I would be much more inclined to a school choice plan where a school had to accept every applicant (with admissions possibly based on a lottery).
As long as it is in the hands of fellow teachers, that could probably be done is a reasonable way.
Looking for genuine discourse re: Donald Sterling/NBA
- Thread starter HighlandHomie
- Start date
I would be much more inclined to a school choice plan where a school had to accept every applicant (with admissions possibly based on a lottery).
As long as it is in the hands of fellow teachers, that could probably be done is a reasonable way.
OK fair enough. But I believe in the saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Your approach is offputting and I truly believe it does more harm than good.
Also if you are truly angry about this then perhaps a Jazz message board is not the best use of your time in this cause of yours.
Maybe not. But who would take my place here? GVC and franklin just aren't angry enough.
A lottery would work. As for the "had to accept everybody", that is where I was going with "first come first serve".
As for it being in the hands of fellow teachers. I think teachers should be involved but not only teachers. There should also be administrators(local level), PTA and school board members.
You are missing the point. Possibly due to my phrasing.
No one needs to take that role of "angry race poster". It is my eyes a damaging, useless role.
When it comes to setting standards, I agree with broader involvement. However, the entire reason teacher's unions exist is because, historically, teachers have felt that administrators, school board members, etc. were making decisions too arbitrarily and for the wrong reasons. If you want the disciplinary council to be respected by teachers, it will need to be controlled by teachers.
I understand that you think it is a damaging, useless role. I disagree.
Genuine Dysentery
I am not askign for it to be in the hands of only administrators. But a fair and even venture between all three. For example a three person council with one teacher, one PTA member and administrator.
That may seem fair to you, and it may be fair in some objective sense, but I don't know that the teachers will have much respect for it. My parents both suffered at times from the political games that administrators and PTA members play; I don't think either of them would have trusted such a council.
That may be but what we have now is obviously not working. Also there would be a process of course. Not a simple, we didn't like you your fired approach. But due process and it would have to build to a firing.
What about a 5 member council that includes 2 teachers, 1 PTA member and 2 administrators? The balance can be adjusted to address those concerns.
framer
Well-Known Member
And yet there are teachers that are pissed off because they have to work for and with incompetents. My kids go to a charter school, no teachers union, no fancy tenure issues, bad teachers wash out, good ones are happy, and the school is very high performing. Enrollment just maxed out, so instead of instituting a lottery, they are just going to build two more just like it, one of them in the poorest section of town. Arizona lets us earmark a portion of our own state tax bill to help out with stuff like this. They have to wear uniforms, discipline is very strict and in most cases taken off the plate of teachers, which is a benefit to them. There are no buses so parents have to commit to getting their kids to school and one to two hours of homework a night is required.
And the best part is they do this without the by-your-leave of people who want to put a myriad of restrictions on what choice you can make. See the stupid thing about lotteries is that you are consigning the kids that lose to a crap education and possibly a poor outcome in life. The answer is to put the power of choice into the hands of the parents, even if that means crowding out public schools and teachers unions. Reward financially schools that get it right and give them the incentive to expand. And yes this will involve some people giving up the control that they have become accustomed to .
Don't like the idea of uniforms. The kids should have some leeway for expression
Homework is fine.
Like that the bad teachers wash out and that they are expanding the # of schools
I see the point of requiring the parents to drive them but that is not always possible.
As for your lottery comments. That consigns a section of kids to a poorer education already. Even by buyilding a school in a poor area some of the requirements will automatically exclude some of the kids. Such as bringing the kids to school and the cost of uniforms. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. A lottery at least mixes it up.
Pretty much. What we need is for less dip ****s who don't know the first thing about educating children to shut up and let the professionals do what they've been trained to do well. That can start with the know-it-alls who think our schools are failing because some scaremonger brainwashed them.
Some of y'all talk way too much about things you know nothing about. I wonder how you'd feel if the public constantly scrutinized your job like you do theirs.
Lol, they do.
Overzealous education can be very detrimental to children. This attitude is causing a lot of mental issues later on down the road.
Yes. You are not immune to the private consequences of your speech.
The difference is as follows:
You can be a member of the KKK and say every vicious and vitriolic thing you want and the government will not stop your printing presses for your fliers or take your website away or otherwise stop you from speaking. They'll probably even let you march down the middle of downtown with a megaphone and 100 of your friends who believe the same thing, provided you follow the rules for such things in your local area (in first amendment parlance these are known as reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions).
You can be a member of the KKK, but shouldn't be surprised if this means individual people respond to your open membership by refusing to do business with you, boycotting your products, not wanting hire you, etc etc. The first amendment does not operate to force other people to privately mingle with you and tolerate your personal hateful lunacy.
The law protects individuals from certain types of characteristic discrimination, but much of that law is statutory and enabled by the Constitution rather than Constitutionally mandated. The law is much much less likely to protect you from viewpoint discrimination. If you work for a company that manufactures vaccines, and you're one of the nutsos that runs around claiming vaccines cause autism, you're going to get canned and there's nothing the law will do for you. Similarly, if you're an open racist in a business that requires you to have meaningful interactions with persons of color, you're probably not long for the business. That's why the real surprising thing here is that Sterling didn't get outed until now.
You may want to examine yourself and your friends.
Unless you have a very very broad definition of "comparable" here I don't think you'll find many board members that agree that this level of private dehumanization is commonly accepted in their private lives.
DutchJazzer
Banned
also snoop said on his vimeo a clip.
something like F you sterling you B. f this
f that motherf this and that.
This would be relevant if the recording in question was a phone call.
In fact, this question makes it very clear that you haven't listened to the recording as it has a number of throw-away statements that clearly indicate that the two of them are in the same room (for example, she offers to get him some juice at some point).
Finally, it appears that hundreds of hours of these tapes exist and were made at Sterling's request, so that he could more easily remember some things in his declining years.
Let me guess: the person that wrote this was white.
EDIT: Googled it. And the answer was yes.
Why that will color their p.o.v. does it make it any less debatable? Does it mean it isn't an issue?