jerseyhoya wrote:As far as I know, we always spent our own money when out at the bars. If he wants to go to lesbian bondage clubs on his own dime, more power to him.

wait, but you can see what happened here, can't you?

All was well, he was getting hammered with a Phillies & G-town fan regularly after work, things were normal in his world.

Then you parted ways, and socially things spiraled downward for him

We did a lot happy hours at that job. Oh the wonderful days of 2008, when we got paid, but had no work to do because our ads didn't get funded. Plus we won the World Serious.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:But it's a tired story, paul. We're not going to get parents to stay together for the sake of their children's education or to care when they don't now. Yes, that would help a lot, but it's so long term and touchy feely of a goal that it's tilting at windmills. Let's deal with the facts on the ground and come up with some solutions that, while not perfect, would be better than today's results. (I think I could have cut and paste this from a health care debate which makes Paul = ptk).

Don't get me wrong--I don't think that my diagnosis is really actionable. Indeed, to the contrary. I'm saying reforms are pretty much doomed from the get go.

Depending on how cranky I am, I am willing to tell parents who care that they're on their own. And they need to tell their children that the day after high school graduation until the end of their lives it will be revenge of the nerds.

In my slightly shorter parental experience, the above bolded sums up my experience completely, with regards to both health and education, you get out what you put in. Sitting back and letting the chips fall where they may is not necessarily an effective parenting method.

MrsVox wrote:

traderdave wrote:Yeah, baby, 12 of 12! If I can get 12 of 12 (as I am not nearly as "up" on things as you guys/gals), Joe and Jane American must really have their head buried in the sand to "average" less than six correct on those 12 questions.

Now, how much of a j/o is Chris Christie going out there and telling everybody to vote down their school budgets (granted, he specified the move in districts where teachers didn't freeze their pay, but still)? First, he takes schools' surpluses, then he cuts state funding anywhere from 0% to 100% and now he wants voters to put schools even further behind the eight-ball by having voters vote "No". He had my full support early on but it is drifting away quickly. I really think he is taking this demonization of teachers too far now. I am sort of on the outside looking in, though, as the teachers, administrators and support staff in my district did make concessions to help things along.

I don't know why but this just feels like something Christie should be keeping his nose out of. Trenton keeps trying to push things down to the locals and this year was no different. So, let us handle our own business and you worry about yours. The kids in my district will be getting a "Yes" vote from me.

It's the state's money, not the school districts. He didn't "take" surpluses, he forced the school districts to use them. It's a large scale equivalent of, "I got a pay cut, but I don't want to use my savings to pay my mortgage!"

I'm not saying that every school district is bloated, but when you've got a state government with a deficit, and local school district with a surplus, why hand them more money to spend willy-nilly?

How is it the state's money? Corzine gave us the money; it isn't a loan that they can call anytime they want to. The irony of your comment is that the surpluses are created by school districts NOT spending willy-nilly. No, he did not take the surpluses in the sense that school districts cut a check to Chris Christie but all of his other moves (which I understood) were the equivalent.

You listen to 101.5 or read blogs or news articles (like some of those linked here) and everybody complains that school districts spend, spend, spend (which very well may be true in other school districts) but if the state is just going to come and "take" (or whichever term you want to use) whatever you save, what is the point of saving it?

MrsVox wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:But it's a tired story, paul. We're not going to get parents to stay together for the sake of their children's education or to care when they don't now. Yes, that would help a lot, but it's so long term and touchy feely of a goal that it's tilting at windmills. Let's deal with the facts on the ground and come up with some solutions that, while not perfect, would be better than today's results. (I think I could have cut and paste this from a health care debate which makes Paul = ptk).

Don't get me wrong--I don't think that my diagnosis is really actionable. Indeed, to the contrary. I'm saying reforms are pretty much doomed from the get go.

Depending on how cranky I am, I am willing to tell parents who care that they're on their own. And they need to tell their children that the day after high school graduation until the end of their lives it will be revenge of the nerds.

In my slightly shorter parental experience, the above bolded sums up my experience completely, with regards to both health and education, you get out what you put in. Sitting back and letting the chips fall where they may is not necessarily an effective parenting method.

How's that work out for the kids without involved parents? You're on your own is not a strategy that I can or will accept. This isn't about suburban schools - your kids and my kids are going to just fine no matter who teaches them (especially my 3 month old, kid's a freakin genius).

MrsVox wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:But it's a tired story, paul. We're not going to get parents to stay together for the sake of their children's education or to care when they don't now. Yes, that would help a lot, but it's so long term and touchy feely of a goal that it's tilting at windmills. Let's deal with the facts on the ground and come up with some solutions that, while not perfect, would be better than today's results. (I think I could have cut and paste this from a health care debate which makes Paul = ptk).

Don't get me wrong--I don't think that my diagnosis is really actionable. Indeed, to the contrary. I'm saying reforms are pretty much doomed from the get go.

Depending on how cranky I am, I am willing to tell parents who care that they're on their own. And they need to tell their children that the day after high school graduation until the end of their lives it will be revenge of the nerds.

In my slightly shorter parental experience, the above bolded sums up my experience completely, with regards to both health and education, you get out what you put in. Sitting back and letting the chips fall where they may is not necessarily an effective parenting method.

Right. As noted, Lil' Vulture does not attend a great school full of academically motivated students, yet I think she's doing fine. Much of that is her doing, but we have made it clear that we expect her to do well, and certainly to always do her best. (She has had very good teachers--we've been lucky on that score. We really like her third grade teacher a lot.)

I realized recently that I couldn't give a rats ass what teachers make. It's not until they start to jam their salaries and exceptional benefits down my throat that I care. That's when I start to make comparisons and become agitated (or outraged, depending on the school district, that goes for the inverse too - when I hear what Philly school teachers make I'm thinking "What the hell?"). I realized that most of the animosity I feel toward teachers as a "being" (not as individuals) is thanks to their contract time/pre-budget vote marketing campaigns. "Do we need a new budget? Ask a child?" FUCK YOU ASK A CHILD. They're children. I feel like I'm dealing with people on a different plane of understanding and existence who live in some other universe apart from my own when I hear these spaced out arguments and demands. Somewhere along the lines, probably over the past few years, the marketing people behind the unions went crazy and started pushing all of the wrong buttons with people.

Some time, some where, some union marketing guru will emerge and realize this. They'll probably discover that they can gather a hell of a lot more public support if they do.

traderdave wrote:

MrsVox wrote:

traderdave wrote:Yeah, baby, 12 of 12! If I can get 12 of 12 (as I am not nearly as "up" on things as you guys/gals), Joe and Jane American must really have their head buried in the sand to "average" less than six correct on those 12 questions.

Now, how much of a j/o is Chris Christie going out there and telling everybody to vote down their school budgets (granted, he specified the move in districts where teachers didn't freeze their pay, but still)? First, he takes schools' surpluses, then he cuts state funding anywhere from 0% to 100% and now he wants voters to put schools even further behind the eight-ball by having voters vote "No". He had my full support early on but it is drifting away quickly. I really think he is taking this demonization of teachers too far now. I am sort of on the outside looking in, though, as the teachers, administrators and support staff in my district did make concessions to help things along.

I don't know why but this just feels like something Christie should be keeping his nose out of. Trenton keeps trying to push things down to the locals and this year was no different. So, let us handle our own business and you worry about yours. The kids in my district will be getting a "Yes" vote from me.

It's the state's money, not the school districts. He didn't "take" surpluses, he forced the school districts to use them. It's a large scale equivalent of, "I got a pay cut, but I don't want to use my savings to pay my mortgage!"

I'm not saying that every school district is bloated, but when you've got a state government with a deficit, and local school district with a surplus, why hand them more money to spend willy-nilly?

How is it the state's money? Corzine gave us the money; it isn't a loan that they can call anytime they want to. The irony of your comment is that the surpluses are created by school districts NOT spending willy-nilly. No, he did not take the surpluses in the sense that school districts cut a check to Chris Christie but all of his other moves (which I understood) were the equivalent.

You listen to 101.5 or read blogs or news articles (like some of those linked here) and everybody complains that school districts spend, spend, spend (which very well may be true in other school districts) but if the state is just going to come and "take" (or whichever term you want to use) whatever you save, what is the point of saving it?

If the state gives money, it's the state's money that's being given. Corzine giveth, Christie taketh away.

The surpluses weren't "recalled" by Trenton, it's my understanding that the school districts with surpluses had to spend them, because the 2008-2009 aid was cut. (A business metaphor would be that you rely on income from your current X number of clients, build your budget around that, but then one client goes out of business and is no longer using your services. You have to make up that deficit in your operating expenses somehow -- you can't complain to them that they aren't paying you for the rest of the year...)

Yes, it's good that school districts were able to come up with surpluses on their own. But obviously, there's more cutting that can be done, if it's being done.

Like I said previously, I only have an insight into Cherry Hill's situation, but in their list that they sent out, all the cuts related around non-teacher personnel and benefits, and positions (undefined) without contracts. I don't even know what these teachers' salaries are. But how can they go around getting 4% raises when the non-union staff around them are getting pay freezes and cuts in benefits, when the school district itself is losing 4-5% of its income (state aid)?

jeff2sf wrote:

MrsVox wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:But it's a tired story, paul. We're not going to get parents to stay together for the sake of their children's education or to care when they don't now. Yes, that would help a lot, but it's so long term and touchy feely of a goal that it's tilting at windmills. Let's deal with the facts on the ground and come up with some solutions that, while not perfect, would be better than today's results. (I think I could have cut and paste this from a health care debate which makes Paul = ptk).

Don't get me wrong--I don't think that my diagnosis is really actionable. Indeed, to the contrary. I'm saying reforms are pretty much doomed from the get go.

Depending on how cranky I am, I am willing to tell parents who care that they're on their own. And they need to tell their children that the day after high school graduation until the end of their lives it will be revenge of the nerds.

In my slightly shorter parental experience, the above bolded sums up my experience completely, with regards to both health and education, you get out what you put in. Sitting back and letting the chips fall where they may is not necessarily an effective parenting method.

How's that work out for the kids without involved parents? You're on your own is not a strategy that I can or will accept. This isn't about suburban schools - your kids and my kids are going to just fine no matter who teaches them (especially my 3 month old, kid's a freakin genius).

I'll bet in every school, there's a minority of parents who get involved and the whole school benefits, and you can turn that into economically favorable rewards.

VoxJr's parochial school has faced a similar situation in the last two years that NJ public schools are facing -- the diocese sets the tuition, and the school can't make it higher. At the same time, one of the participating parishes failed to make it's $40k annual contribution. And then the diocese cut what all the sending parishes were made to contribute to the school AND eliminated the "mandatory" fundraising contribution per student.

In this case, the PTA stepped up it's fundraising efforts and was able to make up for all these deficits, AND at the same time, started a Dad's Club, that works on the grounds and interior of the school once a month, doing things like painting, changing lightbulbs, building bookshelves, really, whatever the school needs.

This is stuff that benefits the whole school, and yet the work is done by only a minority of people.

jeff2sf wrote:

MrsVox wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:But it's a tired story, paul. We're not going to get parents to stay together for the sake of their children's education or to care when they don't now. Yes, that would help a lot, but it's so long term and touchy feely of a goal that it's tilting at windmills. Let's deal with the facts on the ground and come up with some solutions that, while not perfect, would be better than today's results. (I think I could have cut and paste this from a health care debate which makes Paul = ptk).

Don't get me wrong--I don't think that my diagnosis is really actionable. Indeed, to the contrary. I'm saying reforms are pretty much doomed from the get go.

Depending on how cranky I am, I am willing to tell parents who care that they're on their own. And they need to tell their children that the day after high school graduation until the end of their lives it will be revenge of the nerds.

In my slightly shorter parental experience, the above bolded sums up my experience completely, with regards to both health and education, you get out what you put in. Sitting back and letting the chips fall where they may is not necessarily an effective parenting method.

How's that work out for the kids without involved parents? You're on your own is not a strategy that I can or will accept. This isn't about suburban schools - your kids and my kids are going to just fine no matter who teaches them (especially my 3 month old, kid's a freakin genius).

I don't have the answers. I really don't. I think Mrs. Vox is partly right--involved parents make things better for everyone. One huge problem around here (again, I don't know how things are in more affluent districts) but the school does little to encourage parental involvement and in some respects seem to discourage it. There's a real attitude of paternalism and even authoritarianism. As an educated professional, I know I get treated differently from less well educated parents. Of course, many parents are fine with that. And some parents get involved, but in ways that are really counterproductive--helicopter parents, parents who complain about too much homework, etc.

It's a collective action problem, but the failure of the collective actions means the individual has to take care of his or her own.

By the way, a genius may ultimately do well, but don't think there won't be issues and pitfalls along the way.

TenuredVulture wrote:It's a collective action problem, but the failure of the collective actions means the individual has to take care of his or her own.

I won't get the inverse of this right, but as regards schooling for kids to 15 or so, it seems to me the failure we collectively experience is our insistence that that schooling, in the 21st century, is best done collectively

Are you hinting at something akin to home schooling?

Jesus paul, I was talking about a 3 month old. Why would you actually bring up a point in relation to that?

Finally, mrs vox stuff is utterly irrelevant, I don't have the answers, and I'm not opposed to Christie's try at things, but none of her or your or my experiences are particularly relevant to the plight of the inner city school kids and the way the education system has failed them.

jeff2sf wrote:Jesus paul, I was talking about a 3 month old. Why would you actually bring up a point in relation to that?

Finally, mrs vox stuff is utterly irrelevant, I don't have the answers, and I'm not opposed to Christie's try at things, but none of her or your or my experiences are particularly relevant to the plight of the inner city school kids and the way the education system has failed them.

Because parents in the inner city don't get involved in their kids schools? How irrelavent are sweeping generalizations such as that?

VoxOrion wrote:Are you hinting at something akin to home schooling?

I guess, but probably not even kissin' cousins

MrsVox wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Jesus paul, I was talking about a 3 month old. Why would you actually bring up a point in relation to that?

Finally, mrs vox stuff is utterly irrelevant, I don't have the answers, and I'm not opposed to Christie's try at things, but none of her or your or my experiences are particularly relevant to the plight of the inner city school kids and the way the education system has failed them.

Because parents in the inner city don't get involved in their kids schools? How irrelavent are sweeping generalizations such as that?

Mrs vox, what exactly is your point. Parents need to be involved? A lot of kids don't have parents in the picture.

Other involved parents can make up for the non-parents? Then how come that hasn't been the case so far. My generalization is not sweeping, it's legitimate. You need a better strategy than what you've thrown out thus far.

jeff2sf wrote:Mrs vox, what exactly is your point. Parents need to be involved? A lot of kids don't have parents in the picture.

Other involved parents can make up for the non-parents? Then how come that hasn't been the case so far. My generalization is not sweeping, it's legitimate. You need a better strategy than what you've thrown out thus far.

Jeff, allow me to interject. See, I think to reach some basis for understanding Mrs. V's POV (and perhaps for her to understand yours), you need to revisit 1st principles: what you view as the reason for schools in the 1st place. after all, you've contended schools have 'failed' inner city kids. that suggests either they aren't well constituted to succeed - at something, it's not clear what - OR that a reconsideration of those very purposes is in order.

If you can lay out the principles on which your position is based, Mrs V - and others - can shape a considered rejoinder to your assertion that "better strategies" are "needed".

jeff2sf wrote:

MrsVox wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Jesus paul, I was talking about a 3 month old. Why would you actually bring up a point in relation to that?

Finally, mrs vox stuff is utterly irrelevant, I don't have the answers, and I'm not opposed to Christie's try at things, but none of her or your or my experiences are particularly relevant to the plight of the inner city school kids and the way the education system has failed them.

Because parents in the inner city don't get involved in their kids schools? How irrelavent are sweeping generalizations such as that?

Mrs vox, what exactly is your point. Parents need to be involved? A lot of kids don't have parents in the picture.

Other involved parents can make up for the non-parents? Then how come that hasn't been the case so far. My generalization is not sweeping, it's legitimate. You need a better strategy than what you've thrown out thus far.

My point about your sweeping generalizations is that not all inner schools fail all kids.

My true point that you are calling irrelevant is that tax hikes are always required to help out schools during this time of budget cuts, when you can even get a small group of interested parents together to pitch in. It had nothing to do with the locations of school.

jeff2sf wrote:Jesus paul, I was talking about a 3 month old. Why would you actually bring up a point in relation to that?

I was joking. But it wouldn't surprise me if your kid turns out rather bright. And if your real life personality is anything like your message board persona, there's going to be a certain intensity in your relationship with your son. Particularly if he shares those characteristics.

it's superficial of me I know, but there is simply no graphic depiction of this man that would make me believe a single word he uttered, including "and" and "the"