The US Election, Part XI

[Wrath of Dagon]

I was reading some news reports earlier today where they pointed out that they kick underperforming students out of the school, wich is one way to boost ones averages I suppose. Here's a couple of others, but not the one I found earlier; * Many charter schools succeed by excluding or limiting the number of students they accept who have disabilities or who are English language learners. They are also free to push out low-scoring students and send them back to the local public school. This improves their results, but it leaves the regular public schools with disproportionate numbers of the most challenging students.

6. Skimming and weed-out strategies. Dr. Kevin Welner, professor of education policy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has found that charter schools “can shape their student enrollment in surprising ways.” He has identified a “Dirty Dozen” methods used by charter schools “that often decrease the likelihood of students enrolling with a disfavored set of characteristics, such as students with special needs, those with low test scores, English learners, or students in poverty.”

Nothing wrong with that, children who want and can learn shouldn't be dragged down by those who don't.

 

Edit: Feds shouldn't have anything to do with education, that's a local concern. The Department of Education should be abolished, I don't know of any good it's ever done.

 

Edit2: Well, at least Trump accomplished one thing already: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/trump-to-announce-carrier-plant-will-keep-jobs-in-us.html?_r=0

Edited November 30, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Looks like Donald was serious about Mitt getting down on his knees after all.

[Bartimaeus]

the expressions say it all

[imaenoon]

the expressions say it all

Yeah. I mean, I always hate stills because you can really catch some weird expressions and then pretend they mean something more than they do. ...But, come on! I mean, Trump looks like Satan himself and Romney looks like someone who realizes he just sold his soul.

[licketysplit]

Donald looks outright lascivious there, lmao. Romney is a mistake, he must know it. I wish Trump had picked more outsiders, but wth, I'm not surprised. He's relying on some regulars. 

[Meshugger]

Looks like Donald was serious about Mitt getting down on his knees after all.

 

That photo has all the motifs of a classical painting.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

I believe that Finland has, by reputation, an outstanding school system. I don't really know, but I think the wife played a video about it recently. She makes me watch these things regularly.

 

Yeah, other countries have a lot to learn from Finland and their trust-based approach. Teachers are trusted to be innovative, and there is little to no standardized testing. You learn to learn, not to score well on tests. From what I've read, educators are running the school system - not politicians or buisness people who sadly think competition is the best way of getting better schools.

 

 

You forgot one thing. Every time teachers from other countries visit finnish classrooms they are surprised by one thing in peculiar: The students are silent, obedient and follow the instructions of the teacher. Such manners do not come from the blue, but rather from home. It takes a village to raise a child properly and all that.

 

 

That's a fair point, but maybe students in other countries would tend to be more silent and obedient (or even better, participating) if their teacher had more autonomy and creative freedom like they do in Finland? Haven't watched it in ages, but I think S4 of the Wire illustrates this in a good way. Teachers usually know best what their students need.

 

 

Yes. There is a lot of trust by parents on the teachers to act autonomously. For example, of the student gets the detention, is failing grades or is sent out of class the parents usually puts the blame on the child, not the teacher. I simply took such a level of trust for granted.

 

Creative freedom exist as in the student is expected to learn from the subject and apply that knowledge on a broader scope. For example in history, the date is of something is not of the highest importance, but what happened, what motives where in place and what where the implications. 

 

Not creative freedom as in disrupting the class and undermining the teacher's authority in the name of "having a debate". That's the hallmark of a dip****, but it seems that people confuse the two in many western countries.

[Azdeus]

Nothing wrong with that, children who want and can learn shouldn't be dragged down by those who don't.

 

They do that to keep their averages up to seem like a better more attractive school, and it makes public schools look worse.

 

 

 

[Amentep]

 

Nothing wrong with that, children who want and can learn shouldn't be dragged down by those who don't.

 

They do that to keep their averages up to seem like a better more attractive school, and it makes public schools look worse.

 

 

It also points out the hypocrisy of criticizing public schools that - unlike private or charter schools - can't reject students who aren't going to perform well, and further are being held to the standard that they 'fail' if they can't help all students.

 

The line of thinking seems so pervasive in modern thought - that essentially education is a manufacturing job.  The warehouse (school) gets material (children) with which they produce a shirt (graduate).  This is nothing like what schools actually do - in fact it kind of misses the point of education.  And I'm not saying that education in the US can't be criticized - I certainly have my own feelings about it - but it is (IMO) kind of silly to create impossible standards for public schools and then complain when the schools can't meet them.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Strawman.

 

Trump should've appointed Romney (or even Bloomberg, but that could never happen) to HHS, instead of an idealogue.

[Azdeus]

Strawman.

 

Trump should've appointed Romney (or even Bloomberg, but that could never happen) to HHS, instead of an idealogue.

 

Yeah, schools clearly are'nt factories but warehouses for budding criminals.

 

 

It also points out the hypocrisy of criticizing public schools that - unlike private or charter schools - can't reject students who aren't going to perform well, and further are being held to the standard that they 'fail' if they can't help all students.

 

The line of thinking seems so pervasive in modern thought - that essentially education is a manufacturing job. The warehouse (school) gets material (children) with which they produce a shirt (graduate). This is nothing like what schools actually do - in fact it kind of misses the point of education. And I'm not saying that education in the US can't be criticized - I certainly have my own feelings about it - but it is (IMO) kind of silly to create impossible standards for public schools and then complain when the schools can't meet them.

I was'nt certain if public schools could deny children education, but I had my suspicions. Trying to maximize profit by toying with childrens future is downright immoral.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Azdeus

[Amentep]

At least locally, they can transfer disruptive students to special schools to keep them from disrupting classrooms.  And they can expel students based on actions in school (fighting, drugs, weapons, etc), but I'm not aware that an average public school with no special programming could turn away students (and in those cases, as I understand it, they could only turn away students from the special program).

 

I could be wrong, of course, but that's my understanding of it.

[imaenoon]

Getting back to presidential politics.

 

I don't understand Trump. I know some people blindly hate him around here, but he does possess some native cunning and skill. Yeah, a lot of his actions hurt him, but a lot have helped him. His ability to create enthusiasm, his truly incredible energy, and his willingness to take heat over things are all remarkable. Commendable, even. On the flip side, he comes across as erratic, vindictive, erratic, thin skinned, erratic, insensitive, and erratic. I know some people hate him for vulgarity and perceived racism, but the worst trait in a president common-sense wise is being erratic, but what if all this is a ploy?

 

He seems literally to be running things like a reality TV show. At first I thought this was just an convenient avenue of attack, and it was for people like Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I mean, they knew he was kind of acting like it was a reality TV show, but most people really thought it was due to incontinence. What if he really is running things like a reality TV show on purpose?

 

Not everything he's done in his transition has been bad, but the build up of suspense, the vocal unhappiness of his die-hard supporters over the possible nomination of Mitt Romney, the speculation on the part of the press, the fact that he's named several other positions at this point when he knows that what most people who even care about this want to know is if Rudy Giuliani gets the job or it goes to someone else... These are scripted things that typically presidents-elect don't want to have in the spotlight. There can be some bitter dispute over these decisions for presidential transitions, but they're kept hushed as best as possible. As it seems to me, people think the players in Trump's drama are going rogue. I'm beginning to think he's literally trying to make sure the public is always on the edge of its seat.

 

My feelings about Trump have evolved over time. I still see him as a deeply flawed individual and I still don't like that he's president, but there's clearly more to the man than a blowhard braggart. I don't think I like this new "Trump Administration: Season 1" vibe, but it's so weird I just don't know where he's going with it. It might be interesting if it gets to be like a remake of LOST, but do we really want 'interesting' times in the white house?

[HoonDing]

[Azdeus]

Anyone else but me that sees Trump as Zaphod Beeblebrox by the way? I have difficulty to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn’t be bothered to think and want someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn’t understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Anyone else but me that sees Trump as Zaphod Beeblebrox by the way? I have difficulty to distinguish between him pretending to be stupid just to get people off their guard, pretending to be stupid because he couldn’t be bothered to think and want someone else to do it for him, pretending to be outrageously stupid to hide the fact that he actually didn’t understand what was going on, and really being genuinely stupid.

 

Probably E, all of the above.

[Meshugger]

If you take everything Trump says literally, then perhaps the stupidity doesn't lie with him. Notice how nobody seems to truly know how he really thinks despite all the coverage that he has? The guy is not stupid or an idiot, but rather ill-informed and ignorant on certain matters, but he uses it to his advantage and knows how to play people like a fiddle in order to get his will through, which is not a sign of stupidity. 

 

I suspect that people have been so used to having politicians being thinking creatures that they cannot comprehend someone who is relying almost completely on intuition. I am drawing a bit from Orson Welles character in "Touch of Evil" when i think of the characteristics of Trump. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Meshugger

[ShadySands]

So just add this #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement to everything he says?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The guy is not stupid or an idiot, but rather ill-informed and ignorant on certain matters, but he uses it to his advantage and knows how to play people like a fiddle in order to get his will through, which is not a sign of stupidity. 

 

There are many different kinds of intelligence; consequently, there are also many different kinds of stupidity.

[Meshugger]

 

The guy is not stupid or an idiot, but rather ill-informed and ignorant on certain matters, but he uses it to his advantage and knows how to play people like a fiddle in order to get his will through, which is not a sign of stupidity. 

 

There are many different kinds of intelligence; consequently, there are also many different kinds of stupidity.

 

 

Elaborate and we can perhaps find a consensus.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I see no inherent contradiction between "he is stupid" and "he knows how to play people in order to get his way through".

[Gromnir]

 

The guy is not stupid or an idiot, but rather ill-informed and ignorant on certain matters, but he uses it to his advantage and knows how to play people like a fiddle in order to get his will through, which is not a sign of stupidity. 

 

There are many different kinds of intelligence; consequently, there are also many different kinds of stupidity.

 

there has been so many overreactions to the election. who did trump "play like a fiddle"? trump played a small portion o' the total electorate, but with historic low democrat vote participation, all trump needed were a relative small portion o' voters to be swayed by his tune.  keep in mind that as little as a day before the election, we heard all kinda stories 'bout how the republican party as a whole would need to overhaul their message and their strategies.  *chuckle* 'course a day after the election and it were the democratic party that sudden need to embrace change.

 

trump beat hillary clinton.  is difficult to imagine a republican candidate who would fail to beat hillary clinton in 2016, and yet trump almost pulled off such a feat.  trump lost the popular vote but nevertheless managed to barely beat a democratic candidate for President whose campaign endured the kinda scandals which in an ordinary year woulda' doomed a run at the oval office. 

 

based on exit polls, a large % o' trump voters didn't much like trump. nevertheless, as 'tween hillary and trump, the typical republican saw trump as the lesser o' two evhuls. did trump play the ordinary republican?  didn't seem so.  republicans, as much as they disliked trump, saw more o' their interests (money) align with trump than hillary, and the prospect o' a polar shift in the Supreme Court also scared more than a few.  many republicans were annoyed by trump fiddle playing, but hillary set their teeth on edge. 

 

weird election. typical overreactions.

 

keep in mind that the rather considerable number o' republican Congressmen who were nevertheless against trump, still managed to get reelected.  'tween trump's failure to get popular vote win, and the substantial success o' republicans-opposed-to-trump gaining reelection, is gonna be hard for trump to convince Congress he gots a mandate from the people which would spark newfound Legislative action, with trump piloting the bold new course.  

 

play like a fiddle?

 

 

yeah, trump played some folks.  not many.  in an ordinary year, not near enough woulda' been played.  the press and pundits will overreact, but democrats and republicans will look largely the same in the next few years precisely 'cause o' how few folks swayed by trump's fiddling.

 

nevertheless, am suspecting the trend o' washington largely ignoring the white working class is gonna change.  the white working lower middle-class is shrinking, but it is clear such people will vote and those votes can alter the course o' elections.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 1, 2016 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

So just add this #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement to everything he says?

As well as everything else on the Internet.

[imaenoon]

I voted entirely based on the Supreme Court, and I'm still not convinced that we won't be screwed anyhow. The only thing the guy needs to do is pick someone more like Thomas and less like Roberts (although I think Roberts gets short shrift from pundits).

 

On the other hand, Trump's ploy to discourage Democrat turn-out is one of the reasons that they didn't turn out. Of course, part of that was Hillary Clinton being a terrible candidate and Obama being a charismatic candidate.

 

I think there's something more to Trump than meets the eye at this point because I'm starting to think there's a weird sort of method to his madness. ...Either that or simply more madness and my human mind is seeing some larger design in the randomness of Trump's actions. I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but we'll eventually judge him by results, some of which might actually be attributable to the man.

[Guard Dog]

I voted entirely based on the Supreme Court, and I'm still not convinced that we won't be screwed anyhow. The only thing the guy needs to do is pick someone more like Thomas and less like Roberts (although I think Roberts gets short shrift from pundits).

 

On the other hand, Trump's ploy to discourage Democrat turn-out is one of the reasons that they didn't turn out. Of course, part of that was Hillary Clinton being a terrible candidate and Obama being a charismatic candidate.

 

I think there's something more to Trump than meets the eye at this point because I'm starting to think there's a weird sort of method to his madness. ...Either that or simply more madness and my human mind is seeing some larger design in the randomness of Trump's actions. I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but we'll eventually judge him by results, some of which might actually be attributable to the man.

I agree with you on this. I know Gromnir does not go along with me on this one but I think Thomas is a model jurist at least as far as his philosophy is concerned. There is an argument to be made on his effectiveness and how persuasive he may be. But he has been the biggest 10th Amendment champion that I can recall. And I think that is very important.