State of the Union 2006

283 comments on “State of the Union 2006”

1. Craig J. Ries: Oh, well, yes, of course. I forgot that I had the brain of Einstein transplanted in me several years back. I “well know” everything. But then, I thought the simple definition of a liar was somebody who lied.
   Luigi Novi: Given that every human being who has ever lived has lied at some point in their lives (you and me included), that would mean, therefore, that everyone who has ever lived is a liar, and that you consider both yourself a liar and me as well.

   But I’m guessing (correct me if I’m wrong) that you don’t really think that.

   The word “liar” is generally reserved by more discriminating speakers for people who lie habitually or pathologically.

   You did lie when you deliberately quoted me out of context (a point you still haven’t refuted). You also subsequently claimed that the accusation was in reference to a different comment you made. But because I have not observed this as a habit of yours one way or the other, I have not called you a liar. That is a serious word I generally reserve for people who demonstrate that habit.

   Craig J. Ries: The problem with your argument, Luigi, is that you assume anything that you don’t agree with is a strawman, or some other ridiculous notion… whatever suits your fancy, apparently.
   Luigi Novi: No, I argue that a Straw Man is a distorted version of something that I said, which it is, and that logical fallacies like ad hominem arguments, non sequiturs, etc., are such if I can demonstrate them as such. What’s important to remember is that I always back up such assertions by illustrating them with reason and/or evidence.

   You, apparently, do not.

   Craig J. Ries: Your “my way or the highway” method of handling this debate flies in the face of reality. A reality which you conveniently disregard on a whim without actually addressing what are real questions and concerns on the notion of privatizing everything government does. But, you’re not interested in all that garbage, so I suppose it’s best to let it drop.
   Luigi Novi: I addressed various aspects of privatization/vouchers/attaching tax money to kids, as well as criticisms of those ideas in my January 31, 9:59pm and February 5, 10:38pm. So this accusation of yours is obviously unfounded to anyone who actually reads the thread.

   “On a whim” implies a position that is taken arbitrarily, without any foundation in logic, reason or facts. Because I have provided those things, and, as aforementioned, generally back up my arguments, they could hardly be called “whimsical.”

   You, on the other hand, have employed falsehoods and out-of-context quotes, have deliberately ignored my detailed responses to your statements by merely repeating the original statement over and over, use language indiscriminately, assert that comments on my part were in reference to things other than what they really were, and fail to address my accusation of dishonesty on your part by merely offering the anemic excuse about how not responding to “every single thing”—apparently ignoring the point that you should at least respond to the most serious ones. Whereas I stick to details and specifics, you bob and weave around, answering only indirectly. Thus, your words are most certainly arbitrary, and are whimsical.

   rrlane: Okay, so I’m a liar.
   Luigi Novi: Who here called you a liar? I’ve gone through the thread with my browser’s Find feature, and that word shows up for the first time in one of Craig’s posts, and then only reference to that point. I couldn’t find it reference to you.

   rrlane: Well…yes, they do. I have have a number of kids over the years who show up in class half way through the year because they got the boot from private school for one reason or another.
   Luigi Novi: Which happens in all schools when kids don’t do well. As I stated earlier, there’s no reason to pretend that this is a problem specific to private schools only. The fact that private education is a better system isn’t going to change the fact some kids are poor students, truant, disruptive, have apathetic parents, or what have you.

   Again, this argument appears to use perfection as a standard, as if privatization advocates contend that no kids will ever be kicked out of a private school. This is fallacious standard to use, which is why such advocates don’t use it. For the umpteenth time, the question is which system is generally better.

   rrlane: What are these innovative methods that work so well? Name some that have been proven to work that aren’t also being tried in public schools?
   Luigi Novi: I provided some above in my earlier posts.

   rrlane: Gee, what a great idea! Why didn’t we think of that for the public schools? Here I thought thirty general ninth graders in class was conducive to a quality education! Now tell me, how will this work if schools are privatized when ALL students have to go there?
   Luigi Novi: Indigent students “have” to go to public schools. They don’t “have” to go to private ones. In privatization, they can choose among different schools.

   Luigi Novi: The bottom line is, they know they won’t get more parents paying them tuition if they don’t persuade those parents to do so by showing them why they’re better than the other guy. Because of this, large numbers of students aren’t going to “mess up” or be “dropped,” so the question is entirely moot.

   rrlane: Oh, my sweet Lord, it is so freakin’ obvious you’ve never worked with kids and parents in the general population.
   Luigi Novi: About as obvious as your ignorance of the concept of argumentum ad hominem.

   rrlane: Private schools are exempt from having to take the standardized tests to prove competence. Why do you suppose that is?
   Luigi Novi: Which standardized tests are you referring to?

   rrlane: But to answer your question, it’s because they can pick and choose their clientele in a way that public schools cannot. That’s so obvious I can think of no reason for you to bring it up other than to bolster a weak argument.
   Luigi Novi: Private schools do not pick and choose their clientele. Their clientele chooses them. Private schools merely accept their clientele, and if this is an allusion on your part to the exclusivity of some schools, that merely underscores how good that school is.

   But most private institutions are not this exclusive. Again, refer to the examples I cited above.

   rrlane: Why? Because they are, as you said, competing for your dollar, so they will remove the students who absolutely refuse to learn (and throw spackle on that all you want, but there are some kids who absolutely refuse to learn…period)…so that their reputation isn’t brought down because of them. Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence here by saying it doesn’t happen. It cannot happen in public schools legally.
   Luigi Novi: Again, how is this specific to the type of school????

   If some obnoxious kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, how is that the school’s fault?

   Again, this issue is not specific to the issue of public vs. private. There are always going to be some disruptive kids who cause problems for schools. This occurs in both private schools and public ones. Why you think this is specific to the issue of privatization, I don’t know. If some kid acts this way, it’s not the school’s fault. Using this logic, you could just as easily condemn all public education on the basis of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

   And of course it can happen legally in a public school. If a kid absolutely refuses to learn, the kid can be left back, suspended, or expelled. Legally.

   rrlane: How hard is it to understand that private schools have the option of saying your child cannot attend here? Every thing you’ve written avoids that single most important point.
   Luigi Novi: And if the basis of they’re saying that is a kid’s “absolute refusal to learn”, then I’d say good for them. Why should a school be forced to take some miscreant who doesn’t want to be there? You’re basing your position on the issue of private vs. public schools on some hypothetical delinquent?

   rrlane: It certainly does. If I said it didn’t somewhere, please be kind enough to point it out. In fact, I think that you are actually reinforcing my point. Most private school students have the benefit of parents who are at least somewhat active in their education, whereas many public school students do not. Now, how are private schools going to work with those kids who say, “You can’t make me do anything, and my parents don’t give a crap”?
   Luigi Novi: Expel them. Schools have to come half way, with the parent/child coming the other half. If a kid absolutely refuses to learn, then it falls to the parent to take care of that problem. If the parent chooses not to, that’s their fault. A school is supposed to provide a service that someone wants. Not be forced to provide one to someone who doesn’t want it. This is like arguing that Burger King should be controlled by the government, because what happens if someone waltzes in and says that they absolutely refuse to eat their food?

   rrlane: Almost? It IS an epidemic and I AM blaming the parents.
   Luigi Novi: You’re saying that the nationwide problem of poor education in the U.S. is that parents?????? Really? All of them? On what basis have you made this determination?

   The problem is clearly the system, and I’ve pointed to evidence/examples that show that.

   rrlane: Most of those who are screaming for vouchers and/or privatized education are looking for a quick fix (likewise with those who want to throw money at education willy-nilly), when the fact is that nothing is going to work until parents by and large take a more active role in their children’s lives.
   Luigi Novi: These measures would not be “quick fixes.” But they would work.

   rrlane: Now I have a question: I am honestly asking as I don’t see it in your posts, but I truly don’t want to accuse you of something if I simply missed it. I asked, Why should you or I have to subsidize the tuition for sending a student to a school that may tell us that our children aren’t eligible to go to for religious or other reasons?
   Luigi Novi: We shouldn’t. And since you have not established that that would happen, the question is moot anyway. For one thing, we shouldn’t “subsidize” private businesses, whether it’s the tobacco industry, farmers, or whatever. Second, even if this were an actual scenario, for-profit institutions want customers. They’re not going to arbitrarily refuse to accept them. Even if God-forbid they did, the parents could go elsewhere. That’s the nature of the free marketplace. Even if some stupid institution refused to admit people on the basis of religion, it would result in bad publicity for that school.

   rrlane: Rude doesn’t equate with unintelligent
   Luigi Novi: True. But when your entire response to my in-depth earlier post (aside from your statement about a check) consists of rhetoric and unsupported insults and accusations, and you choose not to respond in more depth, it comes off as highly dismissive. Mind you, you could’ve chosen to respond to the specific points I made in order to refute them (much as I did and continue to do with you), but alas, you chose not to.

   rrlane: an intelligent person would understand that. :p )
   Luigi Novi: How would you know? :p

2. Luigi Novi: Who here called you a liar? I’ve gone through the thread with my browser’s Find feature, and that word shows up for the first time in one of Craig’s posts, and then only reference to that point. I couldn’t find it reference to you.

   Calm down, sparky. I was talking about the fact I said I was walking away from the conversation, but then I came back.

   You need to calm down. I declare, you’re going to give yourself the vapors.

3. Well, the Iranians are showing once again that They Just Don’t Get It.

   Iranian paper to hold contest for Holocaust cartoons

   Already their pea-brained “president” said the Holocaust never occured, now they think they can compare the murder of millions to a cartoon about a prophet who, last I checked, wasn’t advocating genocide.

   Should Godwin’s Law apply here as well?

4. Absolutely this is a case for Goodwin’s law.

   $100 says that no one sets fire to the Iranian embassay in any country over this.

5. Craig: Well, the Iranians are showing once again that They Just Don’t Get It.

   Iranian paper to hold contest for Holocaust cartoons

   This is so out of character, saying something so inflammatory about the Jews, too.

6. I’ve heard the expression many times, and have a general idea of what it means, but what, exactly, are “the vapors”?

7. according to what I found on the web, the vapors are:

   “A name for hypochondriasis, spleen, or depression of spirits. [Thomas1875] Archaic – 1. Exhalations within a bodily organ, especially the stomach, supposed to affect the mental or physical condition. 2. A nervous disorder such as depression or hysteria. [Heritage]”

8. Getting here a bit late, but thank you, Luigi, for your thoughtful comments regarding education. You GET it.

9. Four people were killed by Afghan police today in a protest over the Danish protest.

   Number of people likely to be killed in a protest over Iran’s “contest”: 0.

10. Thanks rrlane, I always figured it was like when a child gets over-excited and hyper-ventilates…

11. Okay, one last shot at clarification before this disappears off the front page of the site:

    Me: Well…yes, they do. I have have a number of kids over the years who show up in class half way through the year because they got the boot from private school for one reason or another.
    Luigi Novi: Which happens in all schools when kids don’t do well. As I stated earlier, there’s no reason to pretend that this is a problem specific to private schools only.

    I’m sorry, but you either don’t understand how public school works, you live in an area of the U.S. that has completely different ways of governing, or you are purposely being misleading. It does NOT happen in “all schools when kids don’t do well.” That is a flat out untruth. Public schools do NOT have the option of saying, “I’m sorry, Mrs. Smith, but your son Johnny failed five of his classes this year. You must find another school for him next year.” Nope, uh-uh, no way, no how. It. Does. Not. Happen.

    It DOES happen in private schools. Not all of them, but it happens–and frequently.

    Luigi: his argument appears to use perfection as a standard, as if privatization advocates contend that no kids will ever be kicked out of a private school.

    Then your eyes deceive you, as no one said anything about perfection. Please enlighten us as to how “not failing” equates to “perfection,” I’d be happy to hear how I might improve my communication skills. For one who cries that you are taken out of context so frequently, you certainly do it with relish.

    And if you are saying that kids will be kicked out of private schools, where do you intend they go if you remove public schools from the equation?

    Luigi Novi: You’re saying that the nationwide problem of poor education in the U.S. is that parents?????? Really? All of them? On what basis have you made this determination?

    So, in an flu epidemic, EVERY human being gets the virus? Again, for someone who pounces on people for playing fast and loose with words, you have have a knack for the same. “epidemic” does NOT equal “all.” It does not even mean “most.” Don’t waste my time with nonsensical straw man arguments.

    rrlane: Why should you or I have to subsidize the tuition for sending a student to a school that may tell us that our children aren’t eligible to go to for religious or other reasons?

    Luigi Novi: We shouldn’t. And since you have not established that that would happen, the question is moot anyway…the parents could go elsewhere.

    Where do the children of parents who cannot afford to pay tuition go? Bush said “No Child Left Behind,” remember? So either the government DOES leave some behind or the government is going to HAVE to subsidize. It’s an either/or proposition only. And if you DO subsidize, then you have to figure if you will subsidize education at a Catholic school or a Jewish school or any other schools that can turn away people because of their religious beliefs, ethnicity or any other number of reasons beyond their control.

    Luigi Novi: Expel them. Schools have to come half way, with the parent/child coming the other half. If a kid absolutely refuses to learn, then it falls to the parent to take care of that problem. If the parent chooses not to, that’s their fault. A school is supposed to provide a service that someone wants. Not be forced to provide one to someone who doesn’t want it.

    Here we agree. As I said in an earlier post, I am for abolishing compulsory education, but even I say we aren’t ready yet because there is no place for those that get removed from the regular schools to go, and booting teenagers and having them wander the street is just a recipe for disaster for the country.

    Luigi: This is like arguing that Burger King should be controlled by the government, because what happens if someone waltzes in and says that they absolutely refuse to eat their food?

    That is what’s called a poor analogy. They may not eat what Burger King is serving, but they will eat.

    rrlane: Why? Because they are, as you said, competing for your dollar, so they will remove the students who absolutely refuse to learn (and throw spackle on that all you want, but there are some kids who absolutely refuse to learn…period)…so that their reputation isn’t brought down because of them. Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence here by saying it doesn’t happen. It cannot happen in public schools legally.

    Luigi Novi: Again, how is this specific to the type of school????

    If some obnoxious kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, how is that the school’s fault?

    Show me where I said it was, please. Honestly, I’m arguing the exact opposite, so this point (to use one of your favorite words) is moot.

    What I am stating is that you will have these types of kids, and these types of kids have issues that no school can alleviate. Now, here’s where my point comes up. AGAIN.

    >Pay attention—I’ve said it several times but apparently it’s not getting through.

    The difference between private and public schools is that in a private school, you can remove those kids so they don’t affect the school’s overall academic standing. Public schools cannot

    If you are going to take a haughty tone with me, please make certain you are arguing against what I am saying.

    Luigi: If a kid absolutely refuses to learn, the kid can be left back, suspended, or expelled. Legally.
    Left back? Yes. but they still appear on the school’s academic standing.

    Suspended? For academic problems—no. That’s untrue. They cannot. Hëll, if a kid has an IEP (Individualized Education Program), you can’t even suspend him more that ten days in a school year, no matter what he does.

    Expelled? For academic problems—no. That’s untrue. They cannot. They cannot expel anyone anymore for anything other than the most grievous actions (example: bomb threats or worse) Please check your “facts” before you spout things that waste our time.

    rrlane: Private schools are exempt from having to take the standardized tests to prove competence. Why do you suppose that is?
    Luigi Novi: Which standardized tests are you referring to?

    Since private schools do not take federal funds, they are not obligated to conform to the No Child Left Behind program. Since I think NCLB is the biggest turd foisted on education in the time I’ve been a teacher, good for them. But it also means that any comparisons that evoke NCLB are not apples to apples.

    Luigi Novi: Indigent students “have” to go to public schools. They don’t “have” to go to private ones. In privatization, they can choose among different schools.

    Okay. Got it. So how does that keep classrooms small? Feel free to call me dense (like you need permission), but I don’t see how that answers the question.

12. Off my soapbox—

    I find this type of bickering tiresome. I’d much rather discuss things with you and everyone else in a friendly give and take manner. I confess that I have been acerbic here, more acerbic than I am proud of. As I am new here as a poster (though a long time reader), I feel that this actually was a poor way to jump in.

    I apologize for my combative responses to everybody here, and I’ll make a deal with you, Luigi–let’s make an attempt to listen to each other without the haughty tones or airs of moral and rhetorical superiority from now on. And as it would be disingenuous for me to call a halt to it after I’ve had the parting shots, you can make your next points however you want, get the last word in in whatever tone you wish without snide or acerbic response from me.

    You are intelligent, and I freely admit that the only way to create an informed opinion is to look at both sides of an issue. But nobody does that well when their blood pressure is shooting through the roof.

13. Number of people likely to be killed in a protest over Iran’s “contest”: 0.

    Right on, Den. I wrote a letter to the editor of another such exercise, some Islamic-Euro group that published a cartoon of Hitler having sex with Anne frank. I said something to the effect that when it becomes obvious that Jews and their allies are NOT rioting in the streets and killing and burning over this affront, it will once again make the Muslim fanatics look like the less civilized ones in this fight. Which, in point of fact, they are.

    I’m glad to see some of the more liberal and more conservative contributers to this blog finding common ground on this issue. I’ve read a few liberal columnists who are trying to make this out to be Americ’s fault and I’m sure that Pat Buchanan will somehow blame Israel but by and large this has been something where the good and bad guys are obvious to even the most partisan pundits.

    I do wish more of our newspapers and magazines had the guts of the Philly paper in terms of showing the actual cartoons (which are mostly so innocous that the radicals have had to resort to faking at least 3 new ones to inflame people–one of them isn’t even a real cartoon, but a photoshopped photo of a man in a pig costume.)

    This would qualify as a clash of civilizations if it weren’t one civilization short.

14. Hmm. Ok, the editor of that Danish newspaper doesn’t get it either.

    Now he says he wants to work with the Iranian newspaper to also publish any Holocaust cartoons the Iranian publish.

    Not that any Jews are likely to go burn anything down (still). But I think it’ll generate a big “how f*cking stupid are you?” parade for the editor.

    I also think this shows that the editor isn’t being bold or anything, he’s merely out for sensationalism and attention. He’s probably lucky his 15 minutes hasn’t gotten him murdered already.

15. “I also think this shows that the editor isn’t being bold or anything, he’s merely out for sensationalism and attention. He’s probably lucky his 15 minutes hasn’t gotten him murdered already.”

    Pretty sad that the world is so pathetic that he would have to fear for his life just for PUBLISHING something, and it’s not even something he created.

    Sorry, but the more I see in the news about these people, the more I’m convinced they’re a bunch of rabid dogs that need to be put down permanently.

    At least he’s willing to publish them unlike most of the pathetically cowardly America “Free Press” and media…

16. A few media outlets, such as ABC and the Philly Inquirer did run or at least partially run the cartoons, but by and large, most US media outlets have been too cowardly to run them.

    The irony now is that most of those newspapers and networks are more likely to run Iran’s holocaust-denying cartoons than Europe because no one in the US expects Jewish people to try to burn down an embassy and denying the holocaust is a crime in many European nations.

    Weird.

    But this also illustrates a central disconnect in the thinking between us and radical Islam. We can complain about how the far religious right often seems to feel that the government needs to subsidize images of their faith or that the secular left seems to want to completely sanitize religion out of the public forum, but at least we can debate the issue in a civilized manner rather then resorting to violence.

    It is clear that people in the radical camp of Islam want all people to accord their religious views a level of respect that they do not grant other religions. Try putting up a Christmas tree or even owning a Bible in Saudi Arabia. So I say, piss on them.

    Sadly, instead of defending freedom of speech as the bulwark of a free society, our government and our media have failed us.

    If the editor of the Danish paper wants to publish cartoons critical of Muhammond, that should be his right. If he wants to run cartoons denying the holocaust, that should also be his right.

    Freedom of speech that doesn’t protect people’s right to be offensive is no freedom at all.

17. rrlane: Calm down, sparky. I was talking about the fact I said I was walking away from the conversation, but then I came back. You need to calm down. I declare, you’re going to give yourself the vapors.
    Luigi Novi: Sorry, was just trying to understand what you were saying. Because I had pointed that Craig had lied, I was afraid that perhaps I had been less-than-careful in my posts, and that I had accidentally worded them in such a way to make it sound as if it was directed towards you, so I went double-checking. Sorry if I misunderstood.

    Jerome Maida: Getting here a bit late, but thank you, Luigi, for your thoughtful comments regarding education. You GET it.
    Luigi Novi: Thanks, Jermoe. 🙂

    rrlane: I’m sorry, but you either don’t understand how public school works, you live in an area of the U.S. that has completely different ways of governing, or you are purposely being misleading. It does NOT happen in “all schools when kids don’t do well.” That is a flat out untruth. Public schools do NOT have the option of saying, “I’m sorry, Mrs. Smith, but your son Johnny failed five of his classes this year. You must find another school for him next year.” Nope, uh-uh, no way, no how. It. Does. Not. Happen.
    Luigi Novi: I’m willing to concede that I don’t have the nation-wide knowledge of how schools work and that I may be wrong on this to one degree or another, but for the record, I do not ever attempt to be “purposefully misleading.” And for the record, I live in Union City, NJ. I don’t know if how it’s done around here (or how it was done when I was in school) differs or differed from how it’s done elsewhere.

    But let’s assume that this is true. Why would it be a bad thing in privatization? Why should a school be forced to keep a kid who absolutely refuses to learn? If some kid or his parents don’t care enough to uphold their responsibilities, what should the school do? Be forced to keep the kid there as a substitute for a prison or daycare center? That’s not the job of schools, or the government, and is not a problem whose answer is the same answer as the privatization/voucher/attached taxes VS. public school question. It is the job of educators to make choices clear for students. It is not their job to make the choices for them.

    rrlane: Then your eyes deceive you, as no one said anything about perfection.
    Luigi Novi: I didn’t say you did. Hence the word “appears.” It was the idea that seemed to be implicit in the argument.

    rrlane: Please enlighten us as to how “not failing” equates to “perfection,”
    Luigi Novi: Pretending that every student will not fail equates to perfection. Your idea is that privatization is bad because some kids will get “phased out” ignores the fact that such kids will exist in any such system. Such is the nature of human beings. There will always be some bad apples. Their existence is not necessarily a condemnation of which particular educational system is in place, but of themselves. The implicit idea here is that under the right system, no such children will exist (i.e.: a perfect system), which is obviously not true, and privatization advocates do not claim this under their proposals.

    rrlane: And if you are saying that kids will be kicked out of private schools, where do you intend they go if you remove public schools from the equation?
    Luigi Novi: If they “absolutely refuse to learn”, they can go nowhere. Why should they go anywhere if they “absolutely refuse to learn?” If a given kid and/or his parents have some problem with his refusal to learn, then obviously, that’s a problem with the kid, and not the school, or the system.

    rrlane: Almost? It IS an epidemic and I AM blaming the parents.

    Luigi Novi: You’re saying that the nationwide problem of poor education in the U.S. is that parents?????? Really? All of them? On what basis have you made this determination?

    rrlane: So, in an flu epidemic, EVERY human being gets the virus? Again, for someone who pounces on people for playing fast and loose with words, you have have a knack for the same. “epidemic” does NOT equal “all.” It does not even mean “most.” Don’t waste my time with nonsensical straw man arguments.
    Luigi Novi: There is no Straw Man argument. You used the word “epidemic”, and I chose the wording of my response in good faith, so there is not Straw Man argument. No, the word epidemic doesn’t mean “all,” but you could’ve read my statement for its clear intent, which was to question how you made the determination that a significant percentage of the children whose education is not going well are attributable to their parents’ lack of seriousness, even if you felt that word wasn’t as precise as it could’ve been. Instead of placing undue emphasis on this one choice of word on my part, you could’ve responded to the question. But if you insist on making this exchange about one word, fine, I’ll rephrase it:

    You’re saying that the nationwide problem of poor education in the U.S. is that parents?????? Really? That many? On what basis have you made this determination?

    You can either answer the question, or complain that I’m not perfect in choosing one word.

    rrlane: Where do the children of parents who cannot afford to pay tuition go?
    Luigi Novi: If they can afford to pay their taxes, they can afford to send their kids to school, because that’s what their taxes are paying for. As mentioned earlier, a school’s effectiveness is not predicated on how much money it spends on the students.

    rrlane: Here we agree. As I said in an earlier post, I am for abolishing compulsory education, but even I say we aren’t ready yet because there is no place for those that get removed from the regular schools to go, and booting teenagers and having them wander the street is just a recipe for disaster for the country.
    Luigi Novi: But it’s not a problem for the education system. And yes, we’re not ready yet, because if we did change the system, it would take time to implement.

    rrlane: That is what’s called a poor analogy. They may not eat what Burger King is serving, but they will eat.
    Luigi Novi: How?

    Luigi Novi: Again, how is this specific to the type of school???? If some obnoxious kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, how is that the school’s fault?

    rrlane: Show me where I said it was, please.
    Luigi Novi: Your position against privatization/vouchers/attached taxes uses this argument over and over. My response is that these kids are not the fault of the school or the system under which the school works, and is therefore completely irrelevant to the public vs. private issue. If public schools cannot expel the kids, then I’d say that that’s one more reason why we should abolish them.

    rrlane: Left back? Yes. but they still appear on the school’s academic standing.
    Suspended? For academic problems—no. That’s untrue. They cannot. Hëll, if a kid has an IEP (Individualized Education Program), you can’t even suspend him more that ten days in a school year, no matter what he does. Expelled? For academic problems—no. That’s untrue. They cannot. They cannot expel anyone anymore for anything other than the most grievous actions (example: bomb threats or worse) Please check your “facts” before you spout things that waste our time.
    Luigi Novi: Again, if I was misinformed, mistaken, or ignorant of differences across geographic or between my time and today, then mea culpa. But again, if this is true, then see answer above. If I was wrong about my “facts,” then I haven’t wasted anyone’s time, because you had the opportunity to inform me otherwise. To me, that’s one of the reasons I come to discussion boards.

    Luigi Novi: Indigent students “have” to go to public schools. They don’t “have” to go to private ones. In privatization, they can choose among different schools.

    rrlane: Okay. Got it. So how does that keep classrooms small? Feel free to call me dense (like you need permission), but I don’t see how that answers the question.
    Luigi Novi: First, I have no interest in calling you dense, or any other insult. Second, I never said that choosing among different schools, in and of itself, keeps classrooms small.

    rrlane: I apologize for my combative responses to everybody here, and I’ll make a deal with you, Luigi–let’s make an attempt to listen to each other without the haughty tones or airs of moral and rhetorical superiority from now on. And as it would be disingenuous for me to call a halt to it after I’ve had the parting shots, you can make your next points however you want, get the last word in in whatever tone you wish without snide or acerbic response from me. You are intelligent, and I freely admit that the only way to create an informed opinion is to look at both sides of an issue. But nobody does that well when their blood pressure is shooting through the roof.
    Luigi Novi:

    1. Apology accepted.

    2. No thanks, I can do this without insults. If someone disagrees with me in good faith, I try to respond in the same spirit. If one takes a “parting shot” just because they think they’ve “earned” the right to do so (even if their opponent gives them “permission”), then they’re no better. (Mild sarcasm intended humorously, sure, but not insults.)

    3. Thank you.

    4. True.

    🙂

18. First, my apologies to Jerome for misspelling his name above.

    Second, in looking over my post again after I posted it, I think the first sentence of the fifth quote-and-response exchange has the potentional of coming off like a Straw Man argument. I say this since we’re all feeling the love right now, so let me apologize and say that the 11th exchange is a better response on my part to that point.

    🙂

19. Luigi Novi: If they “absolutely refuse to learn”, they can go nowhere. Why should they go anywhere if they “absolutely refuse to learn?” If a given kid and/or his parents have some problem with his refusal to learn, then obviously, that’s a problem with the kid, and not the school, or the system.

    The problem is, once they’ve been tossed out, these kids won’t just disappear into nothingness. They’ll be out wandering the streets with no skills and no prospects. If you take a “three strikes and you’re out” approach to education under privitization, then you might as well reserve a prison cell for any kid who starts getting Ds in elementary school because that’s where they’re going to end up.

    And that runs entirely counter to the intent of the No Child Left Behind Law.

    Now, maybe many of the kids who are failing in public schools will probably end up there anyway, but at least under the current system, there are people who are at least trying to turn some of these kids around.

    The point rrlane and others have been trying to make is that the difference between public and private schools is that public schools are required -by law- to at least try to educate everyone. If you live in the school district, the district has to make a seat available for you in the classroom. That includes kids with severe mental disabilities. That includes kids with dyslexia or other learning disabilities. That includes kids who have emotional/psychological problems. That includes kids who had the unfortuate luck of being born to parents who just don’t give a šhìŧ.

    Expelling a kid for getting bad grades is not an option for public schools. Not in Union City, NJ. Not in Harrisburg, PA. Not in Los Angelos, CA. They have to try and make the kid learn. In fact, under NCLB, they are penalized for not trying to boost that kid’s performance.

    The problem with the argument for privitization is that the underlining assumption is that the problem is always with the school and that teachers are inherantly lazy and need to be cattleproded into do their jobs. That may be the case in some instances, but life is rarely so simple that everything is caused by just one thing. Rrlane is right in that many times the root cause is lack of parental involvement. We have become a very narcissistic society with a “me first” attitude towards life in general. It shouldn’t be shocking to think that this attitude also affects the way that many people raise their kids.

20. Well, it was only a matter of time:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060209/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_142

21. Remond me again why so many people have a negative veiw is Islam and it’s practitioners again?

    Oh yeah…that’s right…

22. I do not ever attempt to be “purposefully misleading.”

    Funny, I would say the same things of my comments here, yet you say I’m lying.

    But, I suppose you’re always right, Luigi; you would never be wrong when making accusations against others. Nah, no way.

    That may be the case in some instances, but life is rarely so simple that everything is caused by just one thing.

    Yep. There’s more to this than simply saying “this is what we must do”, when one won’t recognize possibilities and “what ifs” that could completely throw everything out of what. And it’s something Luigi apparently refuses to recognize in this conversation.

23. “Mock my religion as prone to violence??? For that I will KILL you!”

    Here’s another really bad thing coming out from all this; the lesson learned is that if you want to get your way, be violent. Christians and jews have protested and written angry letters about portrayals in the media but the most they get is a lousy apology or maybe the cancellation of a low rated show. But Muslims! Man, the media has been absolutely cowed. Don’t believe it? Look at the New York Times, where an article the other day not only refused to show the cartoons but instead showed a photo of the Virgin Mary made from dung. Hysterical. (they wanted to illustrate how art can cause anger but they sure as hëll made sure the ones who would get angry were not followers of Islam. They may be liberals but they sure ain’t stupid!)

    Sarah Silverman put it best:
    “…it’s not right to make fun of midgets, but we do it anyways, because we don’t fear them.

    I had a joke with the “n” word in it, and I thought it was so hip and so edgy and I was doing a show at Caroline’s and their was a table of black people…actually I think they were African American, and I didn’t do the joke… because I feared them. I was afraid, so I changed it to “chinks”

    So if one were a fanatical Christian or Jew the lesson is that you have to become more fanatical and violent and then you will get your way. Nice.

24. Oh yeah? Just wait until we really pìšš øff the midgets! You don’t want them to get organized and fanatical.

    Imagine all the places that a midget suicide bomber could hide.

25. Pretty chilling, isn’t it Bill?

26. Imagine all the places that a midget suicide bomber could hide.

    I have this image of Adam West’s Batman running around with a Midget held high over his head, desperately looking for a place to throw him.

    Ok, where are the midget activists, coming here to tell us that teh proper term is “little people” (Which, as Ms Silverman points out, is the only time where the politically correct term is actually more offensive than the common one)?

27. Ok, all kidding aside, this is just bone chilling:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060209/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_eu_dc

    EU mulls media code after cartoon protests

    The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.

    …”The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. “We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.”

    Oh. My. God.

    Meanwhile, take a gander at how sensitive to the religions of others our Middle Eastern friends have been: http://www.pmw.org.il/Latest%20bulletins%20new.htm#b080206

    Gee, you think those governments will “self-regulate” their right to portray Jews as blood sucking rats, snakes, demons, etc?

    But ignoring all that, how the hëll can the EU even contemplate this appeasement? Well, it’s a good thing all those folks who were thinking about moving to Europe after the Bush election didn’t do so–looks like you might end up having more freedom of expression in the good old US of A after all. (Not that the media here has shown much in the way of balls but at least there is no talk of codifying the cowardice).

    Just incredible.

28. Well, it’s a good thing all those folks who were thinking about moving to Europe after the Bush election didn’t do so

    Who said all of us were considering Europe? 🙂

    But I don’t put it past some politician here to suggest doing the same thing (especially if it’s in the name of the war on terror).

    In the end, it’s not like our government hasn’t pushed this notion before on some level. Anybody remember the “people need to watch what they say” comment after 9/11?

    “The press will give the Muslim world the message:

    That Europe is filled with pûššìëš who can be pushed around by the whims of religious fanatics.

    If the EU does this, it’ll empower the fanatics even more.

    Fûçk it. Let’s just hand them the world on a silver platter already.

29. Oh, and Bill, that article at least says the code would not have legal status.

    But your point still stands.

30. EU mulls media code after cartoon protests

    Exactly the wrong response. Yeah, we’re letting all the radicals know that they can get whatever they want if they trigger riots.

    But ignoring all that, how the hëll can the EU even contemplate this appeasement?

    Two words: Neville Chamberlain.

    Seriously, I am still waiting for someone in government or the media with the balls to stand up and say, “It’s called freedom of speech. Fûçk you if you don’t get it.”

    Well, it’s a good thing all those folks who were thinking about moving to Europe after the Bush election didn’t do so–looks like you might end up having more freedom of expression in the good old US of A after all.

    I for one chose to stay and fight. We will have a competent government again someday.

    (Not that the media here has shown much in the way of balls but at least there is no talk of codifying the cowardice).

    Absolutely disgusting. Freedoms mean nothing if they’re not fought for.

31. Den: The problem is, once they’ve been tossed out, these kids won’t just disappear into nothingness. They’ll be out wandering the streets with no skills and no prospects. If you take a “three strikes and you’re out” approach to education under privitization, then you might as well reserve a prison cell for any kid who starts getting Ds in elementary school because that’s where they’re going to end up.
    Luigi Novi: If parents really care about their kids, then they will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure they learn. If the kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, that is entirely out of the school’s hands, and has nothing to do with the private vs. pubic school issue. You can’t “turn these kids around” if they don’t want to be turned around.

    Den: The point rrlane and others have been trying to make is that the difference between public and private schools is that public schools are required -by law- to at least try to educate everyone.
    Luigi Novi: And I believe that’s wrong, because education should be about choice and responsibility. The government shouldn’t be forced to give it to someone. In my opinion, that is outside the role of government.

    Den: Expelling a kid for getting bad grades is not an option for public schools. Not in Union City, NJ. Not in Harrisburg, PA. Not in Los Angelos, CA. They have to try and make the kid learn. In fact, under NCLB, they are penalized for not trying to boost that kid’s performance.
    Luigi Novi: A student can be left back for getting sufficiently lousy grades, and he can be expelled for being disruptive or rebellious, which the phrase “absolutely refuses to learn” sounds like.

    Den: The problem with the argument for privitization is that the underlining assumption is that the problem is always with the school and that teachers are inherantly lazy and need to be cattleproded into do their jobs. That may be the case in some instances, but life is rarely so simple that everything is caused by just one thing. Rrlane is right in that many times the root cause is lack of parental involvement.
    Luigi Novi: Rrlane’s use of the word “epidemic” seems a bit more serious than just “many times.” Me, I think that sometimes a student has a less-than-caring teacher, and sometimes he has apathetic parents. But privatization does not assume teachers are “inherently lazy.” It knows that profit motive and competition makes cream rise to the top, and that government monopolies reward mediocrity.

    Craig J. Ries: Funny, I would say the same things of my comments here, yet you say I’m lying.
    Luigi Novi: And I elaborated the accusation by pointing out and explaining in detail why what you did was clearly mendacious. The fact that you never once responded to my arguments directly to explain why they were wrong (offering only the anemic excuse of not having to respond to everything), and continue to do so goes a long way to showing that you know you can’t refute them.

    Craig J. Ries: But, I suppose you’re always right, Luigi; you would never be wrong when making accusations against others. Nah, no way.
    Luigi Novi: Sure I can. But only if you back up your response by refuting them on the same merits, which you did not do, and which you continue to refuse to do.

    Den: That may be the case in some instances, but life is rarely so simple that everything is caused by just one thing.

    Craig J. Ries: Yep. There’s more to this than simply saying “this is what we must do”, when one won’t recognize possibilities and “what ifs” that could completely throw everything out of what. And it’s something Luigi apparently refuses to recognize in this conversation.
    Luigi Novi: And yet, I just stated above that a student’s poor performance can be caused by different things.

    Thus, once again your statements are exposed as rhetorical and arbitrary, and deliberately ignorant of the actual content of my posts.

32. Yeah, I read the part about the lack of legal status but to me this is just the first step. I’ve seen how “speech codes” at the totalitarian institutions we call Universities eventually become bludgeons to punish anyone who says something contrary to the official opinion. These are very dangerous steps to take.

    (Didn’t Britain just narrowly avoid passing a speech code law that would have made it a crime to mock religion?)

    Who said all of us were considering Europe? 🙂

    True. It seems to me that if free speech was of major importance to someone they would have a hard time finding a place where their situation would be improved. Canada sure ain’t it. Nor Europe. Pretty much the whole middle east is out (I’m not sure about Israel). Africa and Asia aren’t very promising except for Japan (interesting that Japan, a culture that not terribly long ago was a total dictatorship is now one of the freest cultures on Earth, so far as I can tell). (Though they aren’t exactly immigrant friendly, so that might not be a viable option.)

    What’s left? Denmark? Norway?

33. Luigi Novi: If parents really care about their kids, then they will take whatever steps are necessary to make sure they learn. If the kid “absolutely refuses to learn”, that is entirely out of the school’s hands, and has nothing to do with the private vs. pubic school issue. You can’t “turn these kids around” if they don’t want to be turned around.

    Which may true, but doesn’t address the question of what society is supposed to do once the schools have given up on them.

    Luigi Novi: And I believe that’s wrong, because education should be about choice and responsibility. The government shouldn’t be forced to give it to someone. In my opinion, that is outside the role of government.

    Then you should start to campaign for the repeal of the No Child Left Behind Law, because the intent of it is to give every child at least a chance for an education.

    Luigi Novi: A student can be left back for getting sufficiently lousy grades, and he can be expelled for being disruptive or rebellious, which the phrase “absolutely refuses to learn” sounds like.

    Or it could mean that the kid never shows up for class or sleeps in every class. Neither of which are disruptive, but will result in the kid never learning anything.

    Luigi Novi: Rrlane’s use of the word “epidemic” seems a bit more serious than just “many times.”

    I don’t have any hard numbers, but in my encounters with people who are public school teachers, it would a appear that apathetic parents are common enough to make the use of the “epidemic” appropriate.

    Me, I think that sometimes a student has a less-than-caring teacher, and sometimes he has apathetic parents.

    And you won’t get any arguments from me in favor of retaing the less-than-caring teachers, but I think you’re overstating the incidence of one and minimizing the instance of the latter.

    But privatization does not assume teachers are “inherently lazy.” It knows that profit motive and competition makes cream rise to the top, and that government monopolies reward mediocrity.

    Jeez, test drive a GM car lately? My point is that privitization doesn’t always mean more efficiency or a better way. The PA Department of Health experimented with privitizing some its services a few years ago. A few county offices were closed and contractors were hired to perform functions like TB and STD screenings. In all three of the pilot programs, the contractors failed to perform the services and the Department ended up doing the work anyway. Of course, the offices were never reopened, so we had to do the work with fewer personnel while still paying the contractors even though they weren’t doing the work.

34. There’s an easy way out of this. We tell the radical Muslims to knock it off ot we will broadcast this 24 hours a day, 7 days a week into their homes:

    http://www.mohammeddance.com/

    I know that this is harsh and I feel a lot like what Harry S Truman must have felt like when he thought about using the atomic bomb. But sometimes hard choices must be made.

35. My God man, have you no humanity!?!?

36. On a …. well, not lighter note, but equally stupid but not as destructive note,

    The Red Cross has begun sending threatening letters to… can you guess who?

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    VIDEO GAME COMPANIES!

    Too many video games use red crosses on health packs, and now, over ten years since Doom, Return toi Castle Wolfenstein, and other video games have used red crosses for health packs, NOW the Red Cross wants to cry foul?

    Shouldn’t they loose that “Trademark” since they’ve failed to enforce it for so long?

    Bah, I’m glad I can’t give blood anymore…

37. But only if you back up your response by refuting them on the same merits, which you did not do, and which you continue to refuse to do.

    Let’s see: I supposed lied, but didn’t; I also use nothing but strawmen arguments, yet you admit to doing the same. Go fig.

    Hard to refute that when you’ve repeated it ad nauseum in the hopes that you can get yourself to believe it.

    The funny part about your refutation regarding taxes & schooling that if you’re poor a) you’re not paying nearly as much in taxes as everybody else to begin with, b) you’re far more likely to get all your tax money back.

    So, the fact that they’re paying taxes (that they get back, if they pay any at all) doesn’t change anything about how badly privitization would royally fûçk them over.

    And if you still think that’s quoting you out of context, well, you’re on your own.

    Hëll, even your own dámņ comment says “most people” pay taxes.

    So, you outright fail to acknowledge the fact that some don’t pay taxes at all, and still can’t afford jack šhìŧ, and *I’m* lying here?

    Like I said, Luigi, you’ve fallen flat from the start, and your only defense was to try and make me look bad. Not to mention the fact that others have done the same by pointing out serious flaws in your thinking (which we all have, but some of us can admit to without accusing others of lying).

38. Den: Which may true, but doesn’t address the question of what society is supposed to do once the schools have given up on them.
    Luigi Novi: True. That’s because it’s not pertinent, IMO, to the issue that I first brought up about the school system.

    Den: Then you should start to campaign for the repeal of the No Child Left Behind Law, because the intent of it is to give every child at least a chance for an education.
    Luigi Novi: There are many laws I’d like to see repealed, and many fundamental policies I’d like to change, those implemented among George W. Bush being only some of them.

    Den: And you won’t get any arguments from me in favor of retaing the less-than-caring teachers, but I think you’re overstating the incidence of one and minimizing the instance of the latter.
    Luigi Novi: ?????????? I don’t see how or why you perceive this on my part, because I never offered any opinion on which was more, since I have no way of doing so. If I have given this impression, then allow me to make it clear that I have no conclusion on the proportion of one to the other.

    Den: Jeez, test drive a GM car lately? My point is that privitization doesn’t always mean more efficiency or a better way. The PA Department of Health experimented with privitizing some its services a few years ago. A few county offices were closed and contractors were hired to perform functions like TB and STD screenings. In all three of the pilot programs, the contractors failed to perform the services and the Department ended up doing the work anyway. Of course, the offices were never reopened, so we had to do the work with fewer personnel while still paying the contractors even though they weren’t doing the work.
    Luigi Novi: I’d like to see a detailed examination of that experiment, and solicit opinions on why it failed, but pursuant to your statement that privatization “doesn’t always mean more efficiency,” I would respond by pointing yet again, that my position is that privatization is generally better than a government monopoly. I’ve made this point more than once on this board.

    Craig: Let’s see: I supposed lied, but didn’t; I also use nothing but strawmen arguments, yet you admit to doing the same. Go fig.
    Luigi Novi: In the first place, I never said you use “nothing but” Straw Man arguments. That is simply yet another exaggeration on your part, which is ironic, because it functions itself as yet another distortion of my words (i.e.: a Straw Man). But hey, if you can point to where I ever said that you use “nothing but” Straw Man arguments, then I challenge you to do so.

    The fact remains that I only point out Straw Man or other logical fallacies when people actually use them, and unlike you, when I make such an assertion I always back it up. You, on the hand, are completely arbitrary in many of your statements, this being the latest example.

    Craig: Hard to refute that when you’ve repeated it ad nauseum in the hopes that you can get yourself to believe it.
    Luigi Novi: It’s hard to refute someone’s position merely because they repeat it often?

    Nope, sorry, but that’s nonsensical.

    If a claim, idea or argument uses some logical fallacy or flaw in its reasoning, then all you have to do is point it out. The idea that repetition makes this impossible is obviously false.

    Try again.

    Craig: The funny part about your refutation regarding taxes & schooling that if you’re poor a) you’re not paying nearly as much in taxes as everybody else to begin with, b) you’re far more likely to get all your tax money back. So, the fact that they’re paying taxes (that they get back, if they pay any at all) doesn’t change anything about how badly privitization would royally fûçk them over.
    Luigi Novi: And as I pointed out numerous times above, you don’t have to spend large sums of money on each student in privatization.

    Craig: Hëll, even your own dámņ comment says “most people” pay taxes.
    Luigi Novi: Don’t they?

    Craig: So, you outright fail to acknowledge the fact that some don’t pay taxes at all, and still can’t afford jack šhìŧ, and *I’m* lying here?
    Luigi Novi: I’m failing to see the connection between the two halves of this statement. In the first place, if you acknowledge right above that I stated that “most people” pay taxes, then how can you say, in the very next breath, that I “fail to acknowledge that some don’t”? This is a contradiction.

    Second, even if I “failed to acknowledge” something, how does that constitute a lie?

    Lastly, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I lied, as you allude to here. How precisely does that refute the idea that you did so yourself earlier? The notion that I lied somehow precludes the idea that you did? Seriously, do you understand the concept of a logical fallacy? This one is called the You, Also Fallacy. The idea that criticism of your behavior is mitigated, in and of itself, by pointing out the same behavior on the part of someone else, is false.

    Craig: Like I said, Luigi, you’ve fallen flat from the start, and your only defense was to try and make me look bad.
    Luigi Novi: Actually, you did that. I just held up a mirror.

    The fact of the matter is that I argue my points with logic and reason, keep my statements internally consistent, and try to avoid logical fallacies and other behavior like deliberately quoting someone out of context, and then failing to respond to the specifics of the accusation. You, on the other hand, cannot say the same.

    Craig: Not to mention the fact that others have done the same by pointing out serious flaws in your thinking (which we all have, but some of us can admit to without accusing others of lying).
    Luigi Novi: Den and rrlane have disagreed with me, but I don’t see where they pointed out “flaws in my reasoning.” That you cannot form a distinction between these two things is the precise sort of thing I’m talking about. There is no selectivity or calm in your words. You just haphazardly sling whatever words sound dámņìņg, regardless of whether a careful reading of the thread corroborates them. If you can point to instances where they pointed out such flaws, did so, then please do so.

    What I see, despite your rhetoric about my falling flat, is that others here have complimented me on my posts, including, incidentally, the aforementioned rrlane, who actually apologized for some of his/her behavior, and said that I was intelligent.

    By contrast, I can’t find anyone doing the same in your direction.

39. What I see, despite your rhetoric about my falling flat, is that others here have complimented me on my posts, including, incidentally, the aforementioned rrlane, who actually apologized for some of his/her behavior, and said that I was intelligent.

    By contrast, I can’t find anyone doing the same in your direction.

    But Craig has also intelligent and eloquent, and more, I agree with him on his points about public vs private education. Where I’m bowing out is in the notion of the name calling and the “dancing in the end zone” several parties (myself not least among them) have been doing when they feel they have scored a palpable hit on their rhetorical opponents.

    Make no mistake, sir; I firmly feel that you are in the wrong, and nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise. I do believe there are glaring holes in your logic which I and others have pointed out, that I do not believe you have seen. You feel otherwise, no doubt, as is your purview.

40. My hats off to Craig, then, for actually garnering the compliment. 🙂

    But can you point out the flaws in my logic? You’ve explained where you’ve disagreed with me, but I don’t recall any flaws in logic.

    Moreover, what is your opinion on the ones I’ve pointed out in Craig’s behavior, just out of curiosity? You say he’s “intelligent” and “eloquent.” Do you deny that he quoted me out of context? That he has failed to respond directly to my explanation of how that quote was a deliberate lie on his part? That he has put words in my mouth that I never said? That many of his statements, like the one above about some people not paying taxes, make absolutely no sense?

41. Luigi Novi: And as I pointed out numerous times above, you don’t have to spend large sums of money on each student in privatization.

    I still fail to see how this would be the case if every student is under the same system. Same with the notion that if every kid were under a privatized system, the class sizes would stay small.

    The only reason they’re small now, and it’s presuambly costing less now, is because not every kid in America is involved.

    I mean, let’s look at it this way: you mentioned how a postmaster in a town outsource the mail service.

    We have privatized interests out there like FedEx and UPS compared to government USPS.

    Yet, do I think that FedEx and UPS are lightyears better than USPS (when talking about the same services they offer, ie dealing with packages and such)?

    No.

    In fact, I think FedEx’s service around here is far crappier than USPS, and UPS’s is only better when the regular driver for my area is handling things.

    Am I saving any money by using FedEx or UPS over USPS? For what I usally deal with, no.

    And in the end, how my money is spent on services as a consumer is what takes precedent over how these businesses end up spending their money.

    This is a contradiction.

    On your part, because you have made the assumption that everybody can pay for privatized schooling based on the money they pay to taxes.

    Yet, if not everybody is paying taxes to begin with, you’re not explaining what those that do not pay taxes and cannot afford it are supposed to do, or what options they’re supposed to have.

    So, no, I can’t see why you’re failing to make the connection, nor can I see how this doesn’t make sense to you.

    Seriously, do you understand the concept of a logical fallacy?

    Yes, I do.

    The problem is there is no lie.

    Den and rrlane have disagreed with me, but I don’t see where they pointed out “flaws in my reasoning.”

    See above.

    I believe plenty of problems have been presented from several people, but you’ve shown an interest in only taking into account those things that best serve your argument, rather than taking into account all those things that could easily cause your “generally better” assumption on privatization to become generally worse.

    And no, I don’t consider completely denying educational opportunities as a viable option, regardless of how problematic the child is. Imo, every child *can* be taught, it’s just a matter of finding the right method. And that’s something I don’t see private schools guaranteeing any more than public schools do when, as it stands, private schools don’t necessarily follow the same rules, laws, and standards as public schools.

42. Den: Which may true, but doesn’t address the question of what society is supposed to do once the schools have given up on them.
    Luigi Novi: True. That’s because it’s not pertinent, IMO, to the issue that I first brought up about the school system.

    But it is a question that I asked and would appreciate a response on. If your position is that some kids can’t or won’t be taught (Like Craig, I don’t really agree with that premise, it’s just a matter of finding a way to reach before it’s too late) and that schools should simply kick them out, then what happens? One way or another society will have to deal with them, whether as convicts or welfare recipients. Quite frankly, I don’t see declaring a certain percentage of citizens as failures before they’re 18 and washing your hands of them is a viable option.

    Luigi Novi: ?????????? I don’t see how or why you perceive this on my part, because I never offered any opinion on which was more, since I have no way of doing so. If I have given this impression, then allow me to make it clear that I have no conclusion on the proportion of one to the other.

    By arguing with rrlane over the use of the word “epidemic”, that is the impression you were creating, at least to me it was.

    Luigi Novi: I’d like to see a detailed examination of that experiment, and solicit opinions on why it failed, but pursuant to your statement that privatization “doesn’t always mean more efficiency,” I would respond by pointing yet again, that my position is that privatization is generally better than a government monopoly. I’ve made this point more than once on this board.

    But again, your previous statement about “the cream rising to the top” gave more of an absolutist impression.

    I consider myself a pragmatist, not an ideologue. I go with what appears to work. There are some things that the private sector is better at doing then the government. There are also some things that the government is better suited for. No one would seriously suggest we allow private companies to build competing highway systems because that would make travel a nightmare. Also, no one would suggest that we turn over the defense of country to a private mercenary army (Okay, well maybe Bush would since he seems to be sending us down that road anyway).

    Now, while it’s clear that private schools do on average better than public schools, as numerous people have pointed out, that’s in large part due to the fact that private schools have the right to pick and choose their schools. There isn’t much data out there to support the idea that a privatized school system, under the same mandate to educate all citizens, would do any better.

    In fact, I know of one school district where the opposite has happened: Edison, a private comppany, was hired to run one of the most distressed school districts in Pennsylvania: Chester-Upland. After years of privatization, test scores continued to drop and the contract was terminated.

    Now, maybe if you privatized all schools and allowed them to do what private schools do: ignore the mentally disabled, the learning disabled, the kids with psychological problems, kids with neglectful parents, and the chronic under-achievers, maybe they’d have a higher test score level, but I don’t see how it achieves the overall goal of a better educated citizenry.

43. No one would seriously suggest we allow private companies to build competing highway systems because that would make travel a nightmare.

    Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if more are considering it than we realize.

    One of the big issues here in Colorado recently was the fight over a private toll road and eminent domain.

    The idea was to built a toll road that would be parallel to I-25, although a little further east out on the plains. This of course meant allowing a private company to use eminent domain on hundreds of miles of farmland and homes.

    The state Senate eventually approved a bill that would eliminate a 19th century law that gave developers the right to condemn private property to build roads.

    So while this doesn’t totally kill the potential for a private toll road, it does say that CDOT has to be involved.

44. That’s interesting, Craig. While I knew of some private companies building roads in the 19th century, I didn’t know of any cases of it being considered today. Aside from it being an horrendous abuse of eminant domain, what is the public benefit of having a private toll road run parallel to an existing highway?

    Ugh, and my last post should have read, “Private schools have the right to pick and choose their students.

    Ðámņ.

45. “That’s interesting, Craig. While I knew of some private companies building roads in the 19th century, I didn’t know of any cases of it being considered today. Aside from it being an horrendous abuse of eminant domain, what is the public benefit of having a private toll road run parallel to an existing highway?”

    Chicago has two access points east, through Indiana. US 94, a Federal Highway, and 80/90, the Indiana toll road. Chicago recently leased an 8 mile section of toll road called the Skyway that, when it’s not under construction, saves 30-60 minutes on that trip east. It directly connects to the Indiana toll road. Indiana is currenlty contemplating leasing the Indiana toll road to the same European company that now manages the Skyway toll road. The State will get a big influx of cash now, and the lease runs for 99 years. The idea being that the private company will be better able to maintain and operate the toll road, and at a profit, providing a better level of service than the state can.

    I don’t know that I agree that such is possible, but I hear it works in Europe.

    I also don’t know that a simple good/service model translates once you get to something more complex, like education. We’re not talking about delivering mail, or providing a road, both of which I would classify as simple good/services. You either deliver the mail in a timely fashion, or you don’t. You either maintain a road in servicable condition, or you don’t.

    Education is much more complex, and the metrics of successfully delivering a product are harder to measure. GPA? Graduation Rate? Need for continuing/higher education? Placement in prestigious higher education institutions. Salary post graduation. Applicability of education provided. How do you measure what a successful school is? We can’t answer this question now, so how is a private company going to be able to do so?

    Simply tossing the whoel ball of yarn to the private industry with a note saying “you guys figure this mess out” is not the solution we need. Before we farm out the work, we need to determine what the goal is, and that’s going to need a fundamental restart of the Federal Education system.

46. Chicago has two access points east, through Indiana. US 94, a Federal Highway, and 80/90, the Indiana toll road. Chicago recently leased an 8 mile section of toll road called the Skyway that, when it’s not under construction, saves 30-60 minutes on that trip east. It directly connects to the Indiana toll road. Indiana is currenlty contemplating leasing the Indiana toll road to the same European company that now manages the Skyway toll road. The State will get a big influx of cash now, and the lease runs for 99 years. The idea being that the private company will be better able to maintain and operate the toll road, and at a profit, providing a better level of service than the state can.

    But that’s hiring a contractor to run an existing toll road. There’s no real competition there is it? Or is another private company building a competing parallel toll road?

    A 99 year lease? That’s sweet deal for the contractor. Does it have an option for the state to cancel the contract if they aren’t maintaining the road?

47. “But that’s hiring a contractor to run an existing toll road. There’s no real competition there is it? Or is another private company building a competing parallel toll road?

    A 99 year lease? That’s sweet deal for the contractor. Does it have an option for the state to cancel the contract if they aren’t maintaining the road?”

    Correct, there’s no other private competition…yet. But there is a public option, that’s less convienent for more people, running a parallel path for about 30 miles.

    It is a sweet deal. I see it as fiscal irresponsibility. The state’s going to get some stupid some of money, like $3.4 billion or something. If they think the tollway is going to produce more than that over the next 100 years, why doesn’t the state find a way to cut through the beaurocratic costs to capture that money?

    Not sure if they have any options to cancel. I’m guessing, since it’s a lease, there are restrictions and requirements for continuance of the lease. That’s what I’d do, and I have to assume (maybe wrongly) that they have lawyers at least as thoughtful as I am.

48. Craig: I still fail to see how this would be the case if every student is under the same system.
    Luigi Novi: Why it not be the case if they were?

    Craig: Same with the notion that if every kid were under a privatized system, the class sizes would stay small.
    Luigi Novi: Good thing I never said they would be. If you actually read my posts, instead of just clipping the parts you wanted, you see this exchange between rrlane and myself:

    rrlane: Okay. Got it. So how does that keep classrooms small?

    Luigi Novi: I never said that choosing among different schools, in and of itself, keeps classrooms small.

    Craig: I mean, let’s look at it this way: you mentioned how a postmaster in a town outsource the mail service.
    Luigi Novi: No I didn’t.

    Craig: On your part, because you have made the assumption that everybody can pay for privatized schooling based on the money they pay to taxes. Yet, if not everybody is paying taxes to begin with, you’re not explaining what those that do not pay taxes and cannot afford it are supposed to do, or what options they’re supposed to have. So, no, I can’t see why you’re failing to make the connection, nor can I see how this doesn’t make sense to you.
    Luigi Novi: You stated in the first half of the original statement that I acknowledged that most people pay taxes, and then in the second, stated that I failed to acknowledge that some don’t. If, as you admit, I stated that most people paid taxes, the use of the word “most” automatically carries with it the virtually synonymous notion that some don’t. Thus, there is no contradiction on my part.

    As far as those who don’t pay their taxes, are you suggesting the discussion of the educational system should be geared towards tax evaders? And how many of those people don’t pay their taxes?

    Luigi Novi: Seriously, do you understand the concept of a logical fallacy?

    Craig: Yes, I do. The problem is there is no lie.
    Luigi Novi: No, the problem is that the specific counterargument you used in your post above was that the notion that I somehow lied in some way mitigated the accusation that you did. That is called the You, Also Fallacy, as I stated above, and it’s completely false. Any given idea must be either accepted or refuted on its own merits. Accusing the accuser of the same act does not do this, nor does merely saying, “There is no lie” do anything to refute my pointing out this fallacy on your part. That there is no lie on your part has been your position; it does not, on the other hand, have anything to do with the You, Also Fallacy that you used, which is now another point that you are deliberately evading. Now, you’re just repeating your original denial, while deliberately ignoring the point about the You, Also tactic you just used, and the fact that I just pointed it out.

    Do you deny that you accused me of lying, in order to mitigate that charge against you?

    Do you deny that this is an example of the You, Also Fallacy?

    Do you agree that that tactic is veridically worthless, because whether I lied in no way mitigates the charge that you did?

    The only way to refute this, is to argue that you did not use such a fallacy. Not to simply say, “There is no lie,” which only goes to the original accusation, and not to this newest tactic that you employed.

    Craig: I believe plenty of problems have been presented from several people, but you’ve shown an interest in only taking into account those things that best serve your argument, rather than taking into account all those things that could easily cause your “generally better” assumption on privatization to become generally worse.
    Luigi Novi: Obviously, that isn’t true, because I’ve responded to every single counterargument that you and the others have voiced, and done so directly and in detail, explaining why they did not refute the ideas about a change of the educational system, even pointing out how those different systems work both in parts of this country and abroad. When I do this, I tend to “take them into account.”

    You, on the other hand, have not done this, often responding indirectly and rhetorically, with accusations that do not bear any correlation to the actual content of my posts, often requiring me to repeat various things I have said because it appeared you either didn’t read them the first time or were deliberately ignoring them (as you did the taxes quote), and repeatedly quoting me incorrectly, or just making things up that I never said, the most recent example being this idea about the outsourced postal work (which I never stated), and your use of your original denial of your life in response to the You, Also Fallacy (which does not address it).

    Craig: And no, I don’t consider completely denying educational opportunities as a viable option, regardless of how problematic the child is. Imo, every child *can* be taught, it’s just a matter of finding the right method.
    Luigi Novi: If the child “absolutely refuses to learn”, then it isn’t a matter of finding the right child. It’s a matter of the child’s family’s need to resolve some problem with the child that exists entirely outside the purview of the school.

    But for those students who do need “the right method,” private institutions are best adept to do so, because they have the incentive to find them.

    Den: But it is a question that I asked and would appreciate a response on.
    Luigi Novi: Okay. Society isn’t supposed to do anything, because it’s neither its problem, or its fault. If a child “absolutely refuses to learn,” then that’s the kid’s, fault, and/or its parents. Unless you envision Big Brother government controlling and overseeing everything, it is not society’s job to handle private familial problems.

    Den: If your position is that some kids can’t or won’t be taught (Like Craig, I don’t really agree with that premise, it’s just a matter of finding a way to reach before it’s too late)…
    Luigi Novi: It wasn’t my position. It was rrlane’s position. I merely responded to it.

    Den: …and that schools should simply kick them out, then what happens? One way or another society will have to deal with them, whether as convicts or welfare recipients. Quite frankly, I don’t see declaring a certain percentage of citizens as failures before they’re 18 and washing your hands of them is a viable option.
    Luigi Novi: Just how many kids do you think are going to be so unruly, that in rrlane’s words, they “absolutely refuse to learn”? Why is it that discussion of a major system is being opposed on the grounds of what is certainly an extreme minority? This is akin to those who oppose gay marriage because supposedly, two male friends who are not gay and not in love can just get married in order to pull off an insurance scheme, or something. My question for both situations is, “Is this truly representational of the typical person or persons for whom the idea is designed?”

    People are often frightened of change, even when the evidence suggests the change would be for the better. Opponents of change will often employ the Scary Scenario to explain why the change would be bad, and this question about all these delinquents who would “absolutely refuse to learn,” and

    In my opinion, if you allowed parents’ taxes to be attached to their kids, or allowed vouchers, or privatization, then there wouldn’t be any large number kids as you describe. I believe that’s just Chicken Little paranoia.

    Den: By arguing with rrlane over the use of the word “epidemic”, that is the impression you were creating, at least to me it was…But again, your previous statement about “the cream rising to the top” gave more of an absolutist impression.
    Luigi Novi: Again, I don’t know how or why it has this effect on you, but let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that these passages have this effect on you. Doesn’t it stand to reason that all the previous instances where I stated otherwise would have the effect of the opposite impression? How do you explain this, in light of these previous comments by me:

    February 5, 2006 10:37 PM
    The former tend to be private companies, whereas the latter are government-controlled. (And please spare me counterarguments based solely on isolated, non-representative examples like, “Well, I had a bad experience with a supermarket once,” or “I’m perfectly satisfied with my garbage collection…” The issue is where people are GENERALLY satisfied or not.)
    February 5, 2006 10:37 PM
    Using Enron to condemn private industry is stupid, and roughty equivalent to using the regimes of Castro or Stalin to condemn ALL forms of government control or regulation, or arguing that you can’t “guarantee” that airplanes or cars won’t be involved in accidents, so therefore, we should not have those things. The point is, in our country, people are generally willing to take the risks associated with living in a free society. The idea that you can condemn entire systems based solely on rare exceptions is a fallacy.
    February 5, 2006 10:37 PM
    The fact of the matter is, students generally do better because the school is private.
    February 6, 2006 11:42 AM
    There’s that silly absolute standard again. Who said everything about solving “everything”? The issue is whether by and large, privatization is generally superior.
    February 7, 2006 01:10 AM
    Again, this argument appears to use perfection as a standard, as if privatization advocates contend that no kids will ever be kicked out of a private school. This is fallacious standard to use, which is why such advocates don’t use it. For the umpteenth time, the question is which system is generally better.
    February 9, 2006 10:36 PM
    I’d like to see a detailed examination of that experiment, and solicit opinions on why it failed, but pursuant to your statement that privatization “doesn’t always mean more efficiency,” I would respond by pointing yet again, that my position is that privatization is generally better than a government monopoly. I’ve made this point more than once on this board.

    Hëll, even CRAIG referenced this long-stated position of mine:

    all those things that could easily cause your “generally better” assumption on privatization to become generally worse.

    So how do you explain this “impression”? Did you take these things into account?

    Den: I consider myself a pragmatist, not an ideologue. I go with what appears to work. There are some things that the private sector is better at doing then the government. There are also some things that the government is better suited for. No one would seriously suggest we allow private companies to build competing highway systems because that would make travel a nightmare.
    Luigi Novi: The evidence would suggest otherwise. A private company rented the empty space in the middle of the 91 Freeway in California, and built a toll road that functioned better than the public one. It takes about 45 minutes off the rush hour commute, and there are no toll booths, because scanners in the scaffolding bill people electronically as cars pass by, so that the cars don’t even have to slow down. If you’re car breaks down, they see you with their cameras, and will come to help you. If you run out gas, they’ll give you a free gallon. Seeing footage of the private road next to the public road is dramatic.

    Den Aside from it being an horrendous abuse of eminant domain, what is the public benefit of having a private toll road run parallel to an existing highway?
    Luigi Novi: The fact that they’re better (see above).

    As far as being an abuse of eminent domain, that occurs even now, with things like Ikea stores that are not akin to roads or schools. It’s not something specific to private roads, which already exist in the U.S. now, and are much better than public ones.

    Den: Now, while it’s clear that private schools do on average better than public schools, as numerous people have pointed out, that’s in large part due to the fact that private schools have the right to pick and choose their schools. There isn’t much data out there to support the idea that a privatized school system, under the same mandate to educate all citizens, would do any better.
    Luigi Novi: One more time: Then how do you explain the fact that it works abroad? There, the schools don’t “pick” the students. They compete by offering more and better things so that the students’ families pick them

    Den: Now, maybe if you privatized all schools and allowed them to do what private schools do: ignore the mentally disabled, the learning disabled, the kids with psychological problems, kids with neglectful parents, and the chronic under-achievers, maybe they’d have a higher test score level, but I don’t see how it achieves the overall goal of a better educated citizenry.
    Luigi Novi: Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?

    Bobb: Simply tossing the whoel ball of yarn to the private industry with a note saying “you guys figure this mess out” is not the solution we need. Before we farm out the work, we need to determine what the goal is, and that’s going to need a fundamental restart of the Federal Education system.
    Luigi Novi: Obviously, the “ball of yarn” and “you figure this mess out” metaphors are not accurate characterizations of the suggestions for privatization, vouchers or attached taxes, and obviously, determination of goals is central to any such proposal. Who here has suggested otherwise?

    Den: There’s no real competition there is it? Or is another private company building a competing parallel toll road?

    Bobb: Does it have an option for the state to cancel the contract if they aren’t maintaining the road?…Correct, there’s no other private competition…yet. But there is a public option, that’s less convienent for more people, running a parallel path for about 30 miles….Not sure if they have any options to cancel.
    Luigi Novi: As far as not maintaining the road, that would presumably be a requisite part of the contract. If they don’t meet certain standards, yes, people can choose a public road, and/or the contract can be put back up for bid, and that’s where the competition is.

    Bobb: The state’s going to get some stupid some of money, like $3.4 billion or something. If they think the tollway is going to produce more than that over the next 100 years, why doesn’t the state find a way to cut through the beaurocratic costs to capture that money?
    Luigi Novi: Because governments don’t do that as well as private industry. Governments by their very nature are incompetent, bureaucratic, inefficient, and slow to modernize and innovate. If they do a bad job, it doesn’t matter to them, because you can’t “fire” the government. But this is not true of private industry.

49. Luigi Novi: Private schools ignore the disabled? In fact, don’t special schools exist precisely for those students?

    Short answer-yes, you are correct.

    Longer answer–yes, there are schools designed exclusively with special needs children, and they function, for the most part, very well and help many special needs children achieve a good measure of independence in the workaday world (I am talking about schools for those with mental and emotional disabilities here, not those that work with those with physical disabilities…that needs to be clear).

    But do you think the kids in those schools are measured by the same academic yardsticks that the academically oriented private schools are? Of course they aren’t. That wouldn’t be fair to them because if they were, they’d obviously place at the bottom of all school rankings.

    But these same students, when they attend public school, are bunched in with the rest of the student population. It’s called “mainstreaming” and I would venture to say it’s not an exageration, that a good 1 out of 7 of my students have Individual Education Plans (IEPs).

    I certainly won’t say that there are not private, academically oriented schools that mainstream students with mental and emotional special needs, but I’d be willing to bet you’ll have to look long and hard before you find one, and if you do, I’d also bet they don’t stress how they’re at the top of the heap academically in their brochures.

    Den: …and that schools should simply kick them out, then what happens? One way or another society will have to deal with them, whether as convicts or welfare recipients. Quite frankly, I don’t see declaring a certain percentage of citizens as failures before they’re 18 and washing your hands of them is a viable option.

    Luigi Novi: Just how many kids do you think are going to be so unruly, that in rrlane’s words, they “absolutely refuse to learn”? Why is it that discussion of a major system is being opposed on the grounds of what is certainly an extreme minority?

    Define “extreme.” I have two classes of ninth grade general students. One with twenty eight kids, the other with thirty. Of those 58 kids, I would say ten work to their potential, about fifteen will do average work, but could accomplish more if they applied themselves, fifteen will do only enough work to get by with a passing grade, ten more will squeak past with me riding their butts the whole time, and the other eight will not do squat no matter what I try.

    I personally find 33/58 functioning far below what they are capable of to be an extreme number.

    Luigi Novi: If the child “absolutely refuses to learn”, then it isn’t a matter of finding the right child. It’s a matter of the child’s family’s need to resolve some problem with the child that exists entirely outside the purview of the school.

    Public schools don’t have that option. We are mandated to make it our problem. That is the crux of the argument I am making. A private school can say to a parent, “This is your problem, not ours.” I have been in parent/teacher meetings where the exact same thing is said to the teachers BY THE PARENTS.

    Luigi Novi: Okay. Society isn’t supposed to do anything, because it’s neither its problem, or its fault. If a child “absolutely refuses to learn,” then that’s the kid’s, fault, and/or its parents. Unless you envision Big Brother government controlling and overseeing everything, it is not society’s job to handle private familial problems.

    Again, tell that to the Bush Administration. NCLB stipulates that ALL students will test out to be proficient by the year 2014. Failure to do so will put schools into “school improvement” and eventually lead to a federal take over of the school, pushing local control completely out of the picture.

    All.

    100 Percent of the student body.

    That guy that’s nineteen and still in the ninth grade because he won’t do anything but refuses to drop out because he doesn’t want to get a job (we can’t boot him until he’s twenty one)? Yeah, that includes him.

    The special needs girl who tries her absolute best, but can barely write at the sixth grade level, yet has been mainstreamed into the eleventh grade? Yeah, her too.

    All of them.

    All.

    And you want to know what the measuring stick for achievement is? The standardized tests that the private schools are not mandated to participate in.

    Luigi: As far as those who don’t pay their taxes, are you suggesting the discussion of the educational system should be geared towards tax evaders? And how many of those people don’t pay their taxes?

    How many unemployed automotive workers are there now? Are they tax evaders now?

    Also, I’m not wealthy by any stretch, but my wife and I own a nice, comfy home. We are paying approximately $2,200/year in property taxes, which is where the school taxes are taken from here in Pennsylvania. Now, even if we assume that all of that goes to support education (for the record, it doesn’t), I have two kids at home now. Where do I find a good private school with tuition of $1100/year per kid?

    And I’m doing a heckuva lot better than a lot of people in this town.

    Luigi Novi: Then how do you explain the fact that it works abroad? There, the schools don’t “pick” the students. They compete by offering more and better things so that the students’ families pick them

    I dunno. What countries are you talking about? In Japan, I know that they do NOT mainstream their special needs children, AND many, many parents send their children to ADDITIONAL “cram schools” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cram_school) on top of their regular schooling to help them prepare for the standardized tests.

    And yes,you are correct that parents “pick” private schools, but private schools do not ACCEPT everyone that “picks” them.

50. rrlane: Longer answer–yes, there are schools designed exclusively with special needs children, and they function, for the most part, very well and help many special needs children achieve a good measure of independence in the workaday world (I am talking about schools for those with mental and emotional disabilities here, not those that work with those with physical disabilities…that needs to be clear).
    Luigi Novi: Okay, to clarify, are you and Den one and the same? Because the original point was made by him, not you, but now you’re claiming the point was your own, and later stated that you’re a Pennsylvania teacher, as Den mentioned.

    Den/you indeed specified kids who were mentally disabled, learning disabled, and kids with psychological problems. Not just physical disabilities. (Again, I’m a bit confused here, because if you and he are the same person, you’d know this. If you are not the same person, you’d still know it if you read his last posts.)

    If you are the same, could you please stick to one username, particularly if you’re going to continue the same thread and the same points with me? Thanks. 🙂

    rrlane: I certainly won’t say that there are not private, academically oriented schools that mainstream students with mental and emotional special needs, but I’d be willing to bet you’ll have to look long and hard before you find one, and if you do, I’d also bet they don’t stress how they’re at the top of the heap academically in their brochures.
    Luigi Novi: If privatization were more widespread, don’t you think there would be more such schools? The same principle of competition that drives private institutions to solicit “mainstream” students for enrollment will do the same for kids with special needs.

    rrlane: Define “extreme.” I have two classes of ninth grade general students. One with twenty eight kids, the other with thirty. Of those 58 kids, I would say ten work to their potential, about fifteen will do average work, but could accomplish more if they applied themselves, fifteen will do only enough work to get by with a passing grade, ten more will squeak past with me riding their butts the whole time, and the other eight will not do squat no matter what I try. I personally find 33/58 functioning far below what they are capable of to be an extreme number.
    Luigi Novi: “Functioning far below what they are capable of” hardly sounds like “absolutely refuse to learn.” The segment of that 58 that would seem best describes by that latter phrase would be those last eight, which is less than one seventh of the total 58. If those eight “will not do squat”, then that’s their fault, and they should be expelled. If a public school wont’ do that, then that’s all the more reason why the system needs to be changed. As for the rest, private institutions will be more motivated to help the remaining 40 who do not refuse to learn, but do not work to their full potential. In any case, one must acknowledge the law of averages. In any given group of people, some will have the talent or aptitude toward a given skill, like formal education, but others not as much so. Not everyone can be class valedictorian.

    rrlane: Public schools don’t have that option. We are mandated to make it our problem. That is the crux of the argument I am making. A private school can say to a parent, “This is your problem, not ours.” I have been in parent/teacher meetings where the exact same thing is said to the teachers BY THE PARENTS.
    Luigi Novi: Same answer as above: This is one reason why the system needs changing.

    rrlane: Again, tell that to the Bush Administration. NCLB stipulates that ALL students will test out to be proficient by the year 2014.
    Luigi Novi: And like much of the other “ideas” that W. puts forward, that’s not gonna work. As for the rest of this passage, same answer as above.

    rrlane: How many unemployed automotive workers are there now? Are they tax evaders now?
    Luigi Novi: I don’t see what being unemployed has to do with tax evasion. Most people have taxes taken out of their paychecks automatically. The unemployed aren’t tax evaders, because at the time of their unemployment, they’re not being paid a wage in the first place.

    rrlane: Also, I’m not wealthy by any stretch, but my wife and I own a nice, comfy home. We are paying approximately $2,200/year in property taxes, which is where the school taxes are taken from here in Pennsylvania. Now, even if we assume that all of that goes to support education (for the record, it doesn’t), I have two kids at home now. Where do I find a good private school with tuition of $1100/year per kid?
    Luigi Novi: If you read my February 5, 2006 10:38pm post, you wouldn’t have to ask that question, nor would I have to respond yet one more time that schools have succeeded who have not had to spend that much on each kid.

    rrlane: I dunno. What countries are you talking about?
    Luigi Novi: The one(s) I mentioned earlier.