traderdave wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I went to an event on campus to see Fulop, the new Jersey City mayor, speak tonight. He's pretty impressive. Very smooth. Not the most enthralling speaker, but he told a few funny stories, and managed a half hour of Q&A easily (the audience was mostly friendly, but there were a few tough questions from his left). Most of his positions were pretty standard fare liberal big city Democrat, but he went off on a good rant about how the problem with Jersey City schools isn't money and anyone pointing to funding as the excuse is missing the real problems that I liked.

He'll be tough in a statewide primary.

Amen. The sooner more in Trenton and Washington understand this, the better. Jersey City spends more than $23,000 per student; Camden more than $25,000 per student and Asbury Park more than $30k and we see how that is working out. So $30k per student is the answer? $40k? The educational problems in our urban areas is a societal issue, not a monetary issue.

Does that money actually make it to the student? It's easy to divide the total number going into the district, whether or not that money is being dispersed properly and by competent people is the question.

traderdave wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I went to an event on campus to see Fulop, the new Jersey City mayor, speak tonight. He's pretty impressive. Very smooth. Not the most enthralling speaker, but he told a few funny stories, and managed a half hour of Q&A easily (the audience was mostly friendly, but there were a few tough questions from his left). Most of his positions were pretty standard fare liberal big city Democrat, but he went off on a good rant about how the problem with Jersey City schools isn't money and anyone pointing to funding as the excuse is missing the real problems that I liked.

He'll be tough in a statewide primary.

Amen. The sooner more in Trenton and Washington understand this, the better. Jersey City spends more than $23,000 per student; Camden more than $25,000 per student and Asbury Park more than $30k and we see how that is working out. So $30k per student is the answer? $40k? The educational problems in our urban areas is a societal issue, not a monetary issue.

Don't have much time to add to this, but while I agree in principle, this argument is too often followed by one that states that cutting funding will have no effect on the quality of education being provided. The overall number really gives you no idea of how much of this is actually effectively enhancing education, and I'd certainly agree it could be more effectively spent. But let's also acknowledge that in troubled urban districts you do have to spend more on security, you do have to spend more on teacher salaries to attract comparable teachers, you do have to spend more for facilities maintenance and yo do have to spend more to porvide social support that in other areas is being supplied by the family. Too often numbers like these are used to support that idea that we tried spending money and that didn't work, so never mind. I just don't think numbers like this add much to the discussion, which, as I think you're proposing, really needs to start from the ground up.

Sort of to swish's point, the problem, or rather the single biggest of the many problems, is the parents and the community and poverty in general. You could spend a quarter million dollars per student and it wouldn't fully ameliorate the effects of parents who don't read to their kids or stay on them to do their homework, or who can't consistently feed them in a healthy way; or communities where kids don't feel safe playing outside and can't provide them opportunities to grow holistically or, when they're a little older, have some part-time work experience. It's difficult to put a valuation on all that stuff, but I'm guessing it's a lot more than $23k.

The big debate in education right now is between the Michelle Rhee/Joel Klein faction that emphasizes accountability, wants to professionalize the teacher workforce, and dismisses the effects of poverty (or calls it an excuse); and the Diane Ravitch/unions crowd that asserts schools are awesome other than the excessive testing, bemoans the beating up of teachers and says that poverty is the entirety of the problem. Coming off two and a half years working for the NYC Department of Education, I've concluded that they're right about poverty/culture being the biggest problem, but the Rhee/Klein crew are correct in their push to raise standards, compensation and accountability for educators. (Exactly how you do this is a very legitimate subject for debate. Also, IMO Ravitch is an intellectually dishonest seeyanextTuesday who opposes everything she was for ten years ago. But she's a big voice in the discourse, so you have to deal with her.)

The thing about poverty, obviously, is that nobody really gets what to do about it. I guess you could drastically raise the tax deduction for working parents, subsidize daycare and after-school programs, etc, and I would be thrilled to see all those things happen... but then you run into the constant problem of Republicans refusing to spend any new money on Those People. So instead we screw around with endless fights about testing and Common Core, which is probably like looking for your keys under a streetlight even though you dropped them in the dark.

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:I was wondering how that works from the whole martyrdom/rewards perspective. Does the klutzy failed bomber still get 72 virgins, but they're ugly and have terrible breath? Is he just allowed to watch, so to speak?

Holy cow, is that a Being There reference? If so, something tells me this bomber was not any kind of gardner.

I do think one problem is the way in which teachers are prepared and the fact that the attrition rate is pretty high. There's also a fair amount of faddishness in education--for instance, a lot of money has been spent on education technology but it does not seem there's really a clear idea what to do with it. Teachers aren't always trained how to use it, or districts have the equipment but lack support or adequate budget for software. I do know that many of my students come to the university without the first clue how to really use the internet beyond basic googling and wikipedia.

TenuredVulture wrote:I do know that many of my students come to the university without the first clue how to really use the internet beyond basic googling and wikipedia.

Porn?

[quote="dajafi"]the problem, or rather the single biggest of the many problems, is the parents and the community and poverty in general. You could spend a quarter million dollars per student and it wouldn't fully ameliorate the effects of parents who don't read to their kids or stay on them to do their homework

I preach this so much in my district that people are tired of listening to me. We had a teacher with a student struggling in a particular subject so the teacher called the kids' parents to ask them to work with the kid a bit at home with some basic facts. The parent's response was "why should I, that is what I pay you for". There is no amount of money that can counter such a dismissive, "it is not my problem" attitude. The responsibilities of school districts seem to increase every day. For example, there is currently legislation in Assembly Ed that would require public schools to include instruction on oral health as part of its core curriculum. Are you serious? Now we have to take time from teaching reading, math, science to tell kids it is important to brush your teeth?

Now, is it THAT big a deal? No, but it shows the general MO of "let the school system handle it" pushed by parents and then those eager to win the parents' vote in the next election.


dajafi - have you seen any of the sample questions from the PARCC assessments? What a joke.

Amen Dave. It's almost enough to say that with committed parents, the schools can't go wrong and without them they can't succeed... though of course committed parents generally keep such a close eye, and are sufficiently politically engaged, that the schools will stay on a good track. That said, if the parent is working 10-12 hours a day just to keep the family above poverty, and can't take time off to care for a sick child or bring her to extracurriculars or do a million other things that wealthier parents do as a matter of course, it's tough to beat them up too much for it.

I should be much, much more familiar with the PARCC standards than I am... though based on your post, it sounds like they would just upset me.

Mission creep is definitely a problem. But I do recall learning about oral health in elementary school. We got these red tablets that you would eat and the part of your mouth that turned red were spots you missed while brushing.

Anecdotally, by the way, our district finds that the new federally sponsored early childhood program our school district runs (which is not head start) seems to be effective, at least in the younger grades. We obviously don't know how well it sticks, as I think the first wave of children is still in elementary school. There's no doubt many low income parents really would like to help their children but need resources to do so effectively.

Bucky wrote:

How did they ever manage to find a Christie head that was too small?

ACA enrollments in January outpaced the expectations. FOX News will lead with that every 15 minutes

The opinion overturning gay marriage tonight in Virginia - http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/edv ... pinion.pdf - opens "A spirited and controversial debate is underway regarding who may enjoy the right to marry in the United States of America. America has pursued a journey to make and keep our citizens free. This journey has never been easy, and at times has been painful and poignant. The ultimate exercise of our freedom is choice. Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created equal. Surely this means all of us. While ever-vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice. One of the judiciary's noblest endeavors is to scrutinize laws that emerge from such roots."

The focus will rightly be on the bigger picture, but leading off confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution is not the best.

(Who would expect an Obama appointed judge to know what's in the Constitution anyway? Zing!)

pacino wrote:ACA enrollments in January outpaced the expectations. FOX News will lead with that every 15 minutes

or they'll go with The Weekly Standard's math

i cant believe people think we are killing people through metadata. GEOLOCATION

i do not want liberalism co-opted by this paranoid streak of dreck, and being pushed by people using their own info trackers on their own sites!!!

The Kansas House passed a gay segregation law allowing religious, business and individuals for legally discriminate against any and all LGBT persons. This as other states' laws are being systematically struck down as unconstitutional.

HB 2453 is titled "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage" and covers many bases.

It reads, in part: "No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

"Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can't face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side's legal fees.

There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.

If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.

It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.

Religious rights: trumping human rights for thousands of years!