Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

[Sparko]

I have never argued otherwise. What I DO argue is that Christianity is not the only source of such teachings and ideas.



I agree with the latter, but obviously not the former. Continuing to propagate the belief that people are incapable of making progress without aid from some for of deity is something that I believe is more harmful (in the long run) than beneficial. We are always better served when our life is rooted in reality. I believe it is time for people to let go of their dependence on non-existent gods and move forward. Obviously, you are not going to agree since you still believe these gods (or this god) actually exist(s).

It was thinking like this that got us into the mess we are in today, Carp. That was my entire point.

[carpedm9587]

Good we agree on something!

It happens

Seriously - I was looking for practical, doable options. You proposed one that meets those criteria. It would be silly not to acknowledge it.

But when the white middle class were still in these cities they had more monies for local schools (More locally sourced money).

Seer, that some communities had more money for schools because there was "white middle class" living there doesn't change the fact that there is a problem when local communities fund schools - because poor communities will have poor schools and rich communities will have rich schools. Surely you are not suggesting that, before white flight, there were no poor communities int he U.S.? I think the demographics would quickly prove you wrong. The number and distribution has changed - the fact of them has not. And the problem is that schools are funded with local money - creating an instant difference between school systems.

But again, if you can't educate a kid for fourteen grad a year, each, then get out of the way. How about this, we take a city like Hartford, they spend $14,190 a year per child per year. You give the parents who want it a $10,000 voucher. You would then have an extra $4,000 that would not follow the child and stay in the public school system. Since the actual number of students would go down, you would actually end up with more money per student.

Your numbers are completely arbitrary. But I would support the following: anyone can claim a voucher for the actual amount of the reduction in school costs that result in the loss of that student. This would have to be done collectively on an annual basis. That is, students wishing vouchers would have to announce their decision to leave, so the school can have a total count by a specified date, and can adjust their resources and budget accordingly, and then take the freed up money and allocated it equally across all departing students. That would, at least, not make the problem worse than it already is.

Fundamentally, I believe we need to centralize and level the funding for all schools. Eliminate the property tax component that is associated with school funding, shift it to a part of the income tax instead, and then allocate a standard per-student rate across the country to all schools - a rate determined to be adequate to provide for effective schooling. Then we need to define a mechanism by which teachers and administrators are evaluated and held accountable for outcomes. Standardized testing has been tried and proven ineffective: it just results in a hyper focus on "teaching to the test," which is pretty much always counter-productive and does not foster learning.

Perhaps a more effective way of holding accountable is to take a page from the business world and implement a 360 degree evaluation process, with outside evaluation added. Simple, standard management practices that are used throughout the business world.

Right Republicans, Democrats wouldn't touch reform with a ten foot pole.

I never say never. But you are correct that they won't so long as we continue to vote for people who are unwilling to tackle these issues. At the end of the day, voters get what they vote for. So long as we remain unwilling to vote for people willing to work "across the aisle" and tackle difficult problems - we will get what we vote for.

[carpedm9587]

It was thinking like this that got us into the mess we are in today, Carp. That was my entire point.

A point I disagree with. Our world needs less religion - not more. But we are not going to agree on that.

[seer]

Seer, that some communities had more money for schools because there was "white middle class" living there doesn't change the fact that there is a problem when local communities fund schools - because poor communities will have poor schools and rich communities will have rich schools. Surely you are not suggesting that, before white flight, there were no poor communities int he U.S.? I think the demographics would quickly prove you wrong. The number and distribution has changed - the fact of them has not. And the problem is that schools are funded with local money - creating an instant difference between school systems.

No I'm saying that leftist policies forced the middle class out of these neighborhoods which reduced monies for schools substantially. But now you want thriving communities to pay for their mistakes.

our numbers are completely arbitrary. But I would support the following: anyone can claim a voucher for the actual amount of the reduction in school costs that result in the loss of that student. This would have to be done collectively on an annual basis. That is, students wishing vouchers would have to announce their decision to leave, so the school can have a total count by a specified date, and can adjust their resources and budget accordingly, and then take the freed up money and allocated it equally across all departing students. That would, at least, not make the problem worse than it already is.

My numbers are not arbitrary, but exact. In the case of Hartford, $4,000 would be added to the district that no longer has to educate the child, it is a win win.

Fundamentally, I believe we need to centralize and level the funding for all schools. Eliminate the property tax component that is associated with school funding, shift it to a part of the income tax instead, and then allocate a standard per-student rate across the country to all schools - a rate determined to be adequate to provide for effective schooling. Then we need to define a mechanism by which teachers and administrators are evaluated and held accountable for outcomes. Standardized testing has been tried and proven ineffective: it just results in a hyper focus on "teaching to the test," which is pretty much always counter-productive and does not foster learning.

First, if you don't teach to the test then what do you teach too? Talk about arbitrary. Second, there is no way I would agree with the above, just more cost shifting to support bad liberal policies. Never mind the fact that you will never, at least in my lifetime, hold teachers and administrators accountable.

Perhaps a more effective way of holding accountable is to take a page from the business world and implement a 360 degree evaluation process, with outside evaluation added. Simple, standard management practices that are used throughout the business world.

Are you living in the real world?

[carpedm9587]

No I'm saying that leftist policies forced the middle class out of these neighborhoods which reduced monies for schools substantially. But now you want thriving communities to pay for their mistakes.

And the facts don't support your claims. Read the history, Seer. From the Great Depression through the Civil Rights era, and even after, bipartisan government policies created incentives for segregation in in the populace. Pointing the finger of blame to the left doesn't erase that history and ignores its reality. There are numerous sources on this. Here is one. While it is true that Democrats dominated both houses of Congress for most years from 1931 to 1997, Republicans dominated in some of those years, and Democrats never held a filibuster-proof majority AFAIK. It would have required bipartisan support to pass these laws, and the voting records shows as much.

You are assigning blame that needs to be more broadly distributed - and then it needs to be corrected.

My numbers are not arbitrary, but exact. In the case of Hartford, $4,000 would be added to the district that no longer has to educate the child, it is a win win.

So please show me where you get the information that $10,000 is the amount by which a school's costs would drop if a single child left.

First, if you don't teach to the test then what do you teach too?

You teach to the knowledge. You are talking to a teacher of 30 years. No test can cover the breadth of every subject. Tests are a "spot check" on knowledge. You establish learning objectives, and then you test to those objectives - but a teacher seldom has the ability to test all learning objectives. So the test covers the most important objectives, and spot-checks the rest. When everything is test-based - then teachers narrowly focus on the things that are actually covered in the "standard tests" and all other areas of learning are left off the table. The result is usually very bad learning, and very little focus on HOW to learn.

Talk about arbitrary.

Hopefully not. Curricula are created based on someone's opinion of what is "important" knowledge. That should be linked to things like life skills, jobs skills, etc. Curricula are designed around clear and measurable learning objectives, and then tests are written to those objectives. But when all evaluation is based on the tests - any part of the curriculum that is not explicitly tested for is simply not taught - so that teachers can "improve their scores." The results is a group of students who have passed all the tests, but leave schools with major gaps in their knowledge. I've been dealing with this for years now. Colleges now devote almost the entirety of their first year program to trying to fill in the gaps for entering students who were "left behind" by this "teach to the test" model.

Second, there is no way I would agree with the above, just more cost shifting to support bad liberal policies. Never mind the fact that you will never, at least in my lifetime, hold teachers and administrators accountable.

The solution is a fairly sound one, and strikes the balance to create a voucher system that will NOT make existing schools worse. But the true problem lies in the way schools are funded, as I have noted. You've blustered a good deal - but you have not really put forward any argument to show what I have said to be wrong.

Are you living in the real world?

Yes - I am. And I know change can happen. The Civil Rights Era. The New Deal. The Great Depression and Great Recession and their aftermaths. The list goes on. What is required is the will and people in leadership with a vision. We certainly won't have that so long as Trump is in office. We also won't have it so long as "we the people" continue to vote for obstructionists.

[seer]

And the facts don't support your claims. Read the history, Seer. From the Great Depression through the Civil Rights era, and even after, bipartisan government policies created incentives for segregation in in the populace. Pointing the finger of blame to the left doesn't erase that history and ignores its reality. There are numerous sources on this. Here is one. While it is true that Democrats dominated both houses of Congress for most years from 1931 to 1997, Republicans dominated in some of those years, and Democrats never held a filibuster-proof majority AFAIK. It would have required bipartisan support to pass these laws, and the voting records shows as much.

You are assigning blame that needs to be more broadly distributed - and then it needs to be corrected.

The vast majority of those wrong were done in the 30s,40s, and 50s. And have little to do with white flight and the devastating loss to the tax base of many of these cities.

So please show me where you get the information that $10,000 is the amount by which a school's costs would drop if a single child left.

Less students, less teachers, less buildings, less administrators. And we are not speaking of one child - if just 50% took advantage that would cut the cost 50% - why wouldn't it?

You teach to the knowledge. You are talking to a teacher of 30 years. No test can cover the breadth of every subject. Tests are a "spot check" on knowledge. You establish learning objectives, and then you test to those objectives - but a teacher seldom has the ability to test all learning objectives. So the test covers the most important objectives, and spot-checks the rest. When everything is test-based - then teachers narrowly focus on the things that are actually covered in the "standard tests" and all other areas of learning are left off the table. The result is usually very bad learning, and very little focus on HOW to learn.

You can't do it without tests, or you have no measurements. Standardized testing is necessary, that is largely how we did it when I went to school. It doesn't have to be the whole story but it needs to be a good portion.

Colleges now devote almost the entirety of their first year program to trying to fill in the gaps for entering students who were "left behind" by this "teach to the test" model.

How about the fact that a lot of these kids can't even read at grade level?

The solution is a fairly sound one, and strikes the balance to create a voucher system that will NOT make existing schools worse. But the true problem lies in the way schools are funded, as I have noted. You've blustered a good deal - but you have not really put forward any argument to show what I have said to be wrong.

And you have not pushed me off the voucher option.

Yes - I am. And I know change can happen. The Civil Rights Era. The New Deal. The Great Depression and Great Recession and their aftermaths. The list goes on. What is required is the will and people in leadership with a vision. We certainly won't have that so long as Trump is in office. We also won't have it so long as "we the people" continue to vote for obstructionists.

The federal government has less to do with it than states and localities so save your cheap shot. There is zero evidence for the kind of change you suggest happening, so relegate these kids to failing schools for the next 20 years or so instead of giving them a fighting chance with vouchers.

[carpedm9587]

The vast majority of those wrong were done in the 30s,40s, and 50s. And have little to do with white flight and the devastating loss to the tax base of many of these cities.

Seer, you apparently feel a need to paint liberals and Democrats as "evil" and the ones to blame. I'm going to leave you to it. In my experience - people focused on blame rather than finding solutions are rarely dissuaded from their positions. The fact that you have not really responded to any of the facts I've put forward and simply continue to repeat the blame is pretty strong evidence of that.

Less students, less teachers, less buildings, less administrators. And we are not speaking of one child - if just 50% took advantage that would cut the cost 50% - why wouldn't it?

Because a school has fixed resources whose cost does not change when some students leave - even 50% of them. There's a building to run and heat (or cool) and light. There are buses that will still continue to run the same routes. There's a library that doesn't need fewer books just because there are fewer students. Those are just a few examples. You will see reductions in staff, but (again) it depends on the distribution of the people taking the vouchers. So - the reasonable thing to do, if vouchers are to be offered, is to determine the actual cost reduction due to the departing students, and give THAT amount too each departing child. I would agree with that. But not to some arbitrarily taken number that does not pay attention to what is being left behind.

You can't do it without tests, or you have no measurements. Standardized testing is necessary, that is largely how we did it when I went to school. It doesn't have to be the whole story but it needs to be a good portion.

Nobody suggested eliminating testing, Seer. What I stated was that evaluating teachers solely on the basis of testing is counterproductive. Many years of NCLB was certainly enough to demonstrate THAT, as any first year college professor will probably tell you. People entering college today are less prepared that at any time in our lifetimes - and the drop began shortly after the introduction of NCLB. I know of NO teacher - even the very good ones - who found that approach to be beneficial.

How about the fact that a lot of these kids can't even read at grade level?

Exactly my point.

And you have not pushed me off the voucher option.

I am under no illusion, Seer, that anything I say about any topic is going to change your mind. You have continuously struct me as a man impervious to any argument about any subject. You appear to have a made up mind - and data is irrelevant to that calculation. So I am sure you will continue to insist that vouchers are necessary, and need to be of the full amount allocated "per student." I have looked at it - and was initially against vouchers. But our discussion led me to realize that there is one type of voucher I could support - one that does not leave the children "left behind" further disadvantaged. And I've suggested a simple way to eliminate the disparity between schools - by leveling the funding and the assessment methodology for all schools. It seems a fairly common-sense approach. Clearly an under-funded and under-resourced school will very likely perform worse than a well-funded and well-resourced school. Somehow, the simple logic of that seems to escape you. I'm not sure why.

The federal government has less to do with it than states and localities so save your cheap shot. There is zero evidence for the kind of change you suggest happening, so relegate these kids to failing schools for the next 20 years or so instead of giving them a fighting chance with vouchers.

I'd be very curious to know what part of that last paragraph was considered a "cheap shot?" I said nothing to disparage you personally. I noted that Trump is not an effective leader - which is my opinion about his style and capabilities. He is a self-aggrandizing narcissistic who bullies anyone who offends him, shows essentially no moral fiber, pits people against one another, foments hatred and animosity, and is leveraging his position to enrich himself. The man is incapable of leading a nation - but he apparently can scare an entire party of politicians into supporting him by whipping up "his base."

As for change happening, "zero evidence" is a bit strong. Locally - some places are effecting change. They are working against the wind, because they lack the kind of support such change needs. And my observation about "we the people" referred to all the people. We have become a nation who cries out for politicians who will dig in their heels and refuse to work with the other side. The Reps did it with Obama. The Dems are doing it with Trump. So long as that is who we vote for, that is what we are going to get: a dysfunctional government entrenched and stewing in hatred for "the other side."

"We the people" get what we vote for.

[Terraceth]

And the facts don't support your claims. Read the history, Seer. From the Great Depression through the Civil Rights era, and even after, bipartisan government policies created incentives for segregation in in the populace. Pointing the finger of blame to the left doesn't erase that history and ignores its reality. There are numerous sources on this. Here is one. While it is true that Democrats dominated both houses of Congress for most years from 1931 to 1997, Republicans dominated in some of those years, and Democrats never held a filibuster-proof majority AFAIK.

Eh? Filibuster-proof majorities were had by the Democrats from 1935-1943 and 1963-1967, and that's even with the fact back then you needed 2/3 of Senators to bypass it rather than 6/10 (though on the other hand, it was easier in that you needed 2/3 of those present in contrast to 6/10 of the entire Senate regardless of how many Senators were actually there at the time).

Though having a filibuster-proof majority wasn't as important in the past, either, because filibusters weren't as common. Originally, a filibuster ground the entire Senate to a halt. In the 1970's (I think) they changed up the rules so that filibustering one piece of legislation wouldn't cause everything else to get halted, but this had the unfortunate effect of making filibusters far more common because you didn't shut down the entire Senate when doing one.

[carpedm9587]

Eh? Filibuster-proof majorities were had by the Democrats from 1935-1943 and 1963-1967, and that's even with the fact back then you needed 2/3 of Senators to bypass it rather than 6/10 (though on the other hand, it was easier in that you needed 2/3 of those present in contrast to 6/10 of the entire Senate regardless of how many Senators were actually there at the time).

Though having a filibuster-proof majority wasn't as important in the past, either, because filibusters weren't as common. Originally, a filibuster ground the entire Senate to a halt. In the 1970's (I think) they changed up the rules so that filibustering one piece of legislation wouldn't cause everything else to get halted, but this had the unfortunate effect of making filibusters far more common because you didn't shut down the entire Senate when doing one.

Thanks for the info, Terra. I hate having (and especially propagating) incorrect information. I couldn't quickly find data on the distribution of Congress (I was kind of posting on the run), so I was going by memory - and my memory was pretty flawed, apparently. I did have some time to dig a bit deeper this morning and your information is correct. Mine was wrong.

[Sparko]

A point I disagree with. Our world needs less religion - not more. But we are not going to agree on that.

Christianity teaches people to be moral, care for their families and neighbors. Now not every Christian will follow those principals, but those that take Christianity seriously will do their best. The result is that among those Christians that adhere to the principals of Christianity you will have closer knit families, with both parents, who care for their children and teach them right from wrong and to care for others.

That is what this world needs right now.

[carpedm9587]

Christianity teaches people to be moral, care for their families and neighbors.

So too do many organizations and groups - not to mention non-christian parents of various stripes. And there are many "teachings" of Christianity that many of us would actually consider "immoral."

Now not every Christian will follow those principals, but those that take Christianity seriously will do their best. The result is that among those Christians that adhere to the principals of Christianity you will have closer knit families, with both parents, who care for their children and teach them right from wrong and to care for others.

That is what this world needs right now.

And that can be provided by many different groups. As we move away from religions, we will move to other groupings to promote many of those concepts. However, the concepts will be rooted in reason and consideration - not in the 2,000 year old writings of a male-centered, middle-eastern, religion.

[Sparko]

So too do many organizations and groups - not to mention non-christian parents of various stripes. And there are many "teachings" of Christianity that many of us would actually consider "immoral."

But I am not other religions. And we can easily see that say, Islam while paying lip service to morality doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of instilling those values in their followers in most of the world. And we can easily see the results of decades of removing God from the classroom and family lives here in the USA. We have drugs, violence, sexual promiscuity, abortion, gangs, violence, school shootings, the breakup of the traditional family and promoting free sex and homosexuality and transgender nonsense.

None of that would be a problem in a family that followed Traditional Christian values.

And that can be provided by many different groups. As we move away from religions, we will move to other groupings to promote many of those concepts. However, the concepts will be rooted in reason and consideration - not in the 2,000 year old writings of a male-centered, middle-eastern, religion.

Moving away from religion is why our country is in the mess it is in now. People have no values to adhere to.

[carpedm9587]

But I am not other religions.

Nor did I say you were. I was responding to the implied claim that somehow Christianity has a unique claim to these attributes.

And we can easily see that say, Islam while paying lip service to morality doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of instilling those values in their followers in most of the world.

Nor is Christianity, Sparko. I don't see a significant difference here.

And we can easily see the results of decades of removing God from the classroom and family lives here in the USA. We have drugs, violence, sexual promiscuity, abortion, gangs, violence, school shootings, the breakup of the traditional family and promoting free sex and homosexuality and transgender nonsense.

Well, we have had violence and immorality in the U.S. from it's outset. We've had religiously inspired violence, and socially inspired violence. And some of the things on your list are things that many of us look at and see as an immoral part of "traditional Christian teachings." So...

None of that would be a problem in a family that followed Traditional Christian values.

Some of those things are not a problem at all. And while a family that follows traditional Christian values will avoid the ones that are problems - so too will families that follow other schools of thought (i.e., Buddhist families, Hindu families, and even *gasp* atheist families). And we have a better chance of dodging the ones that are immoral because we are not locked into an ancient script.

Moving away from religion is why our country is in the mess it is in now. People have no values to adhere to.

Moving away from religion is a change - and change is messy. It will take time for people to re-find their feet and locate their value systems in something other than a 2,000 year-old book. During that transition, there will be confusion and new pathways will be carved. There will be false starts - and mistakes made. Ultimately, I believe we will come out the other side the better for it. I believe we will become more accepting of others, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity might be. We will root our values in our society and experiences - and not the dusty pages of a 2,000 year old tome. It will take time, but I believe any belief system rooted in reality is better than one that is not. And since I believe Christianity (and all god-centered religions) are rooted in untruth - I have to see that as better - even if getting there is a little messy.

After all - if you set out to remodel the house - you have to expect a little dust and clutter along the way. If you want to avoid clutter and dust, then you're stuck with the old building (with all of its flaws) for the rest of your life.

[Sparko]

Nor did I say you were. I was responding to the implied claim that somehow Christianity has a unique claim to these attributes.

I believe it does.

Nor is Christianity, Sparko. I don't see a significant difference here.

I do. If someone follows the tenets of Christianity they will love their neighbor, their spouse and be peaceful. If someone follows Islam, they would force everyone to become muslim or die. They would beat their wives. And kill all infidels.

Well, we have had violence and immorality in the U.S. from it's outset. We've had religiously inspired violence, and socially inspired violence. And some of the things on your list are things that many of us look at and see as an immoral part of "traditional Christian teachings." So...

Where does Christianity teach violence?

Some of those things are not a problem at all. And while a family that follows traditional Christian values will avoid the ones that are problems - so too will families that follow other schools of thought (i.e., Buddhist families, Hindu families, and even *gasp* atheist families). And we have a better chance of dodging the ones that are immoral because we are not locked into an ancient script.

They may, indeed. But it is clear that today's society doesn't follow anything like those values. That is why we have school shooting, police murders, fathers abandoning their wives and children, drugs, etc. Clearly secular societal values aren't working.

Moving away from religion is a change - and change is messy. It will take time for people to re-find their feet and locate their value systems in something other than a 2,000 year-old book. During that transition, there will be confusion and new pathways will be carved. There will be false starts - and mistakes made. Ultimately, I believe we will come out the other side the better for it. I believe we will become more accepting of others, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity might be. We will root our values in our society and experiences - and not the dusty pages of a 2,000 year old tome. It will take time, but I believe any belief system rooted in reality is better than one that is not. And since I believe Christianity (and all god-centered religions) are rooted in untruth - I have to see that as better - even if getting there is a little messy.

After all - if you set out to remodel the house - you have to expect a little dust and clutter along the way. If you want to avoid clutter and dust, then you're stuck with the old building (with all of its flaws) for the rest of your life.

Ah so it is just "messy" because people have to reorient themselves. LOL. - Atheism and your moral relativism has no values to teach society. It is everyone for themselves. Nothing is evil or wrong except what you believe. There is no accountability, no consequences except arbitrary artificial laws.

We already know that Christian based values work.

[seer]

Ah so it is just "messy" because people have to reorient themselves. LOL. - Atheism and your moral relativism has no values to teach society. It is everyone for themselves. Nothing is evil or wrong except what you believe. There is no accountability, no consequences except arbitrary artificial laws.

We already know that Christian based values work.

Ya think...