EZ: You confused me with this item: "“Next time you want to dress up at the rallies, wear the right-f**king-colored coats.”"
Exactly why is the word "fuck" spelled with two asterisks. when you always use the entire word?
As for Brandon Johnson refusing to answer why he turned down Catholic Charities offers of empty school & church buildings, the actual answer is easy.
He & his buddies in the leadership of the teachers union are getting kickbacks from the private companies hired to run the various shelters, that the city is paying a large fortune of out tax money to operate!
I think it was printed as "f**king" in the quote because that's how it was heard on air since Comedy Central bleeped the word. I think it's good attention to detail in a quote.
The expurgation was in Charlie Meyerson's section, which I typically don't micro-edit. He's more sparing than I am when it comes to vulgarities. And/or he did it bedause Comedy Central bleeped the word "fucking." They don't have to do that. It's basic cable.
I said to my wife right after the State to the Union that I really wanted the media to start asking every right-wing nutjob making disingenuous and cynical issue out of the murder in Georgia if they can name one person killed in Parkland, Highland Park, Pulse night club, Uvalde, etc. I think the failure to do so is media malpractice.
The tweet of the week contest after all this time has made me realize I'm the only one of your readers who knows what's funny. I'm used to it though, ever since high school I'm the only person who ever knows who the good bands are.
Well I definitely will submit to the Tune of the Week. This is English singer-songwriter/troubadour Frank Turner. He's in his early 40s and this song is from 2011 when he was around 30. He grew up listening to heavy metal music and joined a hardcore punk band when he was young. At some point in his early-mid 20s someone gave him a copy of Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska and it changed his musical direction. He now fuses punk and folk traditions and a decent amount of his songs are sociopolitical. He's kind of the Millennial version of Billy Bragg. He has a new album coming out so I thought about posting his brand new single that was just released to go with a REALLY recent track. But this is just one of his best songs and a really fun video.
Laura Washington's column about shrinking portion sizes reminded me of an old Andy Rooney segment where he complained about toilet paper roll sizes shrinking to mask increased cost. Which lead to "double sized" rolls coming out which would just be the same size as the prior standard size.
The question for each restaurant is whether its customers would respond better to even higher price increase or smaller portion sizes.
I actually find this amusing. It doesn't affect me much because I rarely eat out. How many years ago was it that restaurants started offering super-sized portions so they could rise prices. Then you ended up taking home half in a doggie bag. Now the prices are rising, but not the portions. So what's next? Smaller portions? Cheaper brands? Or do they try the McDonald's thing and you get a toy with each meal? I'm not blaming them. I know inflation and minimum wage restrictions are hurting them. It doesn't matter. I still decide what to do with my shrinking cash.
Rather than robotically following whatever rules of grammar one adheres to, how a sentence sounds is should be taken into account. In regard to the sentence, “None of the books was/were returned”, “were” just sounds better. I think it’s because if you delete the “None of,” you would definitely say, “The books were returned.” So, I’m thinking that “None” serves as an adjective rather than a noun.
I have to wonder what interview fell through to make Laura Washington pen that whiny screed about restaurant prices. She leaves no cliche unquoted: "Serving sizes have shrunk to the point that I need to put on my eyeglass readers to wield a knife and fork." Really? Complaining that she can buy food cheaper at TJ's and Whole Foods? It was ever thus. And the difference between four glass pours per bottle (her ideal) and five glass pours per bottle (infuriating) is one ounce per glass.
I went to a restaurant and the CORKAGE FEE charged to those who brought their own wine was $15 per person drinking from the bottle. Liquor/wine/drink prices (particularly) at restaurants have gotten ridiculous.
That's a shockingly high corkage fee -- which restaurant? I didn't know you could even do that at restaurants that serve their own wine. But I can certainly see why restaurants would want to discourage people bringing their own wine. Alcohol is a major profit center in the hospitality industry. You can buy a six pack of decent beer for what one beer at the ballpark costs you, for instance, but I get it. OR rather, I don't get it since I don't often go to ballparks anymore.
It is interesting just how stupid the CTU thinks that people are. Hey Eric, do you have any suggestions to good, objective papers that explore what the problems of the CPS system are, their cause and possible solutions?
I think the problems with most CPS schools begin and end with the principals. You could blame the higher leadership for that.
Running an operation well requires leaders who know how to do that and want to do that and nothing else. They don’t need a bunch of rules or policies, but they do need the authority to deal with problems (students, teachers, parents) as they deem appropriate. Looking for fixes spelled out on paper is fruitless. The solution to any dysfunctional operation is hiring effective leadership that already knows what to do, and empowering them.
Now, there may be structural challenges such as work rules, tenure, and policies that prevent taking the necessary actions with students and teachers. That’s where higher leadership needs to be replaced with people whose only desire is to make sure the schools succeed for the majority of students.
In short, hire and empower better principals. Don’t tell them what to do - not a single thing. Fire them quickly if you chose poorly.
I do not agree that looking for fixes spelled out on paper is fruitless because people who've done the research will identify the specific problems that they've found and those that CPS employees, including teachers, identified.
Yes, principals matter, but without a good systemic study, you can't say that they are THE problem. Many things matter, you've identified a few examples, but they are not all at the same level and prioritization to fix them can only be accomplished through an evaluation process. I'm looking for such studies because I haven't found any.
I guess I'm skeptical of consultant reports, etc as a way to fix a poorly operating organization. If an organization is struggling, it's almost surely because the people who should be making it run successfully don't know what they're doing or don't care enough. Such leaders don't need more training, they need to be replaced. All the good teams I've been a part of were good without any formal processes beyond what the team and leaders themselves knew to be worthwhile. The single most important responsibility is hiring good people and replacing any mistakes. Unfortunately public schools aren't structured to do this - more the opposite - from HQ, principals, teachers down to the students.
I do agree that it would be helpful to identify practices like teacher tenure, social promotion, not transferring disruptive students to an alternate school, and hiring multiple vice-principals as counter-productive to solving the problem of ineffective principals, teachers, and disruptive students. But I don't think any study could convince CPS to make structural changes like that. In the meantime, the most effective thing to do is hire principals who have demonstrated that they can run a successful school even with those impediments, and remove the principals who can't.
I understand your argument but how do you fix a system when it's complicated and the problems aren't identified? I'm sure that incompetence is part of the problem, but is it a large or small part? What of the parents? Are they engaged or not? Do they consider knowledge a priority? Do they promote good manners? What of the teachers? Are they competent, do they know their subjects well enough to apply them professionally? Are they engaged? What of the system? Is it geared to merely pass students through? Does it sacrifice the top performing students to promote the low performers? What of the low performers? There are people who are simply not smart, the low 16%, and they need help to be able to support themselves but not go to college, is that recognized? What of tracking students according to their innate capabilities? ETC.
I think that only a competent, knowledgeable researcher can tease the system apart to enable repair but we also need to be objective enough to accept reality.
“how do you fix a system when it's complicated and the problems aren't identified”
Hire only people who have already demonstrated that they can run a system (school, classroom, district) successfully. They will know. It’s like hiring an NFL GM. to fix a bad team. You don’t have to identify to him what you think is wrong (really, who cares) you just need someone who does it right. THAT guy will KNOW if the coaches suck, or certain toxic players, or maybe the owner himself.
I think you covered all of the key questions. Data is probably lacking, in part, because these issues are so ideologically freighted by the educational system. School boards are highly politicized. Unions are focused on their power and economics. So, it is difficult to find an objective perspective and to find an audience for it. The lack of data gets worse with the criticism of and opposition to testing and the shift to subjective assessments of 'progress'. There is also the question of the role of the schools. Traditionally, the school was primarily, if not strictly focused on instruction. The current CPS and CTU see the schools as broad child-welfare and community development vehicles. This tends to conflate educational issues with social and political issues. I don't know where to look for leadership or solutions.
Aside from your points, I had conversations with a few teachers last weekend and they complained of the same thing: parents were getting in the way. What they meant was that when the teacher, the people that I spoke with, were talking to the parents about some shortcoming on the part of the child the parents argued for them to disregard it!
So, the question "are the parents engaged" is itself more complicated and therefore requires a full discussion, not a "yes" or "no" answer. The lack of such data can leave people to think that "engaged parents" is a positive when it can be just as bad as disengaged parents, IMO.
I'm pretty tired of simplistic arguments regarding education. No singling anyone out here, but I feel its important to take a serious look at student performance and consider as many variables as possible before sneering that public schools are failing or cheering that charter/private schools are succeeding. Or cheering that states with unionized teacher workforces have better outcomes than non-unionized teachers. And so on.
What is the "secret sauce" that lifts one student population over another? Or what is the hidden anvil that holds another student population down? I ask this of "school choice" people all the time Can you set aside your leanings -- your fondness for religious education, your hatred for public sector unions -- and seek solutions that don't just involve flattering your pet notions?
I am sure we have all heard attempts of this by comparing the US to other countries. The proposal is basically, "be like Finland" or whatever. The problem is that education is such a big part of the culture and that differs between countries. Education priorities in countries were students get tracked into trades in high school would be unacceptable in the US.
There are definitely people who claim their favored ideas will deliver much better results than the status quo. Privatizing schools is a prime example. Racial desegregation is another one (which is going out of favor in some progressive circles). De-tracking, homework elimination, math sections just for girls, are all hyped up ideas supported by narratives but are thin on evidence.
What is lacking in public discourse is a comprehensive analysis which measures multiple effects that explain differences in achievement between students. Some of those effects will be within the control or influence of school districts and some will not.
My take on EZ's comment is that proponents of ideas in education should do more than present a single-variable correlation to support their idea.
EZ, i'll make the same recommendation i've made to you before - if you're really serious about finding out [not just heckling, hand-wringing from the peanut gallery] part of the answer as to why school choice works better than assigned attendance area public/govt schools, go visit North Lawndale College Prep Charter High School. again, it's not THE answer - but it's part of the answer.
i'll be interested to hear your report after your visit, and your conversations with students, staff, admin`and parents.
and maybe contact arne duncan for an interview - i think he could enlighten you on the value of school choice in gen'l, and charter schools in particular.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but should add a few things. Principals in CPS have very limited authority. They need to answer to downtown. Because of union contracts, they have limited control over their teachers. Many deal with student populations with limited support from home and backgrounds ill-suited for higher learning. Successful principals either work at selective schools or do their best to work inside the restrictions. I have an administrative degree. They just don't teach that much in graduate classes about dealing with students with little interest in the classroom and politicians constantly pushing personal agendas. Whatever they are paid, it's not enough.
In the CTU comments, EZ left out the obvious sympathetic complicity of the CPS board. The CPS board, appointed by Mayor Johnson, casually accepted the CTU assertion that the event is not political and said there was no ethics problem, so participation is fine. I'll bet that decision took seconds of deep thought.
EZ , Mayor Johnson believes that he has his comms act together. They don't like or accept pesky questions from reporters, or anyone else. They also feel no obligation to respond to 'attacks', and all questions are attacks. They have already stated on several occasions that they believe the local news media is 'against' them. And, like Stacey Davis-Gates, the mayor knows that snappy, flip responses play to their base. They also bet that time is on their side. The media and public will forget and move on from any individual issue.
The only thing worse than the Bears and Sox asking for public money is the willingness of local politicians to listen and look for ways to provide it. I also hope that everyone will multiply the estimates by at least 2, since no public project has ever come in on budget.
I have the same assumption, but I don't blame either group for asking for money in exchange for nothing.
I also don't favor giving individuals in either group a direct handout because that is an incentive for them to be a nuisance. Which is not to say that I don't support charities. I have been donating to the Chicago Food Depository and other charities for a very long time.
It raises the question over who should get hand-outs. It is the norm for businesses to get tax breaks in exchange for putting in office in a specific city or state. Boeing, Kraft-Heinz and McDonald's all got that from Chicago. I am not sure how I feel about that. But is that categorically different from giving the Sox a new stadium?
Ahh... "something for nothing and your chicks for free." If I give a panhandler a few bucks, I don't expect to get anything back, not even a feeling of righteous goodness. But if a billionaire sports team owner wants a 2nd shot at public money on public land, Chicago should expect something more. Institutions of higher learning and municipalities get jack shit from high-cost sports when any objective economist runs the numbers. Back when Soldier Field plans were initially being bandied about, a Monet exhibit brought in about 3x the most optimistic Bears estimate, as I recall. Bears fans come in from the suburbs and tailgate and spend virtually no money here. Perhaps corporations get unjustified tax breaks, but generally don't ask for hundreds of millions of dollars in advance.
I have zero respect for the CTU at this point. Wow, that was fast. There was a time, not so long ago, when I held the group and its leadership in high esteem and could even imagine supporting Karen Lewis for mayor! I wish the word "hacktivist" wasn't already taken for cyber criminals. I would like to use it for hack activists -- as in, not only shrill and one-sided but really bad at it besides -- who have taken over the union and City Hall too.
The indoctrination "field trip" is outrageous. I loved where the original letter said something to the effect, Isn't it annoying to be faced with "conflicting information" when you're a young voter? Yeah, all those pesky opinions and ideas floating around! I guess we could teach civics and give students the tools they need to make sense of current events. Or we could really streamline that process and just tell kids what to think and how to vote. With art and dance!
Just so. From the letter: "Do you remember your first time voting? Were you nervous? Excited? Confused at what to do? What if, instead of standing in a long line and feeling overwhelmed by a mountain of conflicting information, you were able to get voting support from the candidates themselves and vote for the first time alongside your friends and classmates?"
Conflicting information comes atcha fast in a democracy. Absorbing it and processing it is what a responsible voter does. Every candidate wants to offer "voting support." So a true voter forum is SUPPOSED to leave you feeling at least a little confused. That wording was pretty appalling.
Mayor Johnson is more like Mayor Lightfoot than he might like to believe. Both Mayors think that failures and opposition are due to ignorant or evil opponents. The Mayors believe that their desires should be obviously righteous and correct to all. So, opponents are not adult and any comments they make are not valid.
I'm missing something here. The homebuilders, realtors, and other businesses are being treated as if they oppose helping the homeless. That's the feeling I get from reading the comments about those supporting the initiative. Have any of the supporters ask any of the naysayers whether or not they oppose helping the homeless? The question is how to fund it. It's been all over the news the past few years about those packing up and leaving Chicago. The transfer tax won't mean much unless people stay and buy and sell houses. Usage of were or was? I am not an English major. I have not studied journalism. I think I probably represent 95% or more of the public in saying that. It's about communication. Did the message get through? I understand the struggles of those that wish to preserve a finer style of writing and speaking the language. However(notice I did not use the more common "but") in ordinary conversation, I believe we can overthink it. I know from reading this forum there are some extremely educated, well thought out people that express themselves quite nicely. Me? I'm a prosaic guy that spends the vast amount of his time talking to people not quite that educated. We talk plainly and somehow manage to get our messages across. I also wish to refer to the former ebonics in schools debate a decade or more ago. The big argument there was about the manner of speaking of black people. One side said they needed to learn to speak proper English to move up in the world. The claim of supporters was that blacks could understand each other just fine and shouldn't be judged for doing it. Who won? Now we have Internet speak which works just fine as long as people don't actually meet in person. I don't know- am I being too plain in talking about this?
EZ: You confused me with this item: "“Next time you want to dress up at the rallies, wear the right-f**king-colored coats.”"
Exactly why is the word "fuck" spelled with two asterisks. when you always use the entire word?
As for Brandon Johnson refusing to answer why he turned down Catholic Charities offers of empty school & church buildings, the actual answer is easy.
He & his buddies in the leadership of the teachers union are getting kickbacks from the private companies hired to run the various shelters, that the city is paying a large fortune of out tax money to operate!
It is the classic Chicago Way!
I think it was printed as "f**king" in the quote because that's how it was heard on air since Comedy Central bleeped the word. I think it's good attention to detail in a quote.
The expurgation was in Charlie Meyerson's section, which I typically don't micro-edit. He's more sparing than I am when it comes to vulgarities. And/or he did it bedause Comedy Central bleeped the word "fucking." They don't have to do that. It's basic cable.
I said to my wife right after the State to the Union that I really wanted the media to start asking every right-wing nutjob making disingenuous and cynical issue out of the murder in Georgia if they can name one person killed in Parkland, Highland Park, Pulse night club, Uvalde, etc. I think the failure to do so is media malpractice.
The tweet of the week contest after all this time has made me realize I'm the only one of your readers who knows what's funny. I'm used to it though, ever since high school I'm the only person who ever knows who the good bands are.
that makes 2 of us 😉
Was versus were? I was told there'd be no homework on Picayune Sentinel.
Well I definitely will submit to the Tune of the Week. This is English singer-songwriter/troubadour Frank Turner. He's in his early 40s and this song is from 2011 when he was around 30. He grew up listening to heavy metal music and joined a hardcore punk band when he was young. At some point in his early-mid 20s someone gave him a copy of Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska and it changed his musical direction. He now fuses punk and folk traditions and a decent amount of his songs are sociopolitical. He's kind of the Millennial version of Billy Bragg. He has a new album coming out so I thought about posting his brand new single that was just released to go with a REALLY recent track. But this is just one of his best songs and a really fun video.
https://youtu.be/sZ-D4jmkUiQ?si=6NCvem4c9Ewmkz7d
Excellent choice. Also one of the great concert experiences these days.
Thanks! I'm going to be collecting these, auditioning and using them. Gotta keep my wife happy.
Request lines are open?
https://youtu.be/4qA1SEb0e60?si=DFmQu3DtF9o0-XzB
https://youtu.be/VhGJ_KFAU_8?si=Ypw6K4Kvc20IrUZ9
https://youtu.be/2B2ZE1D4yn4?si=-7kjcIIfN5kwn_pQ
Laura Washington's column about shrinking portion sizes reminded me of an old Andy Rooney segment where he complained about toilet paper roll sizes shrinking to mask increased cost. Which lead to "double sized" rolls coming out which would just be the same size as the prior standard size.
The question for each restaurant is whether its customers would respond better to even higher price increase or smaller portion sizes.
I actually find this amusing. It doesn't affect me much because I rarely eat out. How many years ago was it that restaurants started offering super-sized portions so they could rise prices. Then you ended up taking home half in a doggie bag. Now the prices are rising, but not the portions. So what's next? Smaller portions? Cheaper brands? Or do they try the McDonald's thing and you get a toy with each meal? I'm not blaming them. I know inflation and minimum wage restrictions are hurting them. It doesn't matter. I still decide what to do with my shrinking cash.
Rather than robotically following whatever rules of grammar one adheres to, how a sentence sounds is should be taken into account. In regard to the sentence, “None of the books was/were returned”, “were” just sounds better. I think it’s because if you delete the “None of,” you would definitely say, “The books were returned.” So, I’m thinking that “None” serves as an adjective rather than a noun.
Usage does matter, even if it's "wrong." For every one time someone says "It is I,"people say "it's me" 999 times.
It’s not you, but I, who am guilty of saying it’s me.
I have to wonder what interview fell through to make Laura Washington pen that whiny screed about restaurant prices. She leaves no cliche unquoted: "Serving sizes have shrunk to the point that I need to put on my eyeglass readers to wield a knife and fork." Really? Complaining that she can buy food cheaper at TJ's and Whole Foods? It was ever thus. And the difference between four glass pours per bottle (her ideal) and five glass pours per bottle (infuriating) is one ounce per glass.
1.268 ounces. 25% less. Solution: buy the bottle! Unless, of course, they've jacked that price up 25% too. ;)
Since June of 2020 inflation totals 19%, so a 25% increase isn't that out of line.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/calculator-cumulative/
She could also bring her own bottle & pay a small corkage fee to the restaurant, covers the glasses & the waiter pouring it.
So if you buy a $16 bottle of wine & pay the restaurant $4-$5 corkage fee, you're still way ahead of the game.
I went to a restaurant and the CORKAGE FEE charged to those who brought their own wine was $15 per person drinking from the bottle. Liquor/wine/drink prices (particularly) at restaurants have gotten ridiculous.
That's a shockingly high corkage fee -- which restaurant? I didn't know you could even do that at restaurants that serve their own wine. But I can certainly see why restaurants would want to discourage people bringing their own wine. Alcohol is a major profit center in the hospitality industry. You can buy a six pack of decent beer for what one beer at the ballpark costs you, for instance, but I get it. OR rather, I don't get it since I don't often go to ballparks anymore.
I can't remember the specific restaurant.
It is interesting just how stupid the CTU thinks that people are. Hey Eric, do you have any suggestions to good, objective papers that explore what the problems of the CPS system are, their cause and possible solutions?
Here's the #1 problem with CPS.
The number of students is way down, from 30 years ago, easily 100,000 less, yet the number of employees it way up, from about 25,000 to 43,000.
Why?
There are also at least 100 out of 643 school buildings that are vastly underused & cost a fortune to keep operating.
They should be closed & consolidated.
The entire system is corrupt!
Those are definitely problems. But what bout student performance problems?
I think the problems with most CPS schools begin and end with the principals. You could blame the higher leadership for that.
Running an operation well requires leaders who know how to do that and want to do that and nothing else. They don’t need a bunch of rules or policies, but they do need the authority to deal with problems (students, teachers, parents) as they deem appropriate. Looking for fixes spelled out on paper is fruitless. The solution to any dysfunctional operation is hiring effective leadership that already knows what to do, and empowering them.
Now, there may be structural challenges such as work rules, tenure, and policies that prevent taking the necessary actions with students and teachers. That’s where higher leadership needs to be replaced with people whose only desire is to make sure the schools succeed for the majority of students.
In short, hire and empower better principals. Don’t tell them what to do - not a single thing. Fire them quickly if you chose poorly.
I do not agree that looking for fixes spelled out on paper is fruitless because people who've done the research will identify the specific problems that they've found and those that CPS employees, including teachers, identified.
Yes, principals matter, but without a good systemic study, you can't say that they are THE problem. Many things matter, you've identified a few examples, but they are not all at the same level and prioritization to fix them can only be accomplished through an evaluation process. I'm looking for such studies because I haven't found any.
I guess I'm skeptical of consultant reports, etc as a way to fix a poorly operating organization. If an organization is struggling, it's almost surely because the people who should be making it run successfully don't know what they're doing or don't care enough. Such leaders don't need more training, they need to be replaced. All the good teams I've been a part of were good without any formal processes beyond what the team and leaders themselves knew to be worthwhile. The single most important responsibility is hiring good people and replacing any mistakes. Unfortunately public schools aren't structured to do this - more the opposite - from HQ, principals, teachers down to the students.
I do agree that it would be helpful to identify practices like teacher tenure, social promotion, not transferring disruptive students to an alternate school, and hiring multiple vice-principals as counter-productive to solving the problem of ineffective principals, teachers, and disruptive students. But I don't think any study could convince CPS to make structural changes like that. In the meantime, the most effective thing to do is hire principals who have demonstrated that they can run a successful school even with those impediments, and remove the principals who can't.
I understand your argument but how do you fix a system when it's complicated and the problems aren't identified? I'm sure that incompetence is part of the problem, but is it a large or small part? What of the parents? Are they engaged or not? Do they consider knowledge a priority? Do they promote good manners? What of the teachers? Are they competent, do they know their subjects well enough to apply them professionally? Are they engaged? What of the system? Is it geared to merely pass students through? Does it sacrifice the top performing students to promote the low performers? What of the low performers? There are people who are simply not smart, the low 16%, and they need help to be able to support themselves but not go to college, is that recognized? What of tracking students according to their innate capabilities? ETC.
I think that only a competent, knowledgeable researcher can tease the system apart to enable repair but we also need to be objective enough to accept reality.
“how do you fix a system when it's complicated and the problems aren't identified”
Hire only people who have already demonstrated that they can run a system (school, classroom, district) successfully. They will know. It’s like hiring an NFL GM. to fix a bad team. You don’t have to identify to him what you think is wrong (really, who cares) you just need someone who does it right. THAT guy will KNOW if the coaches suck, or certain toxic players, or maybe the owner himself.
I think you covered all of the key questions. Data is probably lacking, in part, because these issues are so ideologically freighted by the educational system. School boards are highly politicized. Unions are focused on their power and economics. So, it is difficult to find an objective perspective and to find an audience for it. The lack of data gets worse with the criticism of and opposition to testing and the shift to subjective assessments of 'progress'. There is also the question of the role of the schools. Traditionally, the school was primarily, if not strictly focused on instruction. The current CPS and CTU see the schools as broad child-welfare and community development vehicles. This tends to conflate educational issues with social and political issues. I don't know where to look for leadership or solutions.
Aside from your points, I had conversations with a few teachers last weekend and they complained of the same thing: parents were getting in the way. What they meant was that when the teacher, the people that I spoke with, were talking to the parents about some shortcoming on the part of the child the parents argued for them to disregard it!
So, the question "are the parents engaged" is itself more complicated and therefore requires a full discussion, not a "yes" or "no" answer. The lack of such data can leave people to think that "engaged parents" is a positive when it can be just as bad as disengaged parents, IMO.
I'm pretty tired of simplistic arguments regarding education. No singling anyone out here, but I feel its important to take a serious look at student performance and consider as many variables as possible before sneering that public schools are failing or cheering that charter/private schools are succeeding. Or cheering that states with unionized teacher workforces have better outcomes than non-unionized teachers. And so on.
What is the "secret sauce" that lifts one student population over another? Or what is the hidden anvil that holds another student population down? I ask this of "school choice" people all the time Can you set aside your leanings -- your fondness for religious education, your hatred for public sector unions -- and seek solutions that don't just involve flattering your pet notions?
I am sure we have all heard attempts of this by comparing the US to other countries. The proposal is basically, "be like Finland" or whatever. The problem is that education is such a big part of the culture and that differs between countries. Education priorities in countries were students get tracked into trades in high school would be unacceptable in the US.
Do you actually think there is a secret sauce or anvil? Does anyone claim that?
There are definitely people who claim their favored ideas will deliver much better results than the status quo. Privatizing schools is a prime example. Racial desegregation is another one (which is going out of favor in some progressive circles). De-tracking, homework elimination, math sections just for girls, are all hyped up ideas supported by narratives but are thin on evidence.
What is lacking in public discourse is a comprehensive analysis which measures multiple effects that explain differences in achievement between students. Some of those effects will be within the control or influence of school districts and some will not.
My take on EZ's comment is that proponents of ideas in education should do more than present a single-variable correlation to support their idea.
EZ, i'll make the same recommendation i've made to you before - if you're really serious about finding out [not just heckling, hand-wringing from the peanut gallery] part of the answer as to why school choice works better than assigned attendance area public/govt schools, go visit North Lawndale College Prep Charter High School. again, it's not THE answer - but it's part of the answer.
i'll be interested to hear your report after your visit, and your conversations with students, staff, admin`and parents.
and maybe contact arne duncan for an interview - i think he could enlighten you on the value of school choice in gen'l, and charter schools in particular.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but should add a few things. Principals in CPS have very limited authority. They need to answer to downtown. Because of union contracts, they have limited control over their teachers. Many deal with student populations with limited support from home and backgrounds ill-suited for higher learning. Successful principals either work at selective schools or do their best to work inside the restrictions. I have an administrative degree. They just don't teach that much in graduate classes about dealing with students with little interest in the classroom and politicians constantly pushing personal agendas. Whatever they are paid, it's not enough.
In the CTU comments, EZ left out the obvious sympathetic complicity of the CPS board. The CPS board, appointed by Mayor Johnson, casually accepted the CTU assertion that the event is not political and said there was no ethics problem, so participation is fine. I'll bet that decision took seconds of deep thought.
spot on, MM - CPS board asleep at the switch.
EZ , Mayor Johnson believes that he has his comms act together. They don't like or accept pesky questions from reporters, or anyone else. They also feel no obligation to respond to 'attacks', and all questions are attacks. They have already stated on several occasions that they believe the local news media is 'against' them. And, like Stacey Davis-Gates, the mayor knows that snappy, flip responses play to their base. They also bet that time is on their side. The media and public will forget and move on from any individual issue.
The only thing worse than the Bears and Sox asking for public money is the willingness of local politicians to listen and look for ways to provide it. I also hope that everyone will multiply the estimates by at least 2, since no public project has ever come in on budget.
Like giving money to panhandlers has the effect to increase panhandling.
I always assume panhandlers are worse off than I am. Conversely, I assume sports team owners are better off, and don't need my or the public's money.
I have the same assumption, but I don't blame either group for asking for money in exchange for nothing.
I also don't favor giving individuals in either group a direct handout because that is an incentive for them to be a nuisance. Which is not to say that I don't support charities. I have been donating to the Chicago Food Depository and other charities for a very long time.
It raises the question over who should get hand-outs. It is the norm for businesses to get tax breaks in exchange for putting in office in a specific city or state. Boeing, Kraft-Heinz and McDonald's all got that from Chicago. I am not sure how I feel about that. But is that categorically different from giving the Sox a new stadium?
Ahh... "something for nothing and your chicks for free." If I give a panhandler a few bucks, I don't expect to get anything back, not even a feeling of righteous goodness. But if a billionaire sports team owner wants a 2nd shot at public money on public land, Chicago should expect something more. Institutions of higher learning and municipalities get jack shit from high-cost sports when any objective economist runs the numbers. Back when Soldier Field plans were initially being bandied about, a Monet exhibit brought in about 3x the most optimistic Bears estimate, as I recall. Bears fans come in from the suburbs and tailgate and spend virtually no money here. Perhaps corporations get unjustified tax breaks, but generally don't ask for hundreds of millions of dollars in advance.
I have zero respect for the CTU at this point. Wow, that was fast. There was a time, not so long ago, when I held the group and its leadership in high esteem and could even imagine supporting Karen Lewis for mayor! I wish the word "hacktivist" wasn't already taken for cyber criminals. I would like to use it for hack activists -- as in, not only shrill and one-sided but really bad at it besides -- who have taken over the union and City Hall too.
The indoctrination "field trip" is outrageous. I loved where the original letter said something to the effect, Isn't it annoying to be faced with "conflicting information" when you're a young voter? Yeah, all those pesky opinions and ideas floating around! I guess we could teach civics and give students the tools they need to make sense of current events. Or we could really streamline that process and just tell kids what to think and how to vote. With art and dance!
Just so. From the letter: "Do you remember your first time voting? Were you nervous? Excited? Confused at what to do? What if, instead of standing in a long line and feeling overwhelmed by a mountain of conflicting information, you were able to get voting support from the candidates themselves and vote for the first time alongside your friends and classmates?"
Conflicting information comes atcha fast in a democracy. Absorbing it and processing it is what a responsible voter does. Every candidate wants to offer "voting support." So a true voter forum is SUPPOSED to leave you feeling at least a little confused. That wording was pretty appalling.
If it was good enough for Alfred the Great, it's good enough for me.
Mayor Johnson is more like Mayor Lightfoot than he might like to believe. Both Mayors think that failures and opposition are due to ignorant or evil opponents. The Mayors believe that their desires should be obviously righteous and correct to all. So, opponents are not adult and any comments they make are not valid.
I'm missing something here. The homebuilders, realtors, and other businesses are being treated as if they oppose helping the homeless. That's the feeling I get from reading the comments about those supporting the initiative. Have any of the supporters ask any of the naysayers whether or not they oppose helping the homeless? The question is how to fund it. It's been all over the news the past few years about those packing up and leaving Chicago. The transfer tax won't mean much unless people stay and buy and sell houses. Usage of were or was? I am not an English major. I have not studied journalism. I think I probably represent 95% or more of the public in saying that. It's about communication. Did the message get through? I understand the struggles of those that wish to preserve a finer style of writing and speaking the language. However(notice I did not use the more common "but") in ordinary conversation, I believe we can overthink it. I know from reading this forum there are some extremely educated, well thought out people that express themselves quite nicely. Me? I'm a prosaic guy that spends the vast amount of his time talking to people not quite that educated. We talk plainly and somehow manage to get our messages across. I also wish to refer to the former ebonics in schools debate a decade or more ago. The big argument there was about the manner of speaking of black people. One side said they needed to learn to speak proper English to move up in the world. The claim of supporters was that blacks could understand each other just fine and shouldn't be judged for doing it. Who won? Now we have Internet speak which works just fine as long as people don't actually meet in person. I don't know- am I being too plain in talking about this?