowering parents, when many are not making wise decisions for their students now and they get a pass. Again, how is a parent powerless to prevent a student from dropping out? It is obscene that a student gets a diploma but can’t read. My parents taught me to read. Where are they in this equation?
Doug has made great points about holding kids responsible. This standard and consequence has to be enforced starting at the school boards. What happens in our schools is the old “squeaky wheel gets the oil.” Parents of students who suffer consequences are more likely to be the ones to raise a stink with the board. These politicians are responsive to the public and responsive to such squeaks.
Teachers have to take responsibility to hold students accountable as well. Administrators need to value real learning as opposed to making the school look good on a report card.
I think we must understand all the factors that play a role in order to solve these problems. There are lots of directions to point that finger.
This fingerpointing at “the parents” over the drop out situation is a good example of where schools fail to know their customer.
They should have the relevant facts available and published, such as how many of the students come from homes with one parent, no parents, grandparents, aunt, etc.
They should have been keeping this data since the early 1970s, so they can correlate social trends and teaching trends to problems and results.
All this data should be public information and available on the Internet to the stockholders, or stakeholders, the parents, governor, legislature and taxpayers.
If they cannot do those sorts of basic management functions and provide basic historical reports, the current management is incapable of describing the problem, much less identifying the root causes and doing anyting to remedy it.
I have no idea what this historical trend babble is. I do know that parents are in charge of their kids. If a kid doesn’t go to school, the parent kicks the student’s butt. If a kid is late to school, the parent kicks butt. Do we really blame the school curriculum or the teacher’s educational background?
Lee sounds like one of those persmissive liberals making excuses instead of accepting responsibility. Next Lee will suggest it’s the school’s fault the kid stays up too late or didn’t go to the dentist.
In the school districts with the highest dropout rates and lowest test scores, 70% of the children are born out of wedlock, most to a single young mother. Many are abandoned by both biological parents. So it is technically correct to blame the parents as the root cause, but 15 years later, when there are no parents, it does nothing to solve the problem for that 15-year-old child.
I think it’s a shame liberals set such low standards for people simply because of their status. So Lee suggests that if a child is born out of wedlock, it’s the schools responsibility to identify this and to make the student come to school because the parents or guardians are no longer responsible. Only those in a marriage can be held responsible. So the school nurse should check dental records too? Maybe the principal can call home around 11PM to make sure the student is in bed.
How interesting!!!! 🙂
I think in Lee’s enthusiasm to blame schools at all costs, he took a leftist position to make his point.
And I was under the impression these government schools were bad! 🙂
Above Lee makes a case for schools failing to perform “basic management functions” as if this is peculiar to the public school system.
Publically and privately held companies that have a much more easily evaluated bottom line frequently fail in many of these same “basic management functions.” Or, maybe Lee missed the implosion of the American automotive industry.
Of course, I doubt that Lee knows what kind social data that any particular school system compiles.
Here’s another case of whipsaw “heads-I-win, tails-you-lose” that the rightwing loves to engineer. Many reactionary school critics like Lee long for the “good old day.” They walked up hill both ways to school and we didn’t have to “waste money” on “educrats” instead of in classrooms.
Exactly who do you think will compile and produce these “basic management tools, Lee? Little unpaid gnomes or maybe students staying in detention?
Lots of red herrings, RTH, but you failed.
The topic is school reform, and management is necessary to accomplish that. School management. School data. Student data.
Those who don’t know anything, or are ashamed of the facts about public schools, attempt to blow smoke, like RTH just did. The rest of us would like to discuss what is known, and what is missing, and what to do about it.
What kind of baloney is this? Cutting school and dropping out are the parents or parent or guardians responsibility. Lee, you have your head stuck in the 60s with your Great Society. The bottom line is personal responsibility, an idea which seems lost in the liberal circles you run in.
Does this Lee character really think the government is going to solve all of our problems?
Jeff, you have a naive notion that every student has a two parents. They don’t.
How old are you, and what do you do for a living?
Lee,
Seriously, man…..
There are ALL sorts of records that public schools keep, and there are all sorts of efforts to reach kids from poor homes and single-parent families. The fact is that teachers DO know their students, and schools DO know their student bodies….indeed, it’s pretty obvious what kind of stuff you’re dealing with when you see it year after year after year….
The issue is that A.) solutions simply aren’t that easy and B.) many of the proposed and attempted solutions fall into the “big government” category so derided by many conservatives.
Efforts include:
** Four-year-old kindergarten to give disadvantaged children with little intellectual nourishment at home an early boost. Very sensible — but not cheap.
** After-school programs to A.) give kids with little support from home some help with homework and the like and B.) give kids from rough, crime-ridden neighborhoods a safe place to go in the afternoons and C.) to provide general social and cultural enrichment to give kids a clue about opportunities in life. Seems to make sense — but isn’t cheap.
** Small class-sizes — self-explanatory, though it may be worth saying that children whose needs are fairly extreme stand a better chance when their teachers can give them more individual attention. This is pretty obvious — but expensive.
** Alternative schools that can give unruly and academically struggling students a chance to be in an environment that may be more suitable to their needs, while also taking trouble-makers out of the regular classroom. This solution seems to speak, at least loosely, to the “choice” issue that some conservatives tout as well as the matter of enforcing school discipline. But it isn’t without expense.
There are certainly teaching theories and the like that don’t necessarily tie additional costs to the education system — and schools, I think, are always on the lookout for such. But many of the most logical solutions, unfortunately, bring a financial burden that doesn’t sit well with the limited government folks.
In dozens of posts, Lee used terminology such as “government schools” and “indoctrination.” Now he’s suggesting an increase in school responsibility for society. Amusing.
Lee does make a valuable point about the problems schools face. They are responsible for not only teaching the content, but dealing with an array of societal problems. This is a huge factor that confounds the whole accountability issue.
For example, the drop out rate is reflective of SC’s society not just schools. Parents are responsible for getting their kids to the school and educators are responsible for educating.
Kindergarten for Four Year Olds is a good example of a project where the supporters “just know” it is valuable and worth the investment.
What is the value?
What made them think, in advance, that it was worth the money?
How much money is it worth?
Where is the audit plan?
Where are the audits to that plan?
How have the results tracked the predictions?
Now, go back to my original point about long-term tracking of factors outside the schools which may negate almost any level of education spending. Where is it?
You said:
“For the record, no one on my editorial board is a partisan, or I wouldn’t have chosen him or her to work with us. That’s just insulting.”
You are the insulting one – insulting my intelligence. Your editorials are always partisan – meaning you have an agenda and viewpoint you want to project. You have to give the fantasy that you are not PR for your paper that you do not maniupulate facts by leaving out some or justifying or rationalizing others so you can keep your University and Shandon friends happy.
This fingerpointing at “the parents” over the drop out situation is a good example of where schools fail to know their customer.
They should have the relevant facts available and published, such as how many of the students come from homes with one parent, no parents, grandparents, aunt, etc.
They should have been keeping this data since the early 1970s, so they can correlate social trends and teaching trends to problems and results.
Let’s just fire all the teachers and hire a bunch of statisticians.
Because what’s important in education is not the teaching . . . it’s the data-tracking.
KC, that was coming from a guy (Lee) who was disparaging schools as government or socialist schools. And now he wants them to take responsibility of the issues that should be handled at home – two words, “flip flop.”
End Medicare and Medicaid now! We shouldn’t fund private medicine with public dollars.
Heh, heh.
You just have to laugh when Lee is savaged by his fellow anti-government, “pro-personal responsibility,” anti-public school partisans as an LBJ big government liberal.
Lee sez:
Now, go back to my original point about long-term tracking of factors outside the schools which may negate almost any level of education spending.
OK, Lee, I’ll play along with your version of chase the red herring.
When the stats show (once again) a high correllation between poverty, single/no parent households and drug-abusing parents to poor grades and high dropout rates, what do you propose for the schools do?
Here’s your answer: “rescue” the kids of upper-middle class people who can afford to spend additional thousands of dollars for private school while the “dumping ground” public schools get less money to educate the “difficult” cases.
Actually, JY, we need to end the deduction for mortgage interest, because public dollars shouldn’t go to buy private homes. Everyone can just live in a gov’t housing project.
And the child and dependent care tax credit, why are we funding child care when the gov’t can just take care of all of the children.
Or how about the union dues deduction, should the public be funding unions?
Now, I say all of this because I am tired of hearing this ridiculous notion that we are giving “public” money to private interests. We aren’t. We are telling people that if they don’t use a public service then we will allow them to pay less tax with THIER MONEY so that they can afford to pay for the private service.
Just because the gov’t requires something doesn’t mean that everyone should have to use the gov’t system. Everyone isn’t buying SC State Auto Insurance, but it is required.
Please, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY, IT BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYERS!!!
Now, PPIC will not fix public education, so it isn’t the way to fix schools, but it may help some children who are being lost in the system succeed. If we want that, then maybe it is worth it. But, like I said on my own blog (link above), we need to fix the problems with society, not schools.
I agree with Nathan’s assertion that we can’t rely on the pay for what we use concept.
On the other hand, tax dollars do in fact belong to the goverment. We pay them for goods and services. Similarly, the money I spent on a CD at Best Buy belongs to Best Buy. We can take issue with how much we give the government and how they spend it, but make no mistake, it’s money we give up for the sake of our society.
On the other hand, tax dollars do in fact belong to the goverment. We pay them for goods and services. Similarly, the money I spent on a CD at Best Buy belongs to Best Buy. We can take issue with how much we give the government and how they spend it, but make no mistake, it’s money we give up for the sake of our society.”
Atrociously bad analogy! You give your money to Best Buy voluntarily and if you want to buy your CDs elsewhere or buy no CDs at all that’s entirely your choice. Now just try not to “buy” the government’s “services” whether you want them or not. I’ll visit you once a year in the Big House.
Ted Sbardella,
I have to partially disagree with you when you say: “Your editorials are always partisan – meaning you have an agenda and viewpoint you want to project.”
While you are absolutely correct that Brad has an agenda and a viewpoint, I don’t think it’s partisan in the sense of GOP or Demos. His agenda and viewpoint, as is that of the rest of The State, is relentlessly in favor of bigger government, regardless of which party might be in favor of it at any particular time.
This is really the key point for analyzing Brad and the newspaper. It doesn’t matter what the issue is, they will invariably be on the side that favors bigger government or at least doesn’t cut it. You will rarely ever see anything (I’ve never seen it but I’ll use “rarely” just in case I missed something) where they come down on the side of taxpayers or individual freedom or in favor of less government spending or intrusion in our lives. Just try reading Brad and the newspaper with that in mind and you’ll see that I’m right.
Whenever a parent or taxpayer specifies a problem with school management, opponents of openess and honestry try to spin it into an attack on teachers by defending teachers who were never mentioned.
These are the sorts of people who not only don’t know how to begin solving the problems, they don’t care.
That is why taxpayers and parents want vouchers, to purchase education from schools, public or private, that do care.
Lee wants schools to raise the kids from nontraditional homes then he criticizes schools as being socialist. He offers no suggestions and won’t…watch.
Lex apparently believes in anarchy. A government needs money to spend money to provide roads, police, traffic lights, court system etc. As part of a society, we give money to the government. It’s their money at that point. Lex, feel free to live with the abirigones in Australia if you want to voluntarily give up your money.
The Bash Brothers are hogging up the blog. Does anyone have anything constructive to add?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Randy. Putting words in my mouth again!! Show me where I even mentioned “roads, police, traffic lights, court system etc.” or that I believe in “anarchy”.
Wouldn’t it be nice if you could stick to the topic and come up with real “justifications” for your failed public schools rather than your pointless insinuations and namecalling? It’s obvious that you are becoming more and more desperate with your clear inability to defend your dysfunctional PS system.
Anyone that has read my posts thus far would clearly see that I am absolutely against the status quo. I am simply asking you questions about your plan. Because I understand that you can not defend your position so I’ll let you slide.
Can anyone else offer some details on how private school choice will work?
Again, education is too important to let the campaign for state superintendent to be narrowed to merely a vote on private school choice. We will not solve the real problems facing our school with such a limited discussion.
Reasonable critics of schools, like Doug and (Dave at times) have emphasized accountability. What about using charter schools which are freed from the meddling of the beaucracy? What about putting pressure on school boards to support the standards we expect like students must be able to read and do math to get a diploma or to move on to the high school level.
BTW, why are the exit exams for hs given the fall of the sophomore year?
QUESTION: “When the stats show (once again) a high correllation between poverty, single/no parent households and drug-abusing parents to poor grades and high dropout rates, what do you propose for the schools do?”
1. Stop feeding the problem by enabling misbehavior.
Example: Amoral sex ed classes that presume promiscuity
Example: School nurses for the pregnant students
Example: Playing the non-judgement game, which pretends that all “lifestyles” are equal
2. Stop throwing money into school programs which are powerless to overcome external social decay.
3. Teach the students who are there the blunt social truth, that they are victims of irresponsible adults produced by the last two generations of schools run by white liberals as social experiments. “Sorry, guys, but it is up to your generation to clean up your neighborhood, and here is how to be a good citizen.”
4. If the public schools can admit their past mistakes, and correct themselves, provide funding for private schools that will produce a better society than the Great Society did.
This coming from the guy who stated the schools should be responsible for the attendance of students who come from nontraditional homes in which the parents clearly “don’t care about their kids.”
Anyone else have input?
Some good points made on this blog regarding education reform:
1. Choice offers accountability, which is sorely lacking in education. Classrooms have traditionally been islands, with minimal oversight. Education also does not lend itself to evaluation like business. There is no single bottom line measured by a single metric.
2. There are terrible performances in our schools. I don’t have to preach to the choir, but I am dumfounded that there is so little outcry about the disparity between populations.
3. The responsibility does not rest solely on the backs of educators. How are parents absolved of responsibility, while critics bash only educators? If I cut school or tried to drop out of high school, there would be hell to pay AT HOME. When I made a low grade, I had to explain myself AT HOME.
Randy, all you do is make excuses and blame everyone but those inside the school system.
The schools have been instrumental in maintaining and even worsening the “disparity between populations”, by promoting and excusing irresponsible behavior. I named some, and your reply is personal insult. Is that how you teach your students to face the issues in a civil debate?
Lee sez:
they are victims of irresponsible adults produced by the last two generations of schools run by white liberals as social experiments.
If it were up to conservatives minority students in public schools would be walking to schools while whites rode buses; sharing worn, outdated texts while whites got new ones; and, crowded into old, leaky, drafty, unsafe buildings while whites got newer, finer facilities.
And, you have the audacity to talk about “social experiments” when you’re proposing subsidizing religious indoctrination (Muslim, Branch Davidian, Catholic, Baptist, Scientology, whatever) with tax dollars.
The liberal “social experiment” was to try to make America live up to the promise of liberty, justice and freedom for all.
“If it were up to conservatives minority students in public schools would be walking to schools while whites rode buses; sharing worn, outdated texts while whites got new ones; and, crowded into old, leaky, drafty, unsafe buildings while whites got newer, finer facilities.”
You clearly don’t know your history. All that Jim Crow, segregationist stuff didn’t happen while conservatives were in charge. South Carolina and the rest of the old Confederacy, from Reconstruction until the 1970s (Georgia even until this decade), was completely dominated by Democrats – blame them for all that biased, racist stuff. Who placed the confederate flag on top of the State House in the first place? Look it up – it wasn’t a conservative!!
Hogwash! That’s the most polite comment I can make to LexWolf’s sickening drivel about “All that Jim Crow, segregationist stuff didn’t happen while conservatives were in power.” On the other hand, it’s a good illustration of just how lacking education in SC is, if he really believes that Democrats are all liberals and always have been, while Republicans are all conservatives and always have been. Why don’t you stick your nose into a history book occasionally?
Modern liberals are still trying to enforce Jim Crow. Clinton and Reno banned firearms from honest citizens in government housing projects, but the citizens took it to the Supreme Court and won.
Now, back to modern liberals running our politically correct schools and colleges, with messages of amorality which do a disservice to the students.
The “educators” claim tht they cannot do anything with the lousy raw material they have to work with. So why are they asking for more money to keep taaching the students they say are unteachable?
There are two bloggers who offer little more than school bashing and a myopic view of how the problems of education should be solved.
Any effort of another blogger to address the depth and details of the issues are met with cynical and disparaging criticism.
I find this simplistic and mean-spirited approach egotistical and counter productive. I suggest these two take up a contact sport as a channel for this pent-up anger.
One has expressed racist views of Hispanics and blacks. Both have demeaned the profession of educators. This prejudicial and broad-brushed perception undermines any credibility they could hope to have.
There are others who offer serious criticism of education, but offer solutions and do not stoop to such misguided diatribes. I, for one, came to this site for serious dialogue and exchange of ideas, not for such playground antics.
Randy, you claim to be a teacher, but offer only personal attacks on everyone with a specific criticism of an education practice, or any alternative to the status quo.
Why can’t you answer our criticisms?
Why don’t you see any problems?
Why don’t you have any ideas for improving public schools that don’t involve more spending?
Why do you oppose giving poor students alternatives to the schools that half of them now leave before graduation?
If a public school loses half its customers before the 12th grade, maybe they should concentrate on just the 8th grade and below.
From Bob McAlister’s blog:
Brad Needs A Missionary and I’ve Found One
June 23, 2006 10:18:00 AM
To Readers: It’s strange how the same company can own two newspapers in the same state and produce columnists with completely different worldviews. This guy writes for the Myrtle Beach Sun-News. Notice his realistic analysis of public education in South Carolina. Contrast that to Brad “Everything is hunky-dory” Warthen’s warped perspective on public education. The Sun-News should send Issac to Columbia as a missionary to convert Brad to reality.
Graduation rate for S.C. is abysmal
ISSAC J. BAILEY
A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
The good news is that national educational rankings are often misleading. The bad news is that South Carolina was named “last in the nation” on another measure, this time for graduation rates.
An Education Week report said 52.5 percent of S.C. students graduated in 2003. Earlier this year, the Manhattan Institute said the graduation rate was about 54 percent. Either way, it’s too low, regardless of how we compare to other states.
The same report said Horry County Schools graduated 63.3 percent of its students while Georgetown County recorded a 60.6 percent rate, meaning even in high-quality school districts less than two-thirds of students graduate.
Officials for Horry and Georgetown said their graduate rates are closer to 79 percent and 80 percent respectively. Why such a big disparity? Because graduation rates aren’t uniformly reported. Many schools calculate the rate based on the percentage of students who graduate out of a particular senior class rather than against the number of students who entered the ninth grade together.
For example, while the 2005 school report card for Conway High School said the school’s graduation rate was 75 percent, outgoing Conway Principal Bob Wilkerson said only 51 percent of the class of 2005 who entered the school together as ninth graders left with diplomas four years later. The same thing happened with the class of 2006. In that class, there were 535 freshman in 2003. But the graduating class included only 273 students – meaning 262 students didn’t make it to their senior year. Only 40 percent of low-income students left with diplomas. (I will share some of Wilkerson’s thoughts on education and why he’s stepping down as principal in an upcoming column.)
Such reporting isn’t unique to Conway, and that’s why one of the biggest failures of the state’s educational establishment under Inez Tenenbaum’s eight-year watch was the inability or unwillingness to demand clear, consistent graduation rate reporting. There is no more important performance measure.
If we are graduating little more than half our students, we have to admit that fundamental changes must be made, no matter what state standardized tests or the improvement of the SAT average says. Some will take that as a criticism, as a swipe at public schools. Take it that way if you must, but no rational person can look at our graduation rate and be satisfied.
Not enough of our students are graduating.
Period.
ONLINE | For past columns and to read Bailey’s blog, go to MyrtleBeachOnline.com.
The record-keeping of graduation/drop-out rates has been a problem.
The notion that drop-out rates is soley a function of schools is ludicrous. I find it utmost hypocrisy that conservatives will use drop-out rates to criticize schools. They also preach personal responsibility and not government solutions. They push private school vouchers to empower parents. Parents are completely helpless now?
I’ll share a story that illustrates my point. In one of my classes, two students were trying to play chess in the back of the room. I called their parents. One mother responded “Ok well, I’ll see what I can do.” Her son continued to be a problem. The other mother responded “You will not have another problem with him the rest of the semester.” Sure enough, the kid was focused from then on.
If I didn’t go to school, I would have my butt kicked AT HOME!
Lee accuses me of personal attacks. He made racist comments about Hispanics and blacks. He also described schools as socialist, but then proposed that these same schools should take responsibilty for the attendance of students from nontraditional homes – a socialist concept. He also dismissed teachers as not being professionals. I’m sure his mother and wife, who are supposedly teachers, know he demeans them like that. Amusing.
Every liberal without an argument calls his armed opponent a “racist, fascist, redneck, homophobe” or something similar.
Liberals are so afraid of being labeled that they think others will be just as intimidated.
The same patronizing racism of liberals which mistakes blunt analysis for meaness is what renders them impotent to face social problems objectively, much less offer real solutions.
People in general call the following quotes racist:
“single black parents DON’T CARE about their kids” – Lee
“the black kids in these nontraditional homes suffer child abuse…drunk and high mothers…” – Lee
“Most Hispanics in this country are illegal” – Lee (I used your and the census stats to clearly debunk that drivel).
Move on past defending your racist comments.
Go back to defending how schools are at fault when students drop out. Explain how that fits the conservative concept of personal and parental responsibility. Or are you really suggesting these “socialist schools” as you all them should take over raising these kids?
Contradictions abound!
Hey, Lex, why don’t you ask Bob McAllister what party Strom claimed when he voted for the Jim Crow laws.
In case your ignorance extends to the 1960’s, also ask whether it was a coincidence that Strom switched to Repub after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Oops, I guess I gave away the answer to the first question.
Taking my quotes out of context in order to dismiss me is dishonest, Randy.
I said that black parents who abandoned their children to be raised by one parent, grandparents or the state, obviously didn’t care much. If you think they care, tell us why you think so.
If you think a single parent who doesn’t work, stays drunk, and doesn’t take care of their child, actually cares, tell us why you think that.
If you can’t face the fact that most non-citizen Hispanics are here illegally (according to the US Census, Border Patrol, US Senate, and others), you need to examine your problems with ignoring crime by those who compose 90% of illegal aliens. Do you think some have a right to trespass in America and bum free education, just becaue of skin color or race? Tell us why.
The GOP passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the votes of Democrats like Robert Byrd and Al Gore, Sr.
VDA< On the other hand, it’s a good illustration of just how lacking education in SC is, if he really believes that Democrats are all liberals and always have been, while Republicans are all conservatives and always have been.
Where did I say all that? However, it is a simple and undeniable fact that Demos are generally associated with liberals while Republicans tend to be conservatives (yes, there are a few exceptions but overall that’s how the cookie crumbles). It is also an undeniable fact that Demos were in complete control in the old Confederacy states during this entire sordid period of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow. Bluster all you want, be outraged all you want but the undeniable fact remains: your guys did it!!
RTH,
why don’t you ask Bob McAllister what party Strom claimed when he voted for the Jim Crow laws.
No need to ask. He was a Demo at the time.
In case your ignorance extends to the 1960’s, also ask whether it was a coincidence that Strom switched to Repub after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Thurmond was the only Demo who switched to the GOP after voting against the 1964 CRA. The rest all stayed Demo until they retired or died. One, that former Grand Kleagle of the KKK, Robert ‘Sheets’ Byrd, is still in the US Senate!!
The 1964 CRA would never have passed if a large majority of Republicans hadn’t voted for it. The Demos by themselves would have defeated it!
Face it, the Democrats are now, and have always been, the party of racism.
“Taking my quotes out of context in order to dismiss me is dishonest, Randy.”
Don’t feel bad, Lee. Randy does that with me all the time, too. Apparently he thinks grossly misrepresenting his opponents somehow improves his own feeble arguments.
I have been pushing various school reforms since 1972, so I have met all kinds of criticism. In 1973, I was denounced in The State for my “elitist” proposals to help gifted children. Why, they didn’t need any help, said the professionals.
A few years later, the pendulum swung, money was dropping from Washington for gifted and talented programs, and all the same educators were on board, writing grants, promoting it, and of course, making money.
Lee, that Huh dude copied and pasted your quotes repeatedly. You said single black parents don’t care about their kids. You said kids of single black parents suffer child abuse. You said the single black mothers were drunk and high.
QUOTES
Lex, when asked where we’d get new teachers for the expanded good schools in your plan you responded “who cares.”
When asked how this expansion would be paid for you said “who knows.”
QUOTES
They are on the record. If you don’t like the quotes, think through your statements before writing them.
Randy,
If those are quotes “on the record”, then how about quoting them in context? You’re obviously unwilling to do that because you know full well that this would conclusively demonstrate your total dishonesty in (1) taking them out of context and (2) combining them with a completely different question to (3) give an utterly misleading and incorrect impression.
Sorry you missed the context. Here you go again.
Lex, when asked where we’d get new teachers for the expanded good schools in your plan you responded “who cares.”
When asked how this expansion would be paid for you said “who knows.”
Posted by: LexWolf | Jun 20, 2006 7:48:41 PM
Where will “we” get the teachers for the new private schools?
1. Good teachers leaving the downsized public schools.
2. Second-career engineers and military officers, who will teach in an environment where there is discipline and expectations of achievement.
3. Former teachers who quit the public schools.
Lee, I tip my hat. I don’t know that this would be enough. But you did offer up something very plausible.
I’m not completely against the choice plan. I simply haven’t seen justification for it. Atleast the choice faction has offered up a plan.
Randy, you obviously don’t read for comprehension. I identified the exact same 3 sources of teachers myself earlier. Guess you missed that in your zeal to finds things you can misquote.
Randy,
since you insist on twisting and mutilating my comments, here’s the entire post again so it appears in context:
It saddens me to see you trot out the same bogus questions as on the other thread. Anyway, once again with feeling:
“1. Do these private schools want or can they handle an influx of new students?”
Who knows, but what would be the problem with giving parents vouchers anyway? If the private sector doesn’t step up to the plate then parents would have to sign over their vouchers to, and students would simply stay in, their current public schools. Status quo and nothing lost. Of course, we all know that there would in fact be significant private investment in new schools once vouchers became available to large numbers of students, and that’s precisely why the educracy is fighting vouchers tooth and nail. Anything that would make the educracy directly accountable to parents is anathema.
“2. Who will teach these new students at the private schools?”
You know, this is a very strange question. Why would you even care where the teachers come from as long as they are qualified? Maybe some will come from the public schools. Others may come from people highly qualified in their field, as opposed to educrats who usually just take a bunch of worthless education school pap and often don’t know all that much about the actual subject they are supposed to be teaching. The military constantly has people leaving who would be highly qualified as teachers. This is just like any other business. I generally don’t care where a business gets its workers as long as they are qualified to do the job and are employed legally.
“3. What evidence do we have that such choice reforms schools to the degree we want?”
None, especially since you didn’t define the “degree we want”. But we do have plenty of evidence that the old approach doesn’t work. Just on that basis alone, we owe it to our kids to give school choice a try. Just think of it as the latest educational fad. If it was something dreamed up by the educracy you wouldn’t hesitate to give even the most harebrained schemes a whirl so why be so reluctant on this promising and eminently reasonable proposal?
There was no “mutilation.” You didn’t know the answer to those questions and didn’t care about the answers. You have no real solutions to these problems OTHERS have highlighted as well. Keep spinning there Slick Lexie.
“Lex, when asked where we’d get new teachers for the expanded good schools in your plan you responded ‘who cares.’
When asked how this expansion would be paid for you said ‘who knows.’ ”
Posted by: Randy E | Jun 23, 2006 2:40:20 PM
“1. Do these private schools want or can they handle an influx of new students?
Who knows…
2. Who will teach these new students at the private schools?
You know, this is a very strange question. Why would you even care where the teachers come from as long as they are qualified?”
Posted by: LexWolf | Jun 23, 2006 3:54:27 PM
Randy, there is no central planning for the private sector.
Ray Kroc never would have built the first McDonald’s if he used the same excuses you use, of knowing the future. That is why you, and public education, is stuck in the past.
You are probably right Lee, businesses never plan for the future. They just “hope” everything works out.
Did those socialist schools indoctrinate you to believe that, or did you watch how Ernie and Bert opened their lemonade stand on the last episode?
Businesses plan a lot more than public schools do.
They also follow up on projects to make sure they deliver as promised, so they can be adjusted or shut down to cut losses.
But they are rarely required to divulge their plans to the public, their competitors, or the government.
Government schools are the ones who are supposed to have plans, but don’t and can’t answer any questions from the parents and taxpayers.
Ray Kroc never would have built the first McDonald’s if he used the same excuses you use, of knowing the future.”
Heh. Can’t we just imagine the owner of Aunt Erna’s Fine Diner posing these questions:
Mr. Kroc, will your proposed hamburger joints want or can they handle an influx of our customers? How do we know that you will indeed be able to serve billions and billions?
Who will feed the new customers? Where will you get your cooks, counter help and drive-in personnel? Where will you get the money to build these new burger palaces?
What evidence do we have that such choice will reform Aunt Erna’s Fine Diner to the degree we want?”
Can you imagine if the government ran all the fast food restaurants?
* Same locations and buildings as in 1970.
* All serving the same menu, but quality varies widely.
* Menu changes every year come from the federal Department of Nutrition.
* There are 4 managers for every cook and server.
* Mandatory dining. Everyone is required to eat at Uncle Sam’s Burger Shack at least once a week.
* You can still eat at one of the new restaurants, but you are charged a 40% surtax on the bill, to subsidize “the poor, unfortunate” customers who have to eat 3 meals a day at Uncle Sam’s.
Business plans in the world according to Lex and Lee:
Bank: “So Mr. Kroc, you want to borrow some money for your restaunt. What’s the market for this?”
Mr. Kroc: “who cares.”
Bank: “How will you design the restaurant?”
Mr. Kroc: “Who knows.”
Bank: Anything else to add?
Mr. Kroc: “I hope it will work, if it doesn’t, I’ll just shut down and we’ll be back to square one.”
Bank: Ok Mr, Kroc your loan is approved.
Randy, you might seriously want to call the SCEA and ask them to swap you out for a swifter guy. Face it, you’re just not cutting it here. There’s only so many times you can recycle those SCEA/NEA talking points, you know. Actually that would be (singular) talking point: “what’s the school choice plan?” How you even dare ask that question after failing to have even one working plan in the past 4 decades is beyond me. Extreme CHUTZPAH, I guess.
That last post was particularly pathetic. I’d be thoroughly embarrassed if I were you.
Oh, by the way Randy, that scenario in your last post happens far more often than you would ever guess. Sure, the investors will try to reassure themselves as much as possible but for many of the most risky ventures, aka the potential highest payoffs, “who knows” is all there is no matter how the entrepreneur tries to gild the lily.
Just imagine the first investors in automobile manufacturing or airlines. At the time, who knew that these would ever work? It hadn’t been done before and there certainly was no way whatsoever to get any “proof” that they would work. With your mindset we would still be riding horses and checking out the latest buggy whips, and the Queen Mary would be the quickest way to make it across the Atlantic.
Lexie, you poor ideological drunk. I’ll have to confine you to detox, make you read up on some issues like actual choice plans in action. (what a novel idea)
My qoute regarding the NEA: “The NEA is biased so I don’t give creedence to their positions.” You know what happens when you ASSume there Lexie. Not everyone against your flimsy plan is for the status quo. We simply want something credible.
Starting up state-wide choice is not opening up some lemonade stand there Lexie. This is what happens when you think you have all the answers because you read a book in college and have been in what, 3 schools in the past 20 years. I buy gasoline every week, but it doesn’t mean I’m an expert on the energy crisis.
Either justify your plan or move on. I’m tiring of exposing your bogus position…although it’s fun seeing you blow a fuse as you type.
Actually, Ray Kroc didn’t borrow any money to start his first hamburger stand. He was a salesman of restaurant equipment, and used his own money to prove his concept for a new business model.
“make you read up on some issues like actual choice plans in action”
All the socalled “choice plans” in existence are severely restricted. The educracy allows them only a small fraction of the money spent in public schools. It also restricts students to low-income or poor students, and only a small fraction even of those are allowed to participate. There are no choice plans that are comparable to your typical public school in funding and student demographics.
I have already justified my plan numerous times. It’s not my fault that you can’t comprehend it.
Where is YOUR PLAN by the way?
Lex, you justified squat. If you think you have, then prove me wrong:
How will the expansion of these “good” schools be paid?
Who will teach these students?
Answer with something other than “who knows” and “who cares” as you did before. Show me you’re not merely an ideological drunk who who offers nothing more than playground antics and bullying.
The very arrogance of government employees thinking that education entrepreneurs have to justify their business plan to them!
Ray Kroc entered into an agreement with the MacDonald brothers who owned restaurants. He eventually purchased the rights. The idea he never had to justify his plans to a bank or investors is as silly as your notions about schools based on your volunteering time (during which you spent two days taking notebook paper to a couple students).
“The idea he never had to justify his plans to a bank or investors is as silly as”
You’re the only one espousing this idea. Of course he had to justify his plans to bankers and investors. However, he never had to justify his plans to the local diner owner or to the government. That’s what your silly demand is, though – you’re the silly one here.
BTW, where’s YOUR PLAN for saving our schools?
Lex has agreed with me that Lee is wrong about Kroc justifying his plan. I’d say he’s finally coming around, but he still can’t jusity his plan.
This plan is MOOT unless the voters are convinced. Justify it to us. I doubt that “who cares” and “who knows” will suffice Lex, so try some rational approach.
Ray Kroc had to justify his plans to the satisfaction of those with a financial interest in his venture.
He didn’t need the approval of the government hash house.
Just like the details of HOW private schools will succeed where government schools fail, is no business of the government educrats.
Lee, let me spell it out for you in terms you can understand:
Private school choice has to be created by the government (the same government that indoctrinates students in their socialist schools as you claim).
The government officials deciding this are elected.
We the people vote these people into office.
If the voters don’t like public school choice, the elected officials will take notice and not pass it.
The voters are the ones that have to be sold on the idea (plan) for private school choice.
If the pro-voucher advocates like Lex and Lee can’t justify their plan, people won’t vote for it.
This is like Ray Kroc justifying why he should get a loan when he was starting up his business.
In summary, we votes are the customers. Justify your plan to us.
Ray Kroc didn’t have to get permission from the voters or politicians to start his business, because the government didn’t already control and own food retailing.
Kroc had to justify his plan to the investors. We voters are the investors, this “plan” so it must be justified to us.
You can’t which is why you offer smoke screens and dance around the issue.
Taxpayers and active parents are the only investors in education.
Just try to justify your own failed public schools.
Taxpayers don’t have to justify getting their own money back from the educrats who failed to deliver as promised.
Lee, I think recreation hour is up. Go back to your padded cell.
Lee is up to his old tricks. I guess he’ll start making racist statements about Hispanics and blacks again.
Perhaps he’ll explain again how he criticizes the schools as socialist institutions but then suggests these schols should identify students that come from nontraditional homes and take responsibility for their attendance. [sic]
Randy gets ugly when cornered by reality.
Randy, you are dancing in the fire, trying to avoid admitting anything in public schools which could be improved.
He has to play his racist card by speculating that perhaps I will say something racist. How pathetic that is!
Lee, the quotes have been there for everyone to see.
“75% of black students live in nontraditional homes. Those parents don’t care about their kids.” – Lee
“These black kids from nontraditional homes suffer child abuse”…”black single mothers are drunk or high.” – Lee
“Most Hispanics are illegal aliens.” – Lee
When I challenged you on this, you stated “it was the liberals who were racist for setting the bar so low for minorities.” [sic]
If you have made such comments on multiple occasions, it’s predictable that you will again. You also make up crap about schools and teachers (“teachers are not professionals” “take rinky dink classes in college).
If you don’t like being called out for making such warped statements, then don’t make those statements.
Lee has the strongest ability to deny reality that I’ve ever seen.
Regardless of your feelings on private schools, the larger question of SCRG and its ties to one out-of-state wealthy individual remains. Why is SCRG being bankrolled by the same person funding Missourians in Charge – doesn’t that seem contrary to the group titles? Why has/is this person donating thousands in the name of vouchers & tax credits through several sham companies? And WHY is the SCRG skirting the law on finance disclosures?
Randy is so frustrated at not being able to defend the status quo or attack education reform.
Randy E has sunk to pasting together parts of my quotes in order fabricate a smear as a red herring.
Too bad Dan Rather is not around to hire him.
Stop with your racist remarks, Randy.
“Stop with your racist remarks, Randy.” – Lee
Let’s add hypocrite to Lee’s list of shameful titles. I’m not a racist for pointing out your QUOTES about blacks and Hispanics. When you suggested that “most Hispanics are illegal aliens” I asked my wife, my mother, asked about her parents, asked the Spanish teachers at my school and the Colombian priest at our church. None of them had snuck into our country.
Dan Rather used falsified information to slander someone. I simply cut and paste your quotes which have been available for everyone to read.
Lee also stated that teachers “are NOT professionals” and “take rinky dink classes” in college. I bet his wife and mother, who are supposedly teachers [sic], don’t know that he disparages their “profession.”
Those were partial quotes, taken out of context, and reassembled by you, Randy, as a smear, because you are tired of playing other rhetorical games in lieu of direct discussion of how to improve education.
If you want to quibble about whether the illegal aliens are 90% this year or 85%, Mexico is still the primary immigration problem. 500,000 of them are still fugitives from felony arrest warrants.
If you don’t think a 70%, or 60%, or 50% rate of illegitimate births, mostly to teenage public school dropouts, is a major impediment to any effort made inside the schools, try to support your opinion versus my opinion.
It is lazy and cowardly for liberals to constantly resort to demands of perfection and calling everyone a racist.
I stand by my opinion that most white liberals are racists of the condescending, patronizing sort, who do no service to the people they treat as objects of their phony charity that makes them feel good about themselves.
Dan Rather and 60 Minutes cut and spliced tape to make people say things they didn’t say or think, just like you are doing here.
I cut and pasted your quotes. Don’t criticize someone for quoting you. Blame yourself for writing the quote in the first place.
“Patronizing” you mean like saying “chances are the Hispanic you meet is an illegal alien.” My Hispanic wife found that patronizing. I know my Hispanic mother and her parents would. I’m sure the priest, Spanish teachers, and USC professors would.
It’s laughable that you can make such racist statements then accuse me of injustice. I have blasted you repeatedly for these racist quotes and I will continue to do so.
Keep in mind, you also said teachers are “not professionals” and “take rinky dink classes in college” when your wife and mother are supposedly teachers. If you’ll demean your own wife and mother like that, you clearly lack concern for others.
Randy,
your problem with quotes is like this: you take the steak of other people’s quotes. Then you take a little piece of the steak, add all sorts of mystery meat and chop, press and form, and before we know it you present us with Spam. The mutilated “quotes” you keep trotting out have as much resemblance with the real quotes as Spam has with steak.
To add another analogy, your use of quotes is like a movie review “this is terrible – nobody should go see this movie!” changing to the movie poster blurb “go see this movie!”
Sure the words are partially the same but dropping the first 5 words does drastically change the meaning, doesn’t it? That’s you.
Lex, I posted my quotes then your quotes in a previous post:
Posted by: Randy E | Jun 23, 2006 4:10:52 PM
Again, don’t come crying about how I post your quotes. If you don’t like it, don’t post the quotes in the first place.
I understand you’re bitter about your plan being torn to shreds. You can rectify that, answer the questions.
1. How will you pay for the increase in students?
2. How will you find teachers for these extra students?
“1. Do these private schools want or can they handle an influx of new students?
Who knows…
2. Who will teach these new students at the private schools?
You know, this is a very strange question. Why would you even care where the teachers come from as long as they are qualified?”
Posted by: LexWolf | Jun 23, 2006 3:54:27 PM
That’s the best you have to offer?
A follow up to these quotes:
“‘Who knows?’ isn’t quite a solution to the problem. I doubt this response is accepted in the business sector.” – Randy
“But of course it is!” – Lex
Posted by: LexWolf | Jun 20, 2006 9:18:41 PM
You ADMIT it yourself that you used “who cares” as your response. LOL, Bill Clinton your way out of all this.
It is patronizing when a white liberal tells blacks and Hispanics he will help them, because they are incapable of escaping victimhood by themselves.
You are supposed to be able to speak, read and write English well in order to be a citizen. Anyone who cannot do that can be presumed to be an immigrant or an illegal alien. Since 80% of the non-citizen Hispanics in the USA are illegal aliens, not immigrants, it is a valid presumption by police that any of them who are illiterate are probably illegal.
Randy is a broken record of hypocrisy.
He demands a detailed plan justifying private schools, but rejects the notion that public schools should justify their spending initiatives.
As for all the past programs which failed, he shrugs, “So what?”
As to why they failed, and who is responsible, Randy says, “Who cares?”
Lol, Lee the racist is now making up quotes. It would be more believable if you made up quotes that weren’t exactly like Lex’s misguided quotes.
Lee, the blogger who said black single parents don’t care about their kids.
Lee, the blogger who said most Hispanics are illegal.
Lee, the blogger who demeaned his wife and mother, who are supposedly teachers, by stating that they are “not professionals” and took “rinky dink classes” in college.
In lieu of lying, making up statistics, and making racist statements, how about simply giving us meaningful dialogue that’s truthful. Try it one time.
But Randy, Lee only quoted what you yourself posted. Should we show you all the posts where you said “Who knows” and “Who cares”?
Look who’s back. Lex, the ideological drunk who can’t support his plan. The same plan no one other than Lee agrees with. The same plan he can’t justify. The same plan that the republican legislature and republican governor won’t pass. The same plan that he thinks will magically work with some fairy dust, I suppose.
Thanks for stopping in.
Do these private schools want or can they handle an influx of new students?
“Who knows…” – Lex
“‘Who knows?’ isn’t quite a solution to the problem. I doubt this response is accepted in the business sector.” – Randy
“But of course it is!” – Lex
Posted by: LexWolf | Jun 20, 2006 9:18:41 PM
Lex, either justify your plan or discuss some other options.
Simply putting out a plan that you can’t support and blaming others for not accepting it isn’t working.
“Who knows?” – Randy
“who cares”
Posted by: Randy E | Jun 27, 2006 5:59:13 AM
Lex, if you can’t justify the plan for private school choice, just say so.
You and Lee both see what we see, Emperor Floyd has no clothes.
Heh. We’ll see about those clothes in November. Methinks you’ll see far more clothes than you would like.
I’ll get out of this thread for now. It’s gone on long enough and there are other threads on this subject higher up on the thread list.
The republican governor and legislature won’t pass PPIC, Floyd isn’t going to turn the tide.
The republican governor and legislature won’t pass PPIC, Floyd isn’t going to turn the tide.
Randy, you talk out of both sides of your mouth.
One minute, you pass the blame off schools onto the parents. Then, when I show you that 70% of black students at best only have one parent, not two parents, and that many of them don’t care enough to feed them, much less come to parent-teacher meetings, you call me a racist.
Liberals are unable to take the blame or assign the blame where it belongs.
You did NOT say “many of them.” Again, you are pulling some bull crap on you. Your quote was cited repeatedly. You also focused only on one race having that problem.
You also said all teachers are not professionals and take “rinky dink classes” which is a slap in the face of your wife and mother.
You also said most Hispanics are illegal. You were given statistics that proved you wrong but you would not recant. This was an insult to my wife and mother who are Hispanic.
Why don’t you take the blame for you racist remarks?
The republican governor and legislature won’t pass PPIC, Floyd isn’t going to turn the tide. Posted by you not just once, but twice!!
I wasn’t planning to say anything else on this thread, Randy, but this little gem of yours so reminds me of Rumpelstiltskin who, at the end the fairy tale, “stamped his foot so hard that it became stuck between the floorboards. After pulling it free, he stormed out of the palace and “was never seen again”.
If only we should be so lucky!
Lex has given up even the pretext of justifying his plan. After all, if he can’t convince the republican governor and the republican congress to pass his plan, why bother talking about it.
Good idea to move on Lexie.
Randy, you have your hands full justifying mediocrity. Your types of educrats have fought every reform since 1970, then when something works the tiniest bit, you folks claim credit for it, and tell us the problem is all fixed and no more improvements are necessary.
The parents and taxpayers aren’t buying it.
There are 42.7 million Hispanics in America.
21,000,000 of them are illegal.
3,000,000 more Hispanic illegals are sneaking into America every year.
SOURCES: US Census, US Border Patrol, Bureau of Prisons, Pew Trust, and the 2005 Bear Stearns study.
So they are not quite “half of them illegal” today, but they will be in few months.
According to opinion polls, including one conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, Americans are divided on the issue with 53% saying that people who are in the US illegally should be deported. About 70% American citizens of Hispanic descent favor deportation.
Deporting them is not the issue – agree or not, your characterization is the issue.
You contradict yourself AGAIN! “21,000,000 are illegal” BUT you stated statistics on this same blog: “there are 21,000,000 illegal aliens and 85% of them are Hispanic.” This means there are 18M illegal hispanics (by this high end measurements that many congressmen contradict) out of 42.7M (census). That’s quite a bit less than 50% so you are full of crap…again!
Let me do the arithmetic for you:
18,000,000 illegal Hispanics in 2005
+3,000,000 more illegals from Mexico in 2006
———-
21,000,000 Hispanic illegals by 2006
24,000,000 by 2007
The important statistic is that 85% of the illegals come from Mexico. Deport them, and seal the border and we have 85% of the illegal problem solved.
It’s not an immigration issue you dolt! You demeaned Hispanics in general as well as blacks.
I am in favor of tighter and comprehensive immigration control. But it shouldn’t be debated with simplistic racist comments as you have done.
How do you plan to solve any problem if you are afraid to look at the demographics of those creating the problems?
I posted links to democraphics of the top 20 source countries for illegal aliens (they are not immigrants), including Poland. Hispanics happen to hold most of the top rankings, and 85% of all illegals.
I also posted links to the demographics of out-of-wedlock births, single parent homes, children abandoned by both parents, and poverty, in a matrix of ALL RACES across all states. If you can’t handle the facts in there about black children being the worse off, you probably need to let someone else work on the solutions.