Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UofMTigers

Inaugurating bigly...

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, pokebball said:

The rural schools in Wyoming perform much better than schools in say, Cheyenne and Casper.  Perhaps it's your "model" that isn't getting implemented?

And those are public schools, correct? Sorry if I was unclear. What I meant was the private or charter school model is difficult to implement in rural areas. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Old_SD_Dude said:

And those are public schools, correct?

Pretty much all we have in the rural areas of Wyo.  There are a handful of parochial schools and I think a few charter schools.  Charters are required to fall under our public school districts.  I'm not sure of your point, but the handful of parochial schools are in the larger cities and all seem to do better than the public schools.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Show me where you're right. And show me how your private model will be funded and benefit all. And charter schools don't always beat public. They perform better in states like Mass. where they have more oversight and worse in states like Michigan where they don't. The Ed. Sec.'s school in Michigan is an outlier. 

I'm not coming up with a model. I'm saying that trying to tell me that public schools are performing horribly, when the school across the street has the same budget.

If I were to start somewhere though, it would be the teacher's union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MCDigger said:

I'm not coming up with a model. I'm saying that trying to tell me that public schools are performing horribly, when the school across the street has the same budget.

If I were to start somewhere though, it would be the teacher's union.

A key to the success of parochial and charter schools (that I'm familiar with) is parental involvement.  The charter here requires parents to sign contracts committing their involvement in their child's education.  It is monitored and enforced.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pokebball said:

A key to the success of parochial and charter schools (that I'm familiar with) is parental involvement.  The charter here requires parents to sign contracts committing their involvement in their child's education.  It is monitored and enforced.

This is a major reason the charter school here in Parker outperforms most schools in the state. they mandate and enforce parental involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MCDigger said:

I'm not coming up with a model. I'm saying that trying to tell me that public schools are performing horribly, when the school across the street has the same budget.

If I were to start somewhere though, it would be the teacher's union.

I definitely agree that we need to be able to get rid of poor teachers that too often are protected by unions. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wyoming spends way more per student than Utah with worse results.

 

Of course at some point the schools just have enough and the problem is the students. Nothing scientific but based on personal experiences mormons value education way more than redneck kids living in Douglas or Casper. And damn I have never felt more from Laramie than when talking down about the rednecky rest of the state. My extended family is from Worland and does the same thing though.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cardrater said:

Ya MSNBC was gloating about this.

I wouldn't know as I don't watch MSNBC...

I did see where the Trump administration spent their first day in the White House crying about the mean ole news channels and outright lying.

Quote

"Photographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way, in one particular tweet, to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall," Spicer claimed.

He blamed new floor coverings on mall areas that "had the effect of highlighting any areas where people were not standing, while in years past the grass eliminated this visual." And Spicer claimed that fences and magnetometers going further back than ever prevented "hundreds of thousands of people from being able to access the mall as quickly as they had in years past."

However, CNN reporter Ashley Killough tweeted out a photo showing that the same floor coverings had in fact been used at Obama's second inauguration...

Spicer went on to make his own estimate on the crowd size and incorrectly claimed that the number of people who used the Washington D.C. Metro on Friday had outpaced the number of people who used the service during President Obama's second inaugural.

In 2009, 317,000 people had, in fact, used the Metro by 11 a.m., according to WMATA, as Spicer cited. But the White House press secretary then claimed that 420,000 people had used the Metro on Friday; by 11 a.m. only 193,000 people had ridden Metro. For the whole day on Friday, 570,000 people used the system, but in 2013 there were 782,000 riders and 1.1 million riders in 2009 — both much larger than Trump's inauguration...

Spicer's own math was that there were 250,000 people in the immediate area of the inaugural dais at the Capitol, and another 220,000 from 4th Street to the media tents. Spicer then claimed there were another 250,000 people from the media tents to the Washington Monument.

"All of this space was full when the president took the oath of office," Spicer said, claiming the entire area from the Capitol to the Washington Monument was full.

However, aerial photographs show that claim is false. The area just in front of the Washington Monument was sparsely populated and far from full, as confirmed by photographs and from NPR's reporters on the ground.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/21/510994742/trump-administration-goes-to-war-with-the-media-over-inauguration-crowd-size

Quote

In his first appearance in the White House briefing room since President Trump’s inauguration, Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivered an indignant statement Saturday night condemning the media’s coverage of the inauguration crowd size, and accusing the press of “deliberately false reporting.”

he proceeded to offer a categorical claim of his own. “This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,” he said, visibly outraged. “These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong.”

As my colleague Robinson Meyer explained on Friday, modern crowd-counting methods can be laborious efforts. Steve Doig, a professor of journalism at Arizona State University, has provided estimates of crowds at past inaugurals, and is well-versed in the challenges they present. “There's no turnstiles; you didn't have to buy tickets ... so the standard metrics for measuring a contained crowd are not available," he said. "The fallback is overhead imagery.” That allows experts to estimate the density of the crowd, and divide it by the area it covers, to produce “a reality-based estimate of the crowd.” Based on the photographs available in the media showing the part of the crowd that was on the mall, he said, “the claim that this is the largest ever is ludicrous on its face.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/inauguration-crowd-size/514058/

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Wyoming spends way more per student than Utah with worse results.

 

Of course at some point the schools just have enough and the problem is the students. Nothing scientific but based on personal experiences mormons value education way more than redneck kids living in Douglas or Casper. And damn I have never felt more from Laramie than when talking down about the rednecky rest of the state. My extended family is from Worland and does the same thing though.

Exactly my point. throwing money at the problem doesn't yield better results. parents need to be encouraged to get involved, not treat school as free govt daycare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, renoskier said:

Well yeah! Unemployment at 4.7%; thanks Obama!

Such a phony statistic, padded because of the sheer amount of Americans not participating in the workforce...Something like 90 million people not working but also not collecting unemployment. You only have to look around to see barely any Millennial's have jobs these days--many of them living at home in their mid 20s or barely scrapping by on some part-time job.

Can anyone really say with a straight face that Obama helped the economy? His stimulus bill did nothing but reward the banks and auto industry's failures. GM, Chrysler are continuing to pile up debt. He more than doubled the National Debt...Solyndra....LOL

The Fed/Obama made sure to keep interest rates low until he was out of office. Massive inflation over Obama's 8 years, now the interest rate has nowhere to go but up---and once it does the economy will tank again...and the media will be there to tell everyone its all Trump's fault.

Rebel18_zps27699187.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rebels18 said:

Such a phony statistic, padded because of the sheer amount of Americans not participating in the workforce...

Can anyone really say with a straight face that Obama helped the economy? 

It's been measured the same way forever. You may not agree with the 4.7 value but that doesn't diminish its use as a comparative tool. Comparatively there are far fewer unemployed people now than 8 years ago and that 4.7 rate corresponds to other times which about everyone has called prosperous.

And yes, I'd guess most people could. Remember, the opposite side of the solyndra coin is tesla.

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, HR_Poke said:

This is a major reason the charter school here in Parker outperforms most schools in the state. they mandate and enforce parental involvement.

Parents giving a damn is key.  My son goes to a public magnet school which is actually one of top elementary schools in the state, public or private.  Although the principal has installed a culture of empowerment, I'm convinced that much of the success of the school is because you have to want to go there.  Most of the parents of the children that attend this school care enough to seek out a good school and often sacrifice a thing or two to make it happen. The parents just plain give a damn.  So you have a school made up of kids who's parents give a damn.  It really makes a massive difference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, happycamper said:

It's been measured the same way forever. You may not agree with the 4.7 value but that doesn't diminish its use as a comparative tool. Comparatively there are far fewer unemployed people now than 8 years ago and that 4.7 rate corresponds to other times which about everyone has called prosperous.

And yes, I'd guess most people could. Remember, the opposite side of the solyndra coin is tesla.

Well, you can just look at the statistic at face value and believe the problem has improved---but I hope you can see the underlying issue. The lower unemployment rate doesn't necessarily mean there are more jobs out there, just that less people are collecting unemployment. That's good on the surface, but it still doesn't address the discouraged/non-participating potential workforce---and those who are working but are severely underemployed. Namely, Millennial's who grew up and were supposed to enter the workforce during Obama's presidency but just aren't. They're living off their baby boomer parents who are really supporting this country. You can't really call inheriting a country in the midst of a Recession advantageous--Obama whined about it constantly. But just like the one ended in 1982--the economy has nowhere to go but rebound. Obama much like Reagan had their presidency during rebound years following a Recession. The difference is, we didn't rebound anywhere NEAR as high as we did with Reagan and are on the verge of another potential recession.

the jury is still out on Tesla--one success doesn't erase a $550 million dollar tax dollars Obama flushed down the toilet for Solyndra. Tesla is just another one of those things Obama is desperately trying to tout as a early victory---just like him claiming he saved the auto industry that is currently piling up debt. We're probably on the verge of another bubble with subprime auto-loans.

 

Rebel18_zps27699187.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, HR_Poke said:

He has a point. A lot of districts have a ton of money and yet perform poorly on standardized tests. I think a lot of that money is blown on administration and such, not necessarily teachers. there is definitely something off with the current education model because throwing money at the problem hasn't fixed anything.

Sheer funding is not the problem. Frankly, does anyone believe the federal department of education has made k-12 schools better?

Trump's a dolt, but throwing money at local school districts in exchange for control over curriculum is not the answer... never has been.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

Sheer funding is not the problem. Frankly, does anyone believe the federal department of education has made k-12 schools better?

Trump's a dolt, but throwing money at local school districts in exchange for control over curriculum is not the answer... never has been.

Nope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2017 at 9:11 AM, pokebball said:

OK, that is funny.  No matter which side of the aisle you're on.

Pretty hilarious. 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, HR_Poke said:

Exactly my point. throwing money at the problem doesn't yield better results. parents need to be encouraged to get involved, not treat school as free govt daycare.

But how can you expect parents to make choices about vouchers and what school to attend when they aren't involved now. 

I don't know education policy well.  But what I never understood about the voucher/choice stance is,  frankly,  how when you integrate everyone into that model somehow education gets better? 

Right now private schools are a self select group - typically wealthier families who are more involved in their kids' education.  How do you include those children who don't have the home support,  or the attention,  or frankly the ability or aptitude?  

Seems to me you only further create a system of haves and have nots, with one group increasingly left behind. 

What is the error in my logic? 

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears; it was their final, most essential command.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jwherb said:

But how can you expect parents to make choices about vouchers and what school to attend when they aren't involved now. 

I don't know education policy well.  But what I never understood about the voucher/choice stance is,  frankly,  how when you integrate everyone into that model somehow education gets better? 

Right now private schools are a self select group - typically wealthier families who are more involved in their kids' education.  How do you include those children who don't have the home support,  or the attention,  or frankly the ability or aptitude?  

Seems to me you only further create a system of haves and have nots, with one group increasingly left behind. 

What is the error in my logic? 

This is all true. 

We have a people problem. Our education is failing because of apathy, ignorance and selfishness on the part of our parents. Giving them vouchers probably won't change much.  It's also going to be hilarious when all the private schools basically raise their tuition the voucher amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...