Well, what do you think? Should anyone with a laptop who calls himself or herself a blogger be able to get press credentials? I don’t know. Here are some thoughts in no particular order:
- Government should be completely open to the people.
- You can’t get anything done when you’ve got so many people in the room you’ve got the fire marshal on your back, so there has to be a limit.
- Giving credentials only to those who have been vetted by someone else — preferably a large newspaper, but a TV or radio station will do in a pinch — relieves officials from having to play favorites in applying such a limit. But do we want officials relieved from having to think?
- Anybody can get in to see and hear legislative proceedings. The difference is in having access to the floor, which is nice, but a mixed blessing. The main thing it allows you to do is interact with lawmakers during the session — when they wander to the back, where journalists have to stay. But such interaction must not look or sound anything like what the sergeant at arms might regard as "interviewing," which is banned. If you take out a notebook or hold up a recording device, you’ll be asked to step outside. That’s fine if the lawmaker wants to risk missing a vote, but otherwise not. On the rare occasions when I go, I just stand at the back and keep it casual with anyone who approaches me. My arms are crossed, and I’m trying to remember anything useful for later.
- I had to smile when I read of the guy from S.C. Hotline being honored with press credentials for the governor’s January inauguration, which "allowed Green access to reserved media seating and an advance copy of the governor’s speech." When I go to events like that, I avoid the press areas like a plague. They’re only advantageous to photographers with expensive telephoto lenses. What are you going to do in a press area? Interview the press? Watch reporters’ reactions to the speech? I prefer to mingle. I walk about. But if you wanted to sit, the governor’s inaugural was the place to do it — hundreds of empty chairs.
Ultimately, how about a sort of market-driven approach? Give credentials to those who have amassed the pull to demand them. If a blogger has the influence, give him or her credentials. Make it a political decision, without formal rules, and certainly without court rulings and the like. Since part of the argument is that the Internet is increasingly influential, leave the channels open for that influence to assert itself. If a blogger is indeed as influential as someone who has paid his dues with an established organization, then he or she should have the same access.
But perhaps you have a better idea.
Related Posts
“If a blogger is indeed as influential as someone who has paid his dues with an established organization”
Just ask Dan Rather whose See-BS established organization certainly didn’t do much vetting of his fake memo “story”.
I follow quite a few blogs and most outdo the drive-by media any old day in terms of accuracy, balance, and fairness.
Or just ask Billow Riley whose Fox Noise propogandized the Libby pardon angle into a civil rights cause.
… and if that is indeed enough to make some gatekeeper think, “I’d better give credentials to this guy,” he’ll have met the free-market test I’m suggesting.
The problem in South Carolina, as far as “Sunshine” goes, is that the Legislature can go into secret session — shutting out everybody, no matter what kind of high-falutin’ credentials they may have — any time it wants to.
THAT is what we need to do something about.
Mr. Warthen,
From the story by AG Sheinin,”Mike Green, who runs a similar site called S.C. Hotline, was given a press credential by Gov. Mark Sanford’s office for the January inaugural ceremony. The credential allowed Green access to reserved media seating and an advance copy of the governor’s speech.”
Mike Greens was Karen Floyd’s campaign manager. His getting a pass should be no surprise.
The answer to your question is quite easy: Let supply and demand rule: Limited supply of available Press seats given to supply the demand for that number Press passes.
Press event are hosted for the intention of communicating a message. Let the host give credentials to whom they wish. If they exclude an outlet then they lose that audience or risk negative reporting from those denied.
For example if The State were to be excluded from receiving press credentials, the event host would lose an opportunity to communicate to the readership of The State. Also, The State editorial staff would start writing editorial gripe columns about said event host.
The problem that traditional editors have with bloggers and blog content boils down to the fact that your influence and control of content has diminished. In other words, when it come to blog content: Editors cannot edit.
If Editors cannot edit then Editors cease to be employed.
So, when shall we see “Brad Warthen” placed upon the Endangered Species List?
Now, where to I get my press credentials?
Your truly,
JK the blogger
Centrist View
http://centristview.wordpress.com/
Tell you what, Centrist (and I like the assumed name, by the way) — I’ll let you worry about my imminent demise. As I look around me at the level of readership on S.C. blogs, I can’t muster much in the way of stress on that one.
Actually, I just did a quick circuit of some of the better-known S.C. blogs, and it’s kind of sad. Some of these folks seem to put a lot of effort into these sites, and the participation is so low.
We hear so much about the dynamism of the blogosphere nationally, so it’s pretty bad that more people aren’t interested in engaging in dialogue. Serious, thoughtful people who use THEIR OWN NAMES, preferably. Ahem.
With all due respect, Brad, but before you look down your nose at those “other” SC bloggers, don’t forget where you yourself would be without The State backing you up.
If it weren’t for having a link to your blog right on the homepage of the state’s largest newspaper, your own blog would have very low participation and readership as well. Even with that major plug in The State, it still seems that your following isn’t very large, considering that we see the same dozen or so commenters all the time with hardly anyone else posting more than once or twice. Even if we assume that 10 times as many people read your blog, that’s still pitifully low.
Technorati has 155 mentions of your name but many of those are from other blogs and mention you only in passing. And this is only if we include all blogs with “any” authority. Restrict it to blogs with “a little” authority and you drop to 81 mentions. Try blogs with “some” authority and you’re down to 49 mentions. For blogs with “a lot” of authority you’re down to 1 pitiful mention, and that’s as an example of what’s wrong with the blogosphere. BTW, before anyone lumps me in with those anonymous correspondents mentioned in that story (dated Jun 30, 2006) be advised that this was before my time because I wasn’t even commenting here back then.
I find it amusing that bloggers continue visit this blog only to bash Brad and criticize how poorly he manages the blog.
Lex and company probably go to McDonald’s every day to tell Ronald how fattening his fries are (they probably wear disguises).
Mr. Warthen,
I offer my initials here. My name is on my blog or there About.
Since Ms. Scoppe was stumped, perhaps you can explain what “biological sanctity” (BS) is in Senate Bill S. 449, why a number of states have written legislation with that BS phrase in it, and what the potential impact of this BS will be to South Carolinians. (Does this mean that the real journalists got scooped on this BS?)
http://centristview.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/is-this-related-to-virginity-or-old-growth-forests/
I have concluded that this BS phrase describes a legal remedy to ensure that virgins are not subjected to full body strip searches when travelling through old growth forests.
JK
Mr. Warthen,
You wrote, “Serious, thoughtful people who use THEIR OWN NAMES, preferably. Ahem.”
By your words, are we to assume that you would not publish anything written under the psuedonym of PUBLIUS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
By your words, are we to assume that the following list of 85 articles contains the mere ranting of three fools?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Federalist_Papers
Instead of the term “blogger”, perhaps you would prefer the term “virtual pamphleteer.”
JK
You noticed that, too?
But Lex raises the critical question, doesn’t he? (Whoever he is.)
Who would I be without The State behind me? Well, I’d just be me. And would that mean anything to those handing out the credentials? That would depend on me. And that’s what I said above — if you can convince them that you, all by your lonesome, are someone to be reckoned with, they’ll give you the credentials.
What else would you propose? Just give them out to all who ask? Never mind how you define a “journalist.” How would you define a blogger? There will always be a line, no matter how large the circle it describes.
The test, I suppose, would be whether you can make people sit up and notice you, and earn their respect (which is not the same thing, much to the chagrin to the “Look at Me!” gang), it won’t matter whether you’re inside the circle or not.
Haw! I just looked up the "1 pitiful mention" in a "blog with ‘a lot’ of authority," and you know what it is? It’s someone quoting me at some length talking about how what’s wrong with blogs is all the nekulturny sorts who come here to act out and hurl insults anonymously! It’s all about how those scrubs are ruining it.
Oh, Randy, it’s hard to beat irony like that.
That does, indeed, sound like a whole lot of BS, man.
As for “Publius,” we’re speaking of a time when it was considered good taste for gentlemen to express political views behind a dignified mask — in this case, the name of a founder of the Roman republic (get it?). They were really into the classics in those days, and they wore frilly clothes and powdered their hair. Customs change, thank Goodness.
Look where Lexie’s been blogging.
Someone’s spending too much time on the computer…
Well Brad,
I think maybe your perspective on the “pamphleteers” is perhaps clouded and rosy from looking through the “mists of time.”
Ben Franklin & Co. didn’t hide behind their noms de plume because of some quaint notions of gentlemens’ good taste, as you put it. They did so because their world was personally and politically dangerous. Duels to the death and imprisonment (the 18th century equivalent of today’s “disappearing”) were the probable consequences of being identified by name with many of the things they were writing. For Ben there was surly a bit of economic incentive, as well. Not having your newspaper shut down by the governor probably factored into his thinking once or twice, don’t you think?
While the custom of dueling has gone out of style (at least in the US), the world of today is no less personally or politically dangerous. Add, as an intensifier, the universality of internet postings, and it should be obvious to almost anyone that it’s not cowardice but rather prudence that many (myself included) chose to remain anonymous when posting comments here.
What baffles me to no end, though, is your superior tone towards almost anyone who does not sign (what you assume to be) their actual names. In my view, it really does harm to your credibility.
On to the subject of the original post, though. I think “JK the blogger” has a pretty good idea. Press credentials should be given by the people who host the event (for those situations where that applies). The principles of free market and free speech will work to eventually bring the important issues and views to the public in such cases. The hosts getting their word out in the venues they believe most favorable and those excluded providing whatever counter is appropriate. Both sides, motivated by self-interest, ensuring that as much effort as the issue deserves is expended in informing the public.
Randy! Say it isn’t so! You a REPUBLICAN?! Have you been posting here all this time just to give teachers a bad name?
And here Randy Ewart goes Kutno! (scroll about halfway down)
Brad,
Yes we were given media credentials for the inaugural. We did not just sit in the media area and talk with other journalist nor did we even receive an advance copy of Sanford’s speech. We found a group of high school students from Langston Middle school that was attending the inaugural.
As I told Aaron what is the difference between going to the event with media credentials and not having them. None, there is very little difference between where a citizen can go and a journalist can go.
Drudge doesn’t go to a lot of places he covers it from his house. I saw you should give anyone media credintials as long as they can prove they do something. What does it matter who gets them? The more people reporting the more likely they will be to get the story correct.
I had to smile when I read of the guy from S.C. Hotline being honored with press credentials for the governor’s January inauguration, which “allowed Green access to reserved media seating and an advance copy of the governor’s speech.” When I go to events like that, I avoid the press areas like a plague. They’re only advantageous to photographers with expensive telephoto lenses. What are you going to do in a press area? Interview the press? Watch reporters’ reactions to the speech? I prefer to mingle. I walk about. But if you wanted to sit, the governor’s inaugural was the place to do it — hundreds of empty chairs.
At the risk of sounding like Pontius Pilate, what is “correct?” Those who believe in objectivity think there is such a thing, and I suppose there is if what you seek is bare bones — exactly what is said (which you can get from the official Web site — at least, the prepared version), how many chairs were set out, etc.
It’s been written of the battle on Omaha Beach that each man could describe a completely different battle from the man a few feet away from him. And in a place where inches could mean the difference between life and a horrible death, that’s especially true.
But it’s true of any complicated event involving lots of people. An inaugural is relatively single-focus, of course — all those people aren’t shooting in every direction; most are attending what’s happening on the steps (but thank God there are people willing to discuss other things sotto voce in the crowd, or I’d go mad). But each and every person has a slightly different perspective.
So the more of them you have writing about it, the broader and more diffuse picture you are likely to get. Which means you get a more DIVERSE report, which is the word I would use instead of “correct.”
That can have its own virtues, if the reader is willing to spend the rest of his life studying the observations of all those people from that one lackluster event. But most people aren’t. Most are looking for something quick, concise, authoritative, preferably from someone who’s been around and seen a lot of these things, and knows what to look for.
Less experienced writers might bring spice to the equation, taking note of things the jaded veteran would not, and that’s helpful, particularly if they are blessed with a certain literary turn.
But here’s the rub: Most bloggers offer nothing fresh. They just echo the bumper-sticker slogans of one political camp or another, saying things that sound remarkably like press releases from advocacy groups, only with less restrained vocabulary.
And therein lies the failure of the blogosphere thus far. Nothing is added; the shouting has just become more shrill.
LOL @ Lex, touche.
Brad, I disagree for three reasons.
First, the blog may be the only place a person bothers to read a dissenting view. Personally, I have encountered takes on education from a view completely detached from the “happy talk” I encounter from other educators. I have been moved to think differently about education, largely due to my battles with Doug and Lex (yes, I sometimes listen to them).
Second, by engaging in the debate (when I’m being civil) I refine my perspective as I try to communicate my positions and counter points made by others. After defending the positives in education against Lex and Doug, I know and can communicate the substance of my beliefs at a greater level.
Finally, engaging in discourse about society, even when it’s “shrill”, is an act of citizenship. Sometimes there’s little more than mud wrestling (I actually saw Lexwolf and mudwrestling together in a Google search, but omitted it in deference to your efforts to clean up this joint) but sometimes there’s great interaction. As lead Blog Dog, I think you sometimes overlook this (and I don’t blame you for that).
Brad, I strongly agree with Randy E on this one. Newspapers and TV (especially The State) have become little more than stenographers merely re-hashing the speaking points of the establishment. Nothing has ever infuriated me more than the mainstream press coverage of the Iraq war up through the 2004 election. (Once it became overwhelmingly obvious the thing was a disaster their coverage began to slowly shift). It was only on the various web sites that a very different perspective emerged. This was further fleshed out on the Blogs.
People do get shrill, but sometimes that shrillness is right on the money. Mary Rosh is a great example. His insights are positively brilliant at times in spite of his violation of the discourse rules.
As a slogan/bumper-sticker writer,I’m a bit offended by your casual dismissal.Go to Northern Sun or Ephemera Inc and try coming up with a line worth fifty bucks.Brevity is the soul of wit and it ain’t easy.
Here’s one for you to think about before you pop another Percocet(just kidding)-
I QUIT DOING DRUGS SO I COULD ENJOY MY BRAIN DAMAGE
Brad you never did address the question of whether you’re a “big government” ideologue or not. I’m not trying to be provacative, I’d just like to know. Is there some issue that has 2 options, one option being the “more” government solution and the other being the “less” government option where you would choose the “less” government approach. I personally come down on both sides depending on the issue.
I’ve listed some of the big issues we’ve discussed here as follows:
Iraq
Health Care
Education
Gambling
Taxes
Abortion
Government Restructuring
Election Finance Reform
The Fairness Doctrine
Pick one of these, or something else, and articulate why you think government is overly involved. That would go a long way toward demonstrating your non-ideologue bonafides.
Randy: Sometimes, but too rarely, there’s great interaction — and it generally involves you few who comment under your real names.
From the anons, I mostly hear the same shallow, ideological garbage I’ve been tramping through my whole career. I know what you mean about your education cocoon, but none of this is novel or refreshing to me. When you add up the telephone and face-to-face encounters I’m had with such people, plus all the letters and columns and press releases and such, it has consumed years and years of my life.
With you or a few of the other people who come here in good faith, it is possible to reach a synthesis that I can learn from, which is what the blog is SUPPOSED to be about. With the others, I try, and I debate, and I consider, and I explain, and afterward things are just the same as they were, and you know you’ll run the same merry-go-round with these folks the next time. Very discouraging.
That’s why I decided simply not to put up with them any more when they get too obnoxious. I still harbor the hope that this simple expedient will help lure a few more people of good faith such as yourself to this forum.
Well, gay “escort” Jeff Gannon managed to convince someone in the Bush White House that he was a journalist.
It must not be too difficult– if you’re willing to be a prostitute.
Testimony at the Libby trial seems to indicate that the Bushies considered Tim Russert little better than a press prostitute. History books will be too well-mannered to describe Judith Miller of the NYT as a press prostitute but certainly her reporting in the run up to invading Iraq was little better than journalistic prostitution.
So there you have two heavy-hitters of the MSM who’ve been vetted by large media organizations yet their work seems to be more of servicing the Bush Administration.
Tellingly, the MSM didn’t even pursue the Gannon story– even though it was literally in their face daily.
Guess who pursued the Gannon story, Brad.
Brad, often the interaction, while shrill, is productive. For example, when debating Lex on his private school choice “plan” he finally figured out and admitted that these private schools would have to answer to the government. He even posted a link to the UTAH voucher law in which they spelled out such accountability to the government.
See Brad, successful blogging discourse!
Well, that’s certainly worth celebrating! It’s great to know y’all had a meeting of the minds. That’s what it’s all about, or should be about.
Ok Brad since you’re so critical of the Blogers please explain how the stories for the front page of The State are chosen. I’ve been puzzled by this for some time and frankly you’re doing the readers a great disservice by your selections. Most of the stories aren’t even “news” at all but merely a description of things to come. Today is a perfect example. Here are the headlines:
UNC, Florida, etc draw No. 1 Seeds
Winthrop dance card in Spokane
SC, Georgia set to team up (story about a joint port project)
Election will be closely watched (About SC Supreme Court election)
ICAR Powers up for Research (story about Clemson buying a powerful new computer)
Seriously, are these really front page news stories? I learn much more reading the posts and following the links from the Brad Blog than from reading the State Newspaper.
Brad, I’ll give you an example of how I’ve learned a great deal from reading your blog. That was the issue of electric cooperatives. I found it fascinating how this bit of early 20th century history showcased how the government in conjunction with private entities can and do work together to create a better world. I had no preconceived beliefs in this but after reading the various viewpoints I’m convinced these types of efforts can and should be utilized more often.
Either because of space limitations or limited resources The State simply does not get into issues with this detail. And often the evidence that is presented is inaccurate or incomplete. That proved to be the case with the re-structuring issue. The State presented a one-sided account of that issue and never followed up to see how the legislation worked. In fact the 1990s re-structuring was very flawed. It created enormous inefficiencies but this was never mentioned.
But thanks to this blog I can tell everyone who is willing to read that this was in fact the case. The number of troopers, DMV counter workers and highway maintenance workers all declined while support staff and expenditures increased (in the mid 1990s). And we suffered the consequences with less safe roads and a soaring death rate, now 3rd worst in the nation.
That was one of the big problems with the way re-structuring was done. Now you know the rest of the story.
All government business should be done in the open. There are physical limits to how many people can fit in a room, so I think taxpayers and those directly affected should have first priority, not journalists of bloggers who have a less direct interest in the outcome.
Of course the government will cut out the state troopers, firemen and other legitimate and useful workers, and keep the useless pork, in order to extort more taxes out of the minority who actually work for a living and pay taxes.
Any state agency caught wasting or stealing funds obviously needs its budget reduced by at least that amount, as well as the salaries of the managers who let it happen.
Lee, while you’re working out the seating chart for the millions of taxpayers, let me explain how the “media” work: Basically, most people are willing to pay for a product that gathers information about government for them and tells them about it. Why? Because they have LIVES, and don’t have time to sit all day in legislative committee hearings. So they buy newspapers. The newspapers send reporters, and the folks in charge of the proceedings let the reporters in because they know they are acting as eyes and ears for their constituents, who for the most part are NOT going to come themselves, because they can’t.
Of course, I may be missing your point. When you say “taxpayers,” you’re probably talking about the tiny minority of people who don’t have to work for a living and who spend all their time fretting over all the taxes they have to pay, and are so obsessed with it that they are more than willing to spend their days hanging out giving lawmakers the message that “the people” — meaning this small minority of the people — want them to cut their taxes.
And in order to make sure that every member of such a special-interest group gets a seat in the room, you would kick out the press, which is there to keep EVERYBODY, including the anti-tax activists, informed about what’s going on.
That’s because it’s not good enough that these folks had just as much say in electing the lawmakers as everybody else did; and it’s not good enough for them to have access to the same news that everybody else can get; what you want is for this group that thinks about taxes the way you do has a special, inside track.
Or am I leaping unfairly to conclusions? If so, forgive me; my experience just makes me a little cynical on this point. It’s taught me to always question it when someone who has NOT been elected presumes to represent “the people” or “the taxpayers,” or some other amorphous, ubiquitous group.
And if you catch me doing it (and I’m sure you will, since I pontificate for a living), throw rotten apples.
Oops, I read right over where you said that only a minority pays taxes. Well, that’s news. How did I miss that?
Maybe it’s a small enough minority to fit into the room, but I kind of doubt it, seeing as how I don’t think I’ve ever met anybody who doesn’t pay taxes. I guess I only hang out with the chosen few.
I find it amusing that this whole conversation and the tiresome, repetitive points being made here to suggest that the blogosphere is somehow opening up a wealth of new voices and avenues of information have all been coming from the same, few vocal folks who are generally the only ones who post here on other issues Brad chooses to bring up in this space anyway.
This is the essence of the problem with the blogosphere: When it comes right down to it, the discourse on most blogs (or community sites calling themselves blogs) is usually dominated by a few vocal participants who are not doing any original reporting, like Brad and professional journalists do, and are simply responding emotionally to news reports gathered by professional journalists and, even worse, to other people’s emotional responses on other blogs. Soon, bloggers are quoting other bloggers who were responding to quotes of cherry picked bits of information taken from a professional news report.
And somehow, once an emotional response gets quoted on another blog, it somehow gains credibility.
This paradox, however, does not mean I believe there is no place for blogging whether anonymous or not. Blogging, if nothing else, can keep an issue alive and force the mainstream media to keep digging, and that in itself is worthy of something.
Thank you very much for those kind words, Uncle Syd…
I MEAN, thank you very much, Mr. Reader whom I have never met, and with whom I have never previously collaborated…
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Syd, while it may be a select few, that is still an increase over discourse previously confined to dinner table conversation with the family.
Previously my discussions on education were mostly with eduators – preaching to the choir. Now I take fire from opposing views and have to work to defend my positions.
Conversely, Lex gets dissenting views he would not find on the partisan sites he frequents. I doubt he has had lengthy dialogue with a teacher about his private school voucher “plan”.
Randy, teachers generally don’t have anything to offer in such discussions besides the NEA talking points. I don’t limit myself to partisan sites. Like you, I also visit the visit the far left kook sites just to stay current with what they are up to.
Now tell me about the SC Virtual School. Seriously.
Of course, Lexie wouldn’t want to talk to anyone with firsthand, practical experience teaching
It might interfere with his preconceived ideology.
Randy is our glass-half-full guy, and it does me good to hear from him. RTH represents the more conventional, glass-half-empty response. I choose to be optimistic along with Randy, and believe he and Lex can learn something from each other.
I would like to hear a good discussion of the Virtual Schools issue — not so much the culture war over the extent to which private school kids will be let in, but more the efficacy of the whole idea. I think offering long-distance classes to kids who might not otherwise have access to such pedagogy sounds good, but after about 25 years of witnessing the limits of electronic communication, I have my doubts.
I KNOW it’s not as good as being face-to-face with a teacher. At the same time, it sounds better than no teaching at all. Question is, should finite resources be devoted to this approach, or would they be better spent on other priorities? I’m not sure.
We had a long discussion about it in yesterday’s editorial board meeting, and it was inconclusive. We’ll have to return to it to decide what to say.
You misread my comment, Brad.
Lexie, like Randy, probably only interacts with people who either think like him or choose not to debate his ideas face-to-face .
I choose not to debate people’s ideas in SC because variance from the commonly accepted, reactionary rightwing precepts is considered ipso facto treasonous– or, at best, indicative that you’re mentally unbalanced.
None of Lexie’s kids’ private school teachers will set Lexie straight. Wouldn’t be diplomatic.
Here Lexie has to either defend his preconceived notions or slink away.
I think that offering a space for debate a valuable service.
Of course, if you were interested in your customers’ critiques then it could valuable to The State, also.
Well, we can’t have everything, eh?
No, I gotcha. You were being pessimistic about the possibility of real dialogue. And I don’t blame you, given our experience here.
I just chose to jump at Randy’s offer of hope.
What I found most interesting about the story wasn’t that I’m not allowed on the floor of the House and Senate, its that the S.C. Press Association won’t let me in. It raises the question of who is press. With the increasingly paperless society we live in, more new “establishment” media outlets are publishing online. Some of these publications might not even have a print component. I guess us bloggers are going to have to unite and form some sort of S.C. bloggers association so that we can afford to pay Jay Bender.
Still there are plenty of ways I’m able to get my stories. Whether its a power lunch with top aides or grabbing drinks with elected officials, I remain in the know without having to go through the credentialing process. That’s because I’ve earned respect not as a journalist, but a political operative. But that very respect makes me a good journalist.
As for your comments about the amount of activity equaling the size a readership, I would have you look at the National Journal’s Hotline on Call. While I’m all but certain it gets more hits then your site, it only has two or three comments per story. In otherwords never judge a book by its cover.
I don’t think blogs are treating your job, but I do think it is changing the way you do it.
I might not have credentials, but when that House Caucus door closes, I normally know what is going on inside, and you don’t.
Technically speaking, of course, you can’t be “press” without paper. But I know what you mean.
I’m a little surprised that you believe you know more about what goes on behind closed caucus doors than I do. What do you base that on?
Anyway, that brings us back to the more important “Sunshine” issue — the caucus doors shouldn’t be closed.
It is tiring to hear this constant bemoaning of the fact that people arent identifying themselves with “real” names on this blog. Does The State confirm every letter to the editor as being from the real person? Imagine if talk radio required every caller to identify themselves in detail. Politics is by nature controversial, and not every teacher would do it, but it has been proven that some university professors have lowered grades of conservative students as a punishment for their political leanings. That same behavior would and does occur at the secondary school level. And then you have corporations, where the mgt. is conformed to one political view. My point is there will be retribution to those whose identity is exposed. Guaranteed. You can be an editor and take any side without consequence ( I think) but most of the rest of us dont have that luxury. So privacy prevails.
Yes, Brad, you are unfairly leaping to conclusions, and fantasizing up boogeymen that you still cannot whip.
Your post drips of contempt for the retired taxpayers who you think “have nothing better to do” than exercise their civic responsibility to attend public hearings. Shame on them for bypassing the media filter, and getting their information directly from the elected officials and hundreds of unelected boards and commissions. God forbid that one of those old ladies takes a front row seat from some cub reporter sent down by his editor with a news template to fill out.
Lexie, like Randy, probably only interacts with people who either think like him or choose not to debate his ideas face-to-face – RTH
Hurl, my wife’s a damn Yankee (you know the joke; a yankee comes from the north to visit the south but goes back while a damn yankee stays) and I debate with her all the time about the true title of the Civil War – The War of Northern Agression.
I’d jump at the chance to meet up with you guys and hash out some of these issues.
In response to Lexie’s mischaracterization of me, I’m hardly an NEA guy. For example, I refused to sign a petition against school choice because it’s an issue that’s more complex than pro or con.
I will give Lex and Doug this. They reinforced my belief in the need for more accountability. I tried blogging on the Rex campaign site with teachers. There were just a few exchanges, but mostly it was the NEA talking points Lex condemns. I didn’t get anything out of this.
On the other hand, these two have repeatedly posted views of education which were often unsubstantiated. Doug stated ALL education academic awards were little more than recreation hall trophies. Lex stated (pardon my chuckling) that the NEA is as powerful as the NRA. I offered EVIDENCE that directly contradicted them.
Randy, I just took your word for it…
RTH, no you did not.
Previously my discussions on education were mostly with eduators – Randy
You ignore MOSTLY and ON EDUCATION and generalized me as someone who only interacts with like minded individuals.
It’s ironic that you started that post with You misread my comment, Brad.
Brad I realize you are very clued into what is going on in State House, and definitely know some stuff I don’t know. But I think this goes two ways, and sometimes I’m in the “know” before you are. As a professional political advisor I get information that might take a few weeks before you recieve the press release or the story leak. That’s aspect is what makes blogging so interesting.
Brad I realize you are very clued into what is going on in State House, and definitely know some stuff I don’t know. But I think this goes two ways, and sometimes I’m in the “know” before you are. As a professional political advisor I get information that might take a few weeks before you recieve the press release or a story leak. That aspect is what makes blogging so interesting.
I think the difference between the way we report is that your looking in from the outside. I’m showing the world my view from the inside. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both further the democratic process. Together we provide a better view of the political process, then we would if only one of us existed. Good luck with “Sunshine Week”. It is efforts like this that helped the First Amendment be the powerful Democratic beacon it is today.
Randy,
I can’t let the comment about school awards go without a response. Today’s State has a story about the latest “Palmetto’s Finest” winners. Richland 2’s Forest Lake Elementary has “won” this “award”. What makes Forest Lake one of Palmetto’s Finest schools? Maybe it’s the Good rating they got on the school report card (not Excellent)… maybe it was the Average improvement score (following three years of Below Average, Unsatisfactory, and Unsatisfactory)… maybe it was the 25% of the students who scored Below Basic on PACT tests… or the fact that teacher turnover was 17% last year versus 15% the year before… or maybe it was that spending per pupil INCREASED more than 10% last year to over $8000 per student…
Or maybe.. just maybe… it’s due to this quote from the article:
“Earning a Palmetto’s Finest award — among the most coveted for state schools — is the result of a lengthy application process, a self-evaluation, peer review and on-site visits, among other things.”
Self-evaluation? “Hey, I think we’re the finest school in SC!” “Me, too!” “Let’s get an award!” “Yeah! We’re great!”
The article goes on to list Forest Lake’s primary achievement:
“A “Technology Magnet” school in Richland 2, Forest Lake is home to lots of high-tech equipment. An example: Blackboards became obsolete when the school pioneered widespread use of SMART Boards, large interactive screens connected to a laptop computer and digital projector in each classroom”
If that isn’t an indictment of the whole “Let’s Give Everybody An Award” mentality, I don’t know what is.
The term “Finest” should be reserved for the best schools, not the best p.r. department.
If we’re going to waste millions of dollars rating schools using PACT test scores, then lets also tie these window dressing awards to those results.
Doug, I’ll pose the same question to you as I have before.
Are the awards Winter Days has garnered mere “rec hall trophies” or is this a program worthy of recognition an award provides?
Last time you went off on a tangent about not needing awards to be motivated. That’s a separate issue. This is a simple question which can be answered similarly.
Awards for Winter Days type programs are unnecessary but harmless. They aren’t the same as those awards an entity decides they deserve and applies for.
Apples and oranges.
The people running Winter Days would do it regardless of whether there was an award involved.
I answered your question. Now answer mine. Do you consider Forest Lake Elementary to be one of South Carolina’s Finest schools?
If so, by what criteria?
These coom-ba-ya awards a part of the culture of self-denial and congratulation inside the circled wagons of government schools.
They aren’t the same as those awards an entity decides they deserve and applies for.
Apples and oranges. – Doug
Quite the contradiction to your previous post about ALL education awards being mere rec hall trophies.
“Quite the contradiction to your previous post about ALL education awards being mere rec hall trophies.”
Exactly where did Doug make this statement? Link, please! Seems to me that you are regressing to your tortured/mangled/invented-quote period.
Lex, go link yourself. Doug can handle himself.
Randy is busted again.
If I say “ALMOST ALL education awards are like soccer trophies” will you answer the question? Your focus on one word is silly.
What makes Forest Lake Elementary one of South Carolina’s Finest schools? Or is it too hard to answer?
And, yes, to me, all the school awards (Blue Ribbon, Red Carpet, Palmetto Gold, etc.) are like soccer trophies for everyone who shows up.
Posted by: Doug | Feb 20, 2007 6:30:53 PM
“What Do You Mean By School Choice?”
Real awards would be ones run by the parents, students and taxpayers – not by school cronies handing them out to each other for reaching the baseline.
Randy,
Your non-answer is the answer. When you can’t defend the indefensible, focus on semantics.
WHAT MAKES FOREST LAKE ELEMENTARY ONE OF SOUTH CAROLINA’S FINEST SCHOOLS?
[not shouting, just seeing if you have a vision problem]
Here’s what the first paragraph of the Forest Lake Elementary principal’s message
from the 2006 report card says… it’s all about the awards, no mention of 20% of the students being functionally illiterate in English and Math… nor does it mention that spending per pupil is $8100 — $1700 more per student than elementary schools with similar students in SC:
“This year, we have received
the honor of being named a NASA Explorer School for 2006-2009. We were also a
finalist for Palmetto’s Finest Award as well as a finalist for Intel’s Schools of Distinction
Award for Technology, which will be announced in the fall. Forest Lake is part of a
federally funded IMPACT grant for 2004-2007, as well as a proud recipient of the
2003-2006 Exemplary Writing Award, the 2002-2003 Flagship School of Promise Award,
the 2001-2002 Richland School District Two Distinguished Schools Award, the 2001-2002
Palmetto Gold Award and a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence.”
That says it “all”…
Doug, you paint “ALL” awards with a broad brush, you then deny you made this statement, then when faced with clear evidence that YOU WERE WRONG (not shouting…) you side step the issue.
Your pettiness and extreme generalizations overshadow any point you’re trying to make. It’s a shame because I have repeatedly acknowledged good points you’ve made. Unfortunately, I have come to put you in the same category with Lex – an ideologue who is interested only in his own myopic perspective.
In other words, “No, I cannot explain why Forest Lake Elementary is one of South Carolina’s Finest schools but I will defend their right to acquire as many awards as they choose to apply for because it makes them feel better about themselves”
Facts is facts… calling me names doesn’t change them. Focusing on a single word from a single post is, I repeat, silly.
How come you won’t afford me the courtesy of answering my question when I answered yours?
I’ll respond to your stance on FLE, despite the pettiness so others won’t have such a limited view of these awards.
First, it is an application process so only schools running can win the award.
Second, I took the time to read the criteria. If PACT scores were the sole determining factor then only limited schools in higher income areas would win each year. They take into consideration the demographics, as they should. FLE has over a 50% minority population. You COMPLETELY overlook this in your analysis.
Third, Lexington HS won. I spent two years there and know first hand what a tremendous school it is. Are you going to dismiss them as well with your “ALL” inclusive critique of this award?
Fourth, Central HS was a runner up. Their report card rankings have improved dramatically over the past few years. Have you evaluated their merit?
Finally, what’s printed on the report card hardly conveys everything that’s going on in a school. Since you are so knowledgeable about the merit of their award, please share what was on their application. On what aspects of the school did the committee base their criteria?
I’ll even give you an easier question.. one that won’t require research.
Can a school be rated less than excellent by the accountability standards set up by the Department of Education and still be considered one of South Carolina’s Finest schools?
So FLE is Finest because:
1) They think they are (application)
2) They have a high percentage of minorities (lowering the bar)
3) Another school you attended got the award so it must be a good school (just like the kid who scores all the goals on the soccer team gets the same trophy the as the kid who runs in the wrong direction)
4) Another school almost won it (which says what about FLE?)
5) What’s printed on the report card is what the principal and the SIC wrote. The first paragraph is all about awards. Check out some other schools and see if they are as concerned about their self-esteem.
Yes.. I see it ALL clearly now. You get the blue ribbon. Wear it with pride.
Doug, I find it quite arrogant that you don’t know what’s on the application but feel you can pass judgement on it and the award.
Success is often contextual. I had a student with no father at home. He had to work several nights a week, often closing, to help his mother pay bills. I was very hard on him and made him take responsibility for his education. He came through with a C+.
The same semester I had a student with both parents at home, but with good jobs, both active in their son’s education. He made a B in a higher level course.
That type of middle class student will most likely score higher on any test score than the other. By your standards, the middle class student was a greater success simply based on the higher grade. I completely disagree.
It’s a shame that your pettiness, mean spiritedness, and myopic view of education overshadows the good points that you had made.
Randy,
I write about my opinions, you write about me. Debate the issues on the merits and try to resist calling people names.
I have written my posts in response to your disparaging stereotypes regarding education and your pettiness as demonstrated by the following:
Yes.. I see it ALL clearly now. You get the blue ribbon. Wear it with pride
WHAT MAKES FOREST LAKE ELEMENTARY ONE OF SOUTH CAROLINA’S FINEST SCHOOLS?
[not shouting, just seeing if you have a vision problem]
If that isn’t an indictment of the whole “Let’s Give Everybody An Award” mentality, I don’t know what is.
You admit that you haven’t the foggiest idea what was on the Forest Lake application, yet you feel jusitified in belittling the collective efforts of a group of educators and parents.
Conveniently, you completely side step my qustion about Lexington HS winning the award as evidence of the merit of the award, atleast in that situation. This undermines your blanket assertion that ALL awards are worthless.
And yes, “All” makes all the difference – some or many of these awards are meritless versus ALL the awards are meritless.
If you want to engage in a substantive debate about education, I’m game. If you want to stereotype and be petty regarding my profession, I’ll direct me responses accordingly.
my
>By your standards, the middle class student
>was a greater success simply based on the
>higher grade. I completely disagree.
Wrong. I am talking about awards given to schools that those schools apply for, not individual students successes or failures.
Stop changing the debate to suit your needs when you know you cannot defend the indefensible. Stick to the topic.
The “standards” I speak about are those standards put in place by the Department of Education to measure schools. Either those standards mean something or they are meaningless. If this so-called accountability that public school advocates whine about every time an alternative to the current cookie cutter school system is presented is so important, then why don’t we use it to judge our schools? A school that is rated GOOD cannot be the FINEST.
Forest Lake Elementary isn’t even generally considered one of the five best elementary schools in our district — people are not moving into the schools zone (Decker Blvd), they are moving away. Enrollment is down from 626 to 577 since 2003.
You want to implement a REAL school award? Ask the local realtors to rate the schools. They’ll tell you instantly which schools you want your kids in. I know that’s what we heard when we moved hear 17 years ago. Every realtor knew exactly where the good schools were.
Forest Lake got an award because they spent a ton of money on technology and promoted themselves as a technology leader.
$1700 more per student should provide more than tiny gains on the PACT test.
I’d prefer to see them spend more time on classroom programs than trying for awards.
Ask the local realtors to rate the schools. They’ll tell you instantly which schools you want your kids in. Yes, Dutch Fork, Lexington, Chapin…do we see a pattern here?
The Decker area is in decline for several reasons. Your suggestion that it’s tied to the school is grossly oversimplistic.
Regardless, my point about the student is completely valid. Success is relative to the situation. The middle class student is a greater success by your standards. Following this, only Dutch Fork and Lexington should win any award. Let’s give out awards to the schools with the highest socio-economic population. The relationship between SAT scores and family income as well as the relationship between PACT and socio-economics of the community is clear.
I’m still amazed at your ability to determine the merit of an application which you have not read. Given that you don’t need such information, then what about the merit of this award being given to Lexington HS? Talk about side stepping the issue, this is the 3rd time I’ve asked you.
Randy,
Lexington HS got the award because they applied for it. The quality of the school is unrelated to the award. Excellent schools get it, good schools get it, fair schools get it. If a school gets it one year and not the next, does that mean the school is worse? It’s window dressing, pure and simple.
So would you consider your C+ student to be your finest student? Because it’s not about results, it’s about how hard you try,
right? And did your student ask you to tell the rest of the class about his progress or was he satisfied with his own achievement? Palmetto’s Finest is akin to that student telling you after he got the C+ that he felt he deserved to be valedictorian regardless of his class rank. Most of us have enough self-esteem to not have to apply for public affirmation of how wonderful we are.
The funniest thing about you Randy is that you call me myopic when you consider the only valid opinion related to public education to be that of a teacher who has stood in front of a class. Everyone else is second rate.
I don’t know if Forest Lake’s application is available. Do you? I can try and request a copy but then you run the risk of having to come up with some new tangent to try and defend beauty contest awards…
FYI, the school pays a $300 fee to the SC Assoc. of School Administrators to apply for the award. The application consists of demographic data, a list of previous awards in the past five years, PACT scores,
and then a bunch of essay type questions that any effective writer with a thesaurus could put a positive spin on… no factual evidence required:
1. Student Creativity: Student involvement in the creation and production of special school programs, projects, etc.
2. Student Involvement: Describe the opportunities students have to become involved in their school. Include numbers in each area.
3. Student Leadership: Beyond involvement, explain the types and numbers of opportunities for leadership such as student council, safety patrols, clubs, tutoring, helpers, community work, and organizations, and athletics.
4. Service Learning: Describe the opportunities students have for authentic, real-world learning experiences.
5. Personalization: Describe how the school assists students in developing their own talents and pathways, how students work cooperatively together on challenging tasks and demonstrate their learning.
6. Safety: Describe how the school culture is reflective of a safe school environment. Explain the system for maintaining a safe environment for students and staff of the school.
7. Physical Environment: Explain the system for care and maintenance of the school plant, including progress made in enhancing the physical environment for learning through content rich classrooms, display of student work, etc.
8. Communications with Community: Explain how the school communicates with its stakeholders. This should include communication to students, parents and the community at large.
9. Community Involvement: Describe the involvement of formal and informal citizen and community groups in the decision-making process of the school. Describe who has been involved and their areas of involvement.
—-
You write a good application, send in your check, and you never know.. you just may win a trophy and some bumper stickers.
Lexington H.S. deserves a Palmettos Finest award. Their school report card rating for 2006 was Excellent overall and Excellent on yearly progress. That’s the definition of Finest.
Forest Lake was Good with Average improvement.
Since we’re playing the “Answer My Question” game, Randy, tell me whether you think we should have school report cards?
you consider the only valid opinion related to public education to be that of a teacher who has stood in front of a class. Everyone else is second rate.
Doug, for the 20th time, I have REPEATEDLY stated that you have made very good points. I have made an effort to see your point of view. For example, I agree that the PACT should have teeth and I’m dumfounded that students can make it to high school with such low reading and math abilities.
In fact, one of my recent posts on this thread was to give credit to you and Lex for reinforcing my views on accountability. Educators need to be held accountable from outside as well as from within. Your perspective can be of great value, when you are offering a fair account.
I take issue with you when you stereotype aspects education – e.g. “ALL eduation awards”. Then you deny making the statement. When I cut, paste, and post your quote, you won’t even acknowledge that you were wrong and try to side step the issue. Amazingly, you then admit the Palmetto’s Finest award has merit in the case of Lexington HS, which undermines your “ALL” assertion.
If you want to talk education and are willing to be fair in your criticism then I’m open to dialogue and encourage it, even if we disagree.
Doug, regarding the report cards, the State printed a guest editorial from me back in the 90s when report cards were first being considered.
I had great reservations then because I didn’t believe they would adequately reflect what’s happening in the schools. IMO, this has proven to be true. An example is the way you rated Forest Lake based on this limited information.
On the other hand, I like them because they do provide at least some accountability. We can at least have some information available to discuss and evaluate these schools. Increased public scrutiny is essential to improving education, I believe, which is why I find your perspective to be of value.
Randy, one of the perennial frustrations of parents is the utter refusal of the educracy to be measured by any report cards, SAT scores, dropout rates, PACT Scores, NAEP scores etc. etc. etc.
Nothing, but nothing, seems to meet the educrats’ standards for measuring performance and providing real accountability. There’s always this wrong with that and that wrong with this. As soon as a new standard is established it’s insidiously undermined from within the educracy. This has been going on for several decades. When can we expect the educrats to ever agree to a set of standards for measuring their performance, or lack thereof???
I think educators and those looking to hold educators accountable from outside bring negatives to the issue. In general, educators seem to want little measureable accountability because there are so many variables that affect performance. The other side seems to disregard many of these factors.
For example, the notion that drop out rate is the sole responsibility of schools, as suggested on this blog, is ludicrous. I had a problem student whose mother (single parent) could not control him. He CUSSED her out in front of me and later dropped out of school. I did due diligence in trying to work with the mother to help him, to no avail.
My suggestion for accountability is a combination of subjective and objective measures. I think site visits, like those to determine Palmetto’s finest, and the resulting reports can provide a wealth of qualitative information as to what’s happening in a school. This can be performed by a collection of educators, government representatives, private citizens and members of the business community. I also believe in quantifying school performance with AP participation and scores, end of course exams, in addition to PACT and HSAP. The former relates directly to specific courses while the later is all inclusive, unlike ACT and SAT. I also favor the ACT over SAT.
I believe strongly that we need more accountability, but it must be valid.
Real accountability is working in private enterprise and satisfying the customer – the parents and students.
“I believe strongly that we need more accountability, but it must be valid.”
Here’s the problem with the educracy’s failure to be accountable. I agree with you that we should have a “combination of subjective and objective measures” but where in private enterprise do employees get to determine whether performance measures are “valid” or not? Out here in the Real World you don’t get to pick your performance yardsticks. Instead you either perform up to the standards set by your employer (or your customers if self-employed) or you’d better look for another job.
IMO it’s unconscionable that we let educrats continue to get away with their decade-long refusal to accept any real accountability. Despite Brad’s braying about accountability to the taxpayers in reality this means that educrats are accountable to other educrats inside the Black Box but never to the parents. Right now there is no effective accountability to the parents whatsoever. The only real accountability is to give parents full choice in where to send their kids to school. Anything else is just sophistry.
Private choice as full accountability is based on the false premise of having informed agents of accountability.
In the market economy it’s clear that many places are held or not held accountable on misinformation. Fad diets, Height Max (pills that makes teens grow), places using catchy commercials to mask poor products or services etc. all survive your system of accountability.
Your private schools could market their product and services effectively and parents would not be any wiser. Also, pulling your daughter out of a poor school, after you finally discover the low performance, would be a difficult task during the school year. Where would she go? Would there be space? Could she get the same courses? What about the poor performing schools which go out of business mid-year?
And this would pertain to only the parents involved enough to take this much interest and look to change schools. For the students of parents who don’t, we are back to square one.
This doesn’t even address the incredible logistical nightmare which you have failed to address.
Private schools as THE silver bullet is a giant red herring taking away energy and time from solving the accountability issue.
Having said that, I have stated that you and Doug have made a very good case for the need for accountability. Your perspective as parents is important and has been marginalized.
I know first hand that having others holding my feet to the fire makes me a better teacher.
Economics does not claim that buyers and sellers are perfectly informed – only that they are better informed about their own wants and needs that some stranger who would like to limit their freedom of choice.
The fact that apologists for socialist schools cannot envision the myriad of market solutions is not surprising, but it says nothing about private schools, only about the ignorance and lack of vision of their critics.
Yep, all those problems out there in real life. My choices might be based on misinformation, marketing, and logistical nightmares but I HAVE A CHOICE!!
Most of the same pitfalls apply to educracy as well – don’t even try to tell me that they don’t market themselves and engage in misinformation – yet I have NO CHOICE at all.
In any case, I would much rather take my chances than to have some educrat make my decisions for me.
Randy,
I never denied the quote you posted. I only attempted to clarify it. And my original quote listed the types of awards I was talking about (Blue ribbon, red carpet, palmetto gold)… Let me clarify for you AGAIN: ALL school awards that the school actively applies for are worthless. Your focus on a single word is silly… but I suppose that is the best you can do. You’ve tried to twist the debate around in so many different directions because you can’t defend those types of awards as meaningful.
You are already “taking your chances” at your daughter’s private school. You admitted this was largely due to the “idiots acting up in class” at public schools.
These “idiots” and many others would not have the means, desire or the parental involvement to take advantage of THE CHOICE! The UTAH plan which you cited to bolster your position does squat to provide opportunity for poor families to HAVE A CHOICE($3000 chicken feed voucher)! So we’re back to square one, how do we provide for the students in public schools?
My position is accountability for the schools, the teachers, and the students. The “voodoo accountability” of vouchers is a pooor option.
Your focus on a single word is silly… but I suppose that is the best you can do. – Doug
More pettiness.
Aaah, nice try, Randy. I am indeed taking my chances at HH and am quite happy with it. Certainly beats the failed public school she normally would have to attend (rated #29 out of 32 in LexCo).
Of course that “$3000 chicken feed voucher” would probably be enough to pay for the private school that your own kid attends. You’re the ultimate hypocrit here, Randy. You send your own kid to private school while fighting tooth and nail against school choice for others with less income than you.
The only way we’ll ever have real accountability is full choice, and that’s not just $3,000 — it’s $8,000 or $10,000 or whatever the school district currently spends per student. Why was the educracy doing everything it could to hold that voucher down to $3,000? As they do here, just so you can then claim that the voucher is just “chickenfeed”.
Lex, how am I a hypocrite if I’m fighting against a plan that would save me $400+ per month in favor of principle?
The article you cited for the Utah voucher plan described the republican controlled legislature as indifferent to the plan. The “educracy” caused this? They fought tooth and nail? In a state that ranks at the bottom of union membership, you suggest the democratic leaning NEA had this great of an effect on this republican legislature?
So explain again how poor kids in Salt Lake City will afford private school with a $3000 voucher.
near the bottom (6.2%, 10th lowest in 2002 – USBLS)
By the way, your plan, as I understand it, is to provide the most or all of the tuition for private schools for the poor. The idea is to give this money to the parents and not the “educrats”.
If it costs $8,000-$10,000 per year to educate students in SC then your private school plan would be providing scholarships and not tax breaks for any family paying less than $8,000 per year in property taxes.
That’s a redistribution of wealth plan. How unLibertarian of you! Some on this blog would call you a socialist.
If you don’t like socialist redistribution of wealth, you have to abolish government schools along with not handing out vouchers. Just let everyone pay for the own education, their own automobiles, their own vacations, housing and food.
Jeez, I guess that I’ve missed a lot by not dropping into this discussion for a while.
I’m fascinated that Randy sends his child to a private school. Do you do that for religious instruction, Randy?
(Sorry if this is covered elsewhere. Just send me along to pertinent exchange.)
I suppose that I stand corrected by Randy. He personally debates any number of controversial (in SC) issues with folk of opposing opinions but has to confront concepts about his profession on this blog. Mea culpa.
RTH, actually we have a 6 month old but are already planning on Catholic education – yes, for religious reasons.
I’ll be working part time to pay for this so a voucher law would actually benefit me! BUT, I believe in such a plan only for poor families stuck in bad schools.
RTH, thanks for the affirmation. I feel I’m not only defending my profession, but am getting valueable perspectives even from my nemesis Lex.
So Randy plans to send his child to a parochial school because it offers a type of education that public schools do not and can not constitutionally offer.
That hardly makes him a hypocrite.
I’ll bet that this parochial school is subsidized by the Catholic Church, right, Randy? Otherwise, $3,000 per year wouldn’t really cover the cost per student for a school to offer a quality education.
Say, Lexie, how would you feel if some rich Saudi Arabians opened a Muslim madrassa in Allendale and only charged $1,000 per student/year? Would you think this turn of events be perfectly acceptable from a free market, libertarian POV? Would you think tax monies should be paid to the madrassa to educate Allendale students?
Understand that I’m in no way equating Muslim madrassas and, say, St. Peter’s School. It’s just that the principle is the same.
School teachers lead all other vocations except doctors in sending their children to private schools.
In very bad public school systems, such as Detroit, Chicago and DC, 30 to 80% of public school teachers send their children to private schools.
What about you, Lee?
Would you like for your tax dollars to pay for tuition at Muslim madrassas?
I don’t want my tax dollars paying for anyone else’s tuition.
It certainly is self-destructive to Western Christians to subsidize their enemies.
So you’re against PPIC, then?
I am for extending vouchers to K-12, just as we have them for college students, in order to demonstrate to the brainwashed masses that there is an alternative to socialist government schools.
Also, it is a step in the right direction of moving towards schools becoming just businesses, and bringing about separation of school and State.
More or less nothing seems important. So it goes. Oh well. It’s not important. That’s how it is.
College education is a basic need today