Is it "a slap in the face" to Wake County teachers to say that some of them set low expectations for students?
That's a contention Cash Michaels makes in the second part of his series in The Carolinian looking at Walnut Creek Elementary School. In this week's article, Michaels contends that teacher morale has gotten worse since the GOP school board majority took steps such as ending the diversity policy and questioning the expectation levels set by teachers.
“I sincerely appreciate the hard work of all of our teachers and principals,” said Democratic school board member Kevin Hill in the article. “I take serious offense every time I hear a member of the board talk about a culture of low expectations (in the system) for our children. I think it’s a slap in the face to our teachers and our principals.”
“My experience has been that every teacher has high expectations for our kids,” Hill continued. “Nobody rises to low expectations. But do we have the tools, do we have the time, do we have the ability to make that happen? No. Am I satisfied with where we are in terms of achievement for all of our students? I’m not. But I also take offense to when the data is cherrypicked, and there’s no credit given to where our teachers and students have excelled.”
The article says Hill points to data showing "significant incremental improvement over the past three years with economically disadvantaged students." (Test scores have increased statewide in the past few years since retests were counted.)
The article continues the theme of how talk of low teacher expectations is insulting by bringing up GOP school board member John Tedesco's charges that low expectations kept kids out of advanced math middle school classes.
"With the current Wake School Board ending structured sessions that allowed learning teams of teachers to get together on “Wacky Wednesdays” to strategize on how to help struggling students they shared, plus the politically-motivated accusations by board member John Tedesco that some teachers were holding black students back from Algebra I classes (Tedesco never bothered to mention that in some cases, black students, because of other obligations or their parents, did not want to take on harder classes until necessary), it is no surprise that teacher morale today is at an all-time low," the article says.
(Both Tedesco and Superintendent Tony Tata have cited the SAS EVAAS report to back their contention that thousands of students, many of them minorities, have been kept out of advanced math classes that they should have been attending.)
In contrast, the article says teacher morale was much higher under the tenure of Superintendent Bill McNeal when he was pushing the 95 percent goal and the diversity policy was promoting healthy schools.
"Former teachers of Wake Public Schools say the system became the envy of the nation over the past decade because they went the extra mile to make sure that students, especially struggling students, became excited about learning and achievement," according to the article. "Thanks to the right, experienced leadership, it was a total community effort that paid off in national recognition, and life-changing accomplishments.
Under the current school board, many of the former Wake educators wonder if the school system will ever reach those academic heights again."
The article cites special workshops during McNeal's tenure on how to work with economically disadvantaged children. The workshops taught the teachers that not all children learn the same way because of their diverse backgrounds, and it was the instructors’ responsibility to key in on those differences, and reach as many children possible.
(I'm not sure if that's referring to the Ruby Payne training that was actively promoted by the district then.)
"For high poverty students there was individualized instruction to overcome whatever social issues they brought to the classroom from home," the article says. "Thanks to diversity, if the majority of a class of 24 were able to keep up with the lesson plan, that gave the teacher some time to focus on the handful who were having problems."
Flash forward to now with the end of the diversity policy and the fear it will lead to very high poverty schools.
"Counter that with a teacher who has to teach a large class in a high poverty setting, Turpin and other educators tell The Carolinian," the article says. "The majority of students there will be low achievers with various challenges, making it virtually impossible for the instructor to stay on lesson plan without extra help and resources. Those teachers, many of whom have one to two years of experience under their belts at the most, will get burned out, and soon leave that school, if not the profession."
Click here to read the first article in the series.
Comments
Lurker's points are interesting
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 11:11 — Doctor_FeelgoodWhat Lurker does not include is the role of partisan politics in the knee jerk reactions needed from 'black' base of the democratic party and the 'white' base of the republican party. This past primary season should give us all a glimpse of the future given the 'fidelity' that the parties want from their bases.
The upcoming School Board race is going to be note worthy in as much as the seats are not partisan per se so there will be no 'fidelity' primary.
The issue of 'fidelity' to the base and the role of the primary makes it extremely difficult for people that have agendas that solve the core problems we are facing to be elected less they co-opt their positions through the 'fidelity' primary maze.
In closing, watching the Sunday news programs and it amazes me how we are so concerned about cutting spending.
When you have a large family and the income needed to make things work decreases the members of the family figure out ways to work more, part-time jobs, two-jobs, etc. They do not take a one dimensional approach. Please tell me when are we going to put as much effort into putting our family to work.
Imagine if 5 million more US citizens were working. What would the impact be on our national debt. Why don't the economists ever show us those projections?
Both parties are in a fight 'to cut' with the idea that things will be better but in reality if we buy that we are becoming (in)voluntary 'shills' lurker started out explaining.
Can anyone say Ponzi?
I agree on one thing you say
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 12:10 — Voice_of_Reason_That getting people to work is the best approach of tackling out debt. However, we need to do both cutting waste and getting people to work. Only private sector jobs can do the kinds of work that can get us out of debt. High taxes, especially corporate and capital gains do not promote job growth. Nor do the huge relatory burden inflicted by this administration. Government jobs do nothing to tackle our debt problem.
BTW- It will take a lot more than 5 million jobs to even make a slight dent in our debt. We also have to live with the big Ponzi scheme called Social Security [AKA the third rail of politics]. You are taking your children down the tubes if you think we can continue to spend the way we do. The game is over.
Jobs and debt
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 16:59 — stan_norwalkAt the county and state level debt can be cut only by reducing capital expenditures, The Feds can go into debt for any purpose. Reducing capital expenditures is anti-job formation.
So we can avoid debt by not building major roads except toll roads. OK by you? It would not0 help jobs and it hits the poor the hardest.. We could have avoided building new Wake County offices in the new $200 M court house. I was alone in suggesting that. Assume you would approve - but the public and press were silent.
We could build smaller schools, a plus for education. But it requires more operating expense for local school overhead and maintenance. Good for debt but not for jobs.
My proposal to use factory built, permanent modular schools would cut debt but hurt construction jobs. It would help teaching jobs if the savings was put back into education. Time will tell, but so far no support from the BOE or other so-called fiscal conservatives on the BOC- nor from the pubkic and ppress.
Other than at the Federal level, cutting debt and increasing job formation doesn't work.
Cost analysis
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 21:20 — starsonoursStan, have you completed a cost analysis (comparing apples to apples) for modular vs site built? If you had you will find the savings you continue to preach about are not there. Before you claim a savings please do your homework.
It's all a big bag of air
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 22:24 — FSandYOUHot air. Not that some of his points don't make sense, some, but he will finish out his term in office without being able to accomplish a thing because no one is listening to him and no one cares.
Lead please
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 22:46 — starsonoursMaybe he will realize people will follow if you will lead. Instead of waiting for everyone to fall in line, set the example and LEAD, don't complain about who isn't listening give them a reason to listen. Don't complain about what the BOE and evil Republican General Assembly are doing, do your job as a County Commissioner and if you can't do your job because of the BOE or the GA, resign and let someone who can do the job have a chance.
Because
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 22:41 — Voice_of_Reason_HE's TOO DAMN PARTISAN !
Stan, I don't see where we disagree on that
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 06:40 — Voice_of_Reason_State and local level spending is being hurt because of the federal government unfundated mandates and out of control spending. If they spent the stimulus to build or repair roads that would be one thing, but they have wasted the money on temporarily propping up states, liberal causes, and union pension funds. You are correct, states can't print money.
As far as permanent well built modular classroom units, I don't have a problem as long as the main campus infrastructure is in place to handle the expected maximum population. AND as long as it is understood that those buildings are more prone to storm and fire damage, so there is a tradeoff in safety. Having lived in tornado country, I fear what would occur at one of our modular packed schools were hit by a tornado, especially one without warning (e.g. the weekend's Rolesville one). As far as your job comment, I don't see state and local government as job factories since no new wealth is produced. It is just redistribution of wealth from taxpayer to community.
The state and local government is free to spend within their means. The state and local politicians have to decide what rate they should tax and still be competitive with the rest in order to attract wealth to the area.
Where are your facts?
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 15:16 — stan_norwalkIn the investigations I have made so far I see no reason to preduct vulnerability to fire and tornado damage. Its all in how you specify the materials and modules and how they are attached to the foundations.
The doors on existing, temporary units meet the same wind proof specs as permanent schools. Metal roofs installed on site are similar a well.
As to government workers benefitting the economy - havent you heard of the multiplier effect? Such workers buy goods and services from the private sector, The multiple used by conservative economists is that for every job lost or gained, two other jobs are impacted.
As to tax rates, Wake County does its best to minimize taxes (justifiable in these economic times) and maximize growth. Although decond in wealth in NC it is 17th in contribution to education, 99th in providing school nurses, and lags by far services to substance abusers/developmentally disabled and, of course we are far behind on school construction with too many trailers justifiable by swing space.
As to my partisanship, I agree that I am highly partisan in providing a quality education to all children. I take offense when I see libertarian politicians and citizens, going in the other direction. On non-education issue I have often crossed the line and voted with the majority.
Also note that like all Demorats on the BOC, essentially I have no vote - on critical issues the Republicans vote as a block and on school issues coordinate school issues with RonM. The advantage of being on the board is that it gives me a bully pulpit which I will continue to use. I get supportive comments from many from others, including Republicans telling me to keep on telling the truth.
Stan, facts as I see them
Wed, 03/09/2011 - 15:40 — Voice_of_Reason_On the modular units; as I said there is a risk you have to accept. I understand that fire risk can be lowered by using quality structures designed with high fire ratings. The tornado risk is still there, I know of no temporary structure that can stand up to more than a very weak tornado, even with steel cables and anchors. I have seen two schools AFTER they were hit by tornados in Oklahoma and the only thing that could save the children is a solid wall. If you accept the risk because the low tornado frequency here, the modular route is alright IF THE PERMANENT MAIN INFRASTRUCTURE has the capacity for the maximum amount of students.
On the multiplier effect of jobs, I fully understand the concept, but it doesn't fly. Bob said it well. Government jobs only distribute wealth and yes part of that wealth gets back into the general economy. But the big difference between public and private is no wealth is created with public jobs. Take me for example, I worked in the federal system (This is the best case for your scenerio). I was paid and I paid, a portion of my pay back to the same entity who paid me (i.e. federal income taxes), other taxpayers picked up the rest. I performed a service, I created no wealth. Now I am retired, I don't even produce a service for the government, yet taxpayers still pay me (Plus I also pay some back in federal taxes). I buy things with that money, some stays local, some domestically in US, and a lot goes to foreign manufacturers and farmers. I am a net loss to the US Economy even though I provided a service at one time [At least in my federal pay and retirement]. A factory worker that produces a product here, produces wealth. The workers make something that is able to not only pay them, pay taxes, but also make a profit to be re-invested or distributed to investors.
As far as you being partisan, you don't fool me. I have heard you directly slam Republicans on non-school issues. And why after that do you think they will want to work with you? You really think that little bully pulpit of your is doing anything to improve the school system? Stan you have a lot of good ideas, but if you are going to get them enacted, you are going to have to work with your opposition and be alot more civil to them in your rhetoric.
So...
Wed, 03/09/2011 - 16:43 — Bob_SconceI'll point out that what you send to foreign manufacturers and farmers comes back into the US. If you look, for example, at the Honda plant off I-95 in S. Carolina, that plant was probably built using money that Americans had spent buying Japanese products. (Honda takes their Yen to Bank of Japan, which says "great! We have a lot of US Dollars that they've been sending us to buy Japanese products. We'll trade them to you for some yen." Honda then takes the dollars and builds a factory.)
When the US sends green pieces of paper to a foreign country in exchange for goods, the foreign country has two choices: it can burn them, or it can send them back to the US. When it sends them back to the US, it does so in one of two ways: (1) by buying US goods, or (2) by investing in the US by, e.g., buying gov't bonds, building factories, starting subdivisions, etc....
I don't know why it's any worse for you to spend $300 on an iPod and for the Chinese to then buy $300 worth of Gov't bonds than it is for you to buy $300 of Gov't bonds, but not have an iPod.
I agree but
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 08:12 — Voice_of_Reason_It is still a net loss and selling more and more bonds devalue our currency. And all this "works" only when others want our currency. The key to this is oil. If oil prices are decoupled from our dollar, we are all in trouble. That's the dirty (or oily) little secret. And they are talks right now to do just that.
Multiplier....
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 15:39 — Bob_SconceAs to government workers benefitting the economy - havent you heard of the multiplier effect? Such workers buy goods and services from the private sector, The multiple used by conservative economists is that for every job lost or gained, two other jobs are impacted.
You're citing the Keynsian Multiplier, which most conservative economists believe to be a fallacy. When the gov't taxes the private sector, it may mean more government jobs, but it also means fewer private sector jobs. That's especially true with local government, which does not have the federal gov't's ability to tax tomorrow's workers for today's spending.
jobs
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 13:52 — stan_norwalkWhy only private sector jobs? Those with public sector jobs contribute to the econony as well.
So the Republicans in the GA and the BOC decide the best way to create jobs is to fire teachers and other state and county workers. They do this year in and year out and the Boc has pledged to not raise taxes this year. Is this a good way to increase job formation? (To be fair a former Democrat on the Boc had the same mind set because she thought it would hurt her chances of being re-elected.) As a result the County has the lowest propeerty tax rate of any urbanized county in NC. Great for attracting new business - but not for jobs. And for every public sector jobs lost there are two or three private sector jobs lost as well.
The Republicans in the GA say they will not vote for continuing taxes due to expire this year. Is this a good way to increase job formation?
I agree that private sector jobs are preferrable if and when it is clear they can do an equivalent job at a lower cost. But often this is not the case.
I agree that the public sector has to continually strive for efficiency and productivity and that there are many instances where this could be done better.
To be fair
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 19:53 — Voice_of_Reason_As stated above, the states and locals need to stay within a budget. It is an old political trick to float the idea firing teachers, police, and firemen to garner public support for a tax raise. I believe it has been used so many times that the public is in disbelief and not trusting government when they plead for more taxes. There are many other places to cut, I believe we can do more in attacking that waste even if it means losing government jobs.
As far as public vs. private; even the federal government has figured that out to some degree. The military has private food services, janitorial services, transportation, facility maintenance, and many other functions to save money. They do the job more efficiently and stop retirement liabilities for the government. A lot of those outsource jobs are even unionized. The big difference in efficiency is that private companies have an incentive to be efficient (i.e. profit motive).
I do want to say something on a positive note. That I have been extremely impressed with most City of Raleigh and Wake County employees I have dealt with.
Military has same problem adapting to diversity
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 21:53 — user12345WASHINGTON – The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.
Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.
One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.
The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military's leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.
Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, "despite undeniable successes ... the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve."
"This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change," said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, whose more than two dozen members included current and former military personnel as well as businessmen and other civilians.
I am sorry to report the truth
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 22:13 — Voice_of_Reason_It is widely known and accepted that there is racial preference in the promotion system and has been since the 80's. I saw it and I can report it as fact. This is garbage, the promotion system is very competitive. Affirmitive action was in writing. It is not in the national security interest to go any further in racial/gender preference than it already is. I have known good black officers that were promoted to Lt Colonel that didn't think they had a chance in hell of making it and felt guilty after making it. The military really is the last place we need political correctness. The best and brightest need to be promoted, all skin color aside. In an even matchup, I have no problem with affirmative action.
This is a scary article IMHO. I will write my congressman (for what it's worth} on this.
The Military is one of the
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 22:18 — starsonoursThe Military is one of the last true merit based systems. Race and gender (with the exception for Combat Arms MOS's for women) everyone competes based on what they have to offer. The best and brightest are rewarded. As one moves up the competion for promotion usually is decided by razor thin margins, but I have never seen someone passed over for promotion due to race or gender. Would you want your son or daughter placed in harms way and commanded by someone who was promoted to promote diversity or someone promoted because they were considered the best of the best?
The best and brightest are
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 08:42 — user12345The best and brightest are rewarded.
That is what people said about HS AP until we understood that minorities were systematically dicriminated against in Algebra placement .... what is clear, as it is for the school system, is that if the "best and brightest" are only whites that in 40 years we will be in big trouble
You can not compare the US
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 08:58 — starsonoursYou can not compare the US Military to WCPSS.
come on ... they are both
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:11 — user12345come on ... they are both run by white male generals .... the real issue here for all institutions is the shifting demographic where by white will soon be a minority and if we don't get today's minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, woman) educated, trained and ready to take over leadership from the shrinking white male elites we will have a serious problems.
The shift in demographics are coming and now is the time to act.
User
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 18:14 — Voice_of_Reason_You are full of Cr*p and you know it. Play your class, racist, and sexist warfare games all you want, you are not scaring anyone.
Students were not denied
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 14:42 — starsonoursStudents were not denied access to math classes under General Tata's watch. That was the policy of the Superintendent who is no longer with us.
The Military gives equal opportunity and does not judge you any thing other than your abilities. Equal oppportunity does not mean equal outcomes. I have the ability to enter into the NY marathon every year, if I do not win, it isn't because they are being unfair. It means someone was better than me. Not everyone looks at the world through "Classification" glasses like you do.
General Tata has only been
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 16:59 — user12345General Tata has only been here a month ... the long term discrimination of minority children in math placement which will have long term ramification for years to come has been going on for years under every Democratic and Republican BOE and Supt. General Tata had nothing to do with recognizing the problem nor correcting it.
To your comment about ability .. again, if white males are the only group with ability as seen by 80% of the officers being white male than we need to find a way to give ability to minority servicemen quickly since white males are an endangered species.
User here is an example of how blacks are treated in the USAF
Sat, 03/12/2011 - 19:03 — Voice_of_Reason_I worked for this black General when he was a young Colonel. This guy was promoted faster than anyone I have ever seen before. This guy is also one of the sharpest officer I ever had the pleasure to work for. This man made rank at every opportunity at the earliest possible timing, normally two years below the zone of the vast majority of officers at almost every rank. His name is General Rice (4-stars), he is currentely head of the USAF Air Education and Training Command. He's only about 54 years old. I would be surprised to see him one day leading the Air Force.
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6896
?
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 18:33 — starsonoursYou are the only one saying whites are the only ones with the ability. Not everyone sees the world through your racist glasses.
LOL @ user. You are one
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 12:30 — woodstockLOL @ user. You are one strange dude. You do know that most rational people don't put their fellow man (persons?) into categories like you do, right?
BTW, what is a "white male elite?"
One word "Liberals" Ring a
Wed, 03/09/2011 - 22:34 — Andrew95One word
"Liberals"
Ring a bell?
A "white male elite" is a
Wed, 03/09/2011 - 23:23 — woodstockA "white male elite" is a "liberal?" Hmm, okay.
I knew it!! If only they had
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 22:02 — starsonoursI knew it!! If only they had divided the country into nodes and then balanced......Ooh wait that wouldn't work would it.
?
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 14:27 — Bob_SconceI agree that private sector jobs are preferrable if and when it is clear they can do an equivalent job at a lower cost. But often this is not the case.
Huh? Can you cite examples where government is more efficient?
This paper has a list of studies showing savings from privitization of government services: http://reason.org/files/b987e7bd89f4c4e21c8a73857b7001e8.pdf
Great for attracting new business - but not for jobs. And for every public sector jobs lost there are two or three private sector jobs lost as well.
Don't understand that. (1) How does one attract a new business, but not the jobs of people working in that business; (2) what is the causation between losing public and private sector jobs? I can see how this would happen in specific cases (fire too many teachers, schools go to pot; people leave), but don't see how it works in general.
Private vs. Public
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 16:27 — stan_norwalkBob,
Your source is a highly biased conservative organization. Checck it out on MUCKETY for which you have to register. It is supported by the Roes, who support AFP, the Scaifes, is connected to John Locke (Art Pope).
The report you cite gives only one side of the story - and I am in agreement that many government services are supplied inefficciently, but in many cases the reverrse is true. The cost of processing social security payments is far lower than insurance companies include. Ditto for Medicare versus private insurance. As a rule, I am dubious that Wake should rely on the market when servicing the underclass is invived,
I'll go further and note from experience on the BOC that there is lots of resistance by local municipalities and the sheriff to consolidate the sheriffs patrol. Tens of millions dollats are are at stake. Mecklenburg does it. Other consolidated services such as Wake EMS and Wake Liraries are consider A#1 organizations.
Public schools are built by private contractors under competitive bidding. When the developers pushed for PPP's and were asked to submit bids (with a equivalent school being built under the current system as a control) they chose not to bid.
As to education, when you apply the motivation of profit, the neediest who are the most expensive to serve, get the short straw, Ditto for charter schools. While they do not have a profit motivation, without private money infusions, they have a hard time being financially viable. They do not get construction money from the state and counties. (The right wing in the NCGA is trying to change this.)
So...
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 17:03 — Bob_SconceI agree that reason has a very libertarian political slant. But, the paper speaks for itself. There are tons of examples where government does a lousy job. Heck, look at the ABC stores for a clear local example. I can't speak to the cost of processing insurance payments -- not my area of expertise. But, since I have friends in that industry, I do know that Medicare saves some money by saying "no
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not taking an extreme position here -- there are lots of things that it makes sense for the government to do. I just dispute the proposition that government is generally more efficient.
As to charter schools, they're non-profit. No profit motive at all. Personally, I'd like to see the charter program modified so that they get more money for harder-to-teach kids. I'd love, for example, to see a charter school that focuses on autistic kids; unfortunately, those kids are prohibitively expensive under the current charter regieme.
Govt vs Private
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 21:36 — Solon77Interesting paper on savings from privitization. Would you have something more current and with less focus on West Germany. In theory a well run gov't function should be less expensive as it does not have to support a "profit" element. However, in the gov't there are no incentives to cut costs and to be more efficient. My company holds a couple of government contracts and it is clear to us that the contracting officers are incentivized (promotion, job security) to spend every last nickel of the budget.
The government also shoots itself in the foot
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 22:23 — Voice_of_Reason_When contracts go out, most of the time wages are prescribed for workers in the request for bids. Often times these wages are above the going rate of employment for the local area. In theory, this is to make the bidding process more equitable and prevent low quality workers. In practice federal contracts are gravy trains, especially for minority run companies which get preference.
Yup...
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 22:21 — Bob_SconceYou've identified the core problem -- incentives. A private company has to beat its competition by offering a better price, better quality or both and is thus driven to efficiency. Governments have no such pressures.
But, the problem goes even farther. Without price signals, the government cannot allocate services where they are most needed. See http://mises.org/daily/1471 for a long-dead economist's take on this. We saw this recently with the now-aborted TTA plan to link Durham and Raleigh via light rail, which bypassed the most likely destination: the airport! Luckily, once local government found out that the feds weren't going to spring for it, they decided that this boondoggle wasn't worth their own money.
Also, check out the National Industrial Recovery Act (wikipedia, for example), one of the most extreme examples of the government trying to control the economy during the Depression, and severely bungling it in the process.
As to more current studies, I do not have anything more current off the top of my head.
Bob another extreme example
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 06:49 — Voice_of_Reason_of a government trying to control an economy is them printing money and on the quite buying up stocks to prop up the stock market. We have yet to see how that turns out.
?
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 09:25 — Bob_SconcePrinting money, I understand: "Quantitative easing." WRT 'buying up stock,' is that the GM bailout, or something else?
Something else
Tue, 03/08/2011 - 18:26 — Voice_of_Reason_A whole lot of investors believe the Fed is propping up the market and some people believe the Treasury is too. Nothing provable since it is secret. Google it.
1968 is over - who are the shills of class repression?
Sat, 03/05/2011 - 13:09 — LongtimeLurkerA shill is someone who poses as a satisfied customer to create the false impression of confidence during a scam. During the 1960s the word "shill" was often applied by radical liberals to anyone who abetted the Vietnam War, segregation, poverty, etc. People who pretended everything was fine the way it was before the 1960s were accused to being shills for "the establishment." It was a culture war and the sides were well defined.
One theme during the last presidential election was that "1968 was over" - meaning that the oppositions and positions of liberalism and conservatism that had taken form 40 years ago and controlled our political perceptions since that powerful decade had faded in both relevance and clarity. This resounds mightily for me. It adequately describes the jumbled confusion of positions here - the inability of any traditional liberal or conservative position from previous decades to navigate this current situation.
The Wake County public education problems are a clear microcosm of this shift in American society. Liberalism and conservatism are just too "easy" and too "feel good" as positions to let us see the way here. As proof, just look at the positions groups still following traditionally successful liberal strategies (admittedly MY OWN positions over previous decades) are in now. It doesn't matter whether its Michaels/Carolinian, NC Heat, NAACP, Great Schools in Wake... I'm thinking it might be slowly starting to dawn on these guys that this issue is too complex for knee-jerk positions - they are fish out of water - short on tricks and being betrayed by their own knee-jerks into untenable positions.
Admitting there is a problem is not the same as slandering teachers, struggling with assignment issues is not resegregation. Its required to admit there is a systemic assignment/opportunity problem to address it. So we are. No one said the teachers are evil - teachers are no different than the rest of us - working to come to an understanding that will serve - and of course, they represent a total range of behaviors. But we have to admit the problem to diagnose it. If we act as satisfied customers, the problem will not get fixed.
But I have to sit and shake my head. I believe they believe - I am not suggesting cynicsm here. But in efforts like these exemplified by the most recent interactions with these four groups - don't they sometimes ponder - sometimes consider fearfully at how... how... retrograde their position on these issues are? I mean for goodness sake - they have become apologists for processes that are clearly destroying children in a system that registers discrimination and differential treatment by nothing more than social class. (I forget - where does traditional liberalism generally stand on that?). Its not just high track promotion/opportunity, that's only the tip of the iceberg. The damage procedes simulataneously at all levels. But their positions are so pre-defined, so knee-jerk, so counter-reactionary, that I cannot help but be amused at the caricature of real political activism it represents.
To employ 1960s imagery, I would describe this as the term that must be the largest, late-at-night boogeyman of their activist dreams - the high price of knee-jerk liberalism is finally come due. Things are simply more complex than that (in fact, they always were). In classic 1960s terms, these groups are acting as the dupes of the establishment.
Their "conservative" adherence to the liberal position in a 1968 world view has come full circle. They are the shills of class repression. It would be comical, if it was not so tragic. The clarity of 1968 is gone. We have to solve some problems here.
HOT AIR
Sat, 03/05/2011 - 19:31 — ClearThinkerIt would be nice if right-wing bloviators wouldn't take so much time and space patting themselves on the back, head, or whereever else makes them feel good these days for what they think they know.
1968? We live in a nation where prominent people running for president and selling books lower themselves in public discourse by deliberately lying about our president's birthright, just to score political points with the 51 percent bloc of the Republican Party that recent polling suggests is as ignorant as the day is long.
We have much of this same mentality on our school board. Would Longtime Lurker equate his overblown intellect with that of John Tedesco or Ron Margiotta, despite the fact that they all share the same ignorant political pedigree?
Let's be blunt - what conservatives in Wake County are doing is a power grab, as they are across the nation, and are trying to justify it using hundred dollar words to justify simple petty theft. The NCNAACP and others aren't just fighting these serpents in the streets and school board room, but in the courts. Thus far, they'v succeeded in getting under the skin of Margiotta and company, if not their denser-than-dirt heads.
Lurker, while I am no fan of absolute liberalism, we're seeing before our eyes the absurd overreach of the conservative mindset in Congress, Ohio, Wisconsin and all across the nation. We're certainly seeing the stupidity of the Republican majority in our own General Assembly. Exactly how many jobs are produced passing a law to protect sloppy emergency room doctors from major malpractice suits by capping them at $250,000, when the medical bills could be five times that?
So Lurker, you reek of a pompous superiority that Almighty God, in his wisdom, determined you and your ilk would NEVER be blessed with. Your numbers are small, but your egos and misguided intentions are infinite.
Toodles!
Oh hell
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 00:50 — LongtimeLurkerOh hell. I aimed under your skin and Clearly Think I hit my target. But which of us really takes themselves too seriously, Clear Thinker? As for my "ignorant political pedigree" and "pompous superiority" - isn't this simply the knee-jerk polarity I'm talking about? Your painting of me is not even decent parody - its extraordinarily off target. Good lord, the last Republican I voted for is dead now and that was well into the last century. And, in essense, that's my qualification to bring you this little zinger - not my command of what you call hundred-dollar words or my supposedly lock-step ideological position - my right to your left. What a joke.
You are certainly correct about the intentional duplicity of those questioning our President's pedigree and I agree this is only one jewell within the reactionary backlash we're experiencing. But that is just it - its a backlash - an opposition to some things that went too far. We've seen this before. I trust it will calm and swing back towards us, towards where most of us live. Meanwhile enjoy the debate and try not to get so... polarized. Isn't that what I'm commenting on - how a self-assured sense of which side everyone represents (and the surity of the perceived and probable egregious sins of the oppposition) can lead to ludicrous and untenable misalignments with the basic facts of the matter?
This is the jibe you're feeling - I hit a nerve pointing out that lots of self-assured advocates for children, for civil-rights, for educational practices, have lost their way specifically by repeating the same mistakes, acting out the same well-meaning solutions, and assuming we face the same enemies to change. We've been following these strategies for decades. All the while discriminatory practices - like those hiding under the hidden costs of our so-called gifted children's superior public educations - are perking right along. We haven't even been TOUCHING them. The machine doesn't even burp anymore when it eats up kids according to race and income and still the compassionate left (in other words, me, until I became immersed in this issue) is so sure that evil will come of letting these guys who forced this into the open help to fix these problems. The polarization is so deep that it cannot even be admitted that the fix they favor is needed because that would mean the "other side" had a valid point. What a delicious dilemma! That is why I said 1968 is over. Regardless of these polarized dramas that dominate the angry world view you seem caught up in - most people want these things fixed. They want things to work and be fair. So I teased - and I see I hit my mark.
I WATCHED this school system fight mightily and for some years against the dawning of this awareness. Plenty of people paid dearly for trying to point out these inequalities and biases and we are still only part way there. I've seen the figurative blood of idealists who joined the fight early. So its only fair for me to point out how adroitly this school system cloaked itself in these liberal sensibilities and kept right on eating children. And its fair to tease about the situation traditional advocates find themselves in now - where they have to choose between realizing they too played a part in class oppression versus joining in solving these problems.
Look, you thin-skinned dummy, I want the NAACP to bring actionable cases to court. We've just now opened this can of worms, but if they can find a viable legal case in this district a year from now then we should go to court. The threat should be there and be credible. In fact this is my fondest dream. We need to scour our educational system (here and nation-wide) clean of race and class discrimination. There is plenty of work to do leveling the playing field - a lot of what gets talked about here on this blog is how to detect and document those biases. So, lord knows the NAACP is needed. But they have to proceed with data analyses and push the legal proofs, not puff and play for public theater. That's ... ineffective. The message, the reason I'm "getting under your skin" is because I hit a nerve - because I said straight up that the people who think they have the legacy of liberal activism are off the track - they've lost site of the prize, got bogged down in an ineffective drama against enemies that are half-imagined. That's why I say 1968 is over. Because I remember the 1960s, and (in good spirit and to paraphrase a good politician) this sir, is not the 1960s.
The message, the reason I'm
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 13:03 — jenmanThe message, the reason I'm "getting under your skin" is because I hit a nerve - because I said straight up that the people who think they have the legacy of liberal activism are off the track - they've lost site of the prize, got bogged down in an ineffective drama against enemies that are half-imagined.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree Lurker and it's been frustrating to watch for several years now. The truth is somewhere in the middle and I'm tired of people using this issue for political gain. It's pathetic.
I for one agree
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 14:00 — Voice_of_Reason_The solution is in the middle and "no one size fits all." Partisan and race politics will get in the way of the proper and fair course of action I fear.
Unfortunately it has only become a slam the Republicans issue since the last school board election. I do realize that I and others have slammed some liberal groups such as the UU's, but it was due to the positions they took on the socio-economic busing policy.
Civility at it's best
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 00:02 — Voice_of_Reason_We will see how many stand with you in 2012. Your post above shows that you are clearly an intelligent and open minded individual that has most of the answers. I also shows that you possess great tolerance of others. You obviously reek of pompous superiority since God blessed you and your ilk [At least those that believe in God].
BTW- I know a few doctors that would disagree with your analysis of malpractice limitations. Why don't you tell your doctor next time you see him/her about what you think about it. It is not a cut and dry issue...If skyrocketing medical costs are to come down, malpractice has to be limited. No doctor makes mistakes on purpose. And in case you don't know, doctors are working their buts off these days for less and less money. Ever see a malpractice insurance premium? It's becoming less attractive to be a doctor anymore, and we all will pay for that... and I am not talking about money.
In addition to malpractice
Mon, 03/07/2011 - 17:30 — HJ2ss2In addition to malpractice there is payback for loans.....for some as much as $80,000 per year for the 4 years it takes to get through medical school.
I have nothing against
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 00:45 — ClearThinkerI have nothing against doctors, but like anyone else in life, if they screwup, they have to pay for the full extent of the damage, and should. I betcha if one of those high and mighty Republican lawmakers was paralyzed by a sleep-deprived ER doc, he wouldn't stop at five cents.
As for 2012, that will be a showdown for sure, and I CAN NOT WAIT!
As for 2012, that will be a
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 09:12 — woodstockAs for 2012, that will be a showdown for sure, and I CAN NOT WAIT!
Huh? Are you a masochist?
Funny thing is
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 10:35 — Voice_of_Reason_I don't think he/she realized I was being sarcastic. I guess he/she is delusional about the national mood also. I bet he/she thought 2010 was an anomaly, all the fault of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
Like I said
Sun, 03/06/2011 - 10:15 — Voice_of_Reason_Next time you go to a doctor. Please relay your views. Your point of view in a great recruiting tool for more doctors. Every wonder why so many doctors these days aren't native citizens? We have a doctor shortage already and it is going to get worse if Obamacare moves forward. The sleep deprived ER doc you reference may be sleep deprived because they are overworked and understaffed, somebody has to be there. Doctors aren't superhuman (even though in some cases they are close). Ever wonder who you hurt when you sue a doctor? A: Everbody. Prices go up because malpractice insurance goes up for all doctors. I rather a system where incompetent doctors lose their license.
Of course you know all of this because you are so smart.
BTW- Since your side really wants single-payer government run healthcare, I suggest you investigate what those government run healthcare countries do about malpractice claims. I think you may be surprised. I know the US military (only true government run healthcare in US) has no provisions for malpractice for their healthcare; that's right ZERO.