Lowering the bar in Florida

[3rdnlng]

Hey, I agree that it would be wise to maybe set it by socioeconomic status or something instead of race. But there is a "caste system" so to speak in public schools...to understand that and make goals based on that isn't bad IMO. You don't want to set the "realistic" goal for all students somewhere near the level an affluent community is already at b/c you want to be doing the best to improve those as well. And 100%...just not going to happen. You should set goals to reach IMO...not just demand "more" at all times b/c then...there is nothing but failure all the time and goals become meaningless. Not to say I don't agree that you set them high, but you set them somewhere reachable.

 

Bills want to win every game. In that sense our goal is 16-0. But in reality when stepping back we want to win 10 or 11 games and make the playoffs b/c we know where we've been and who we are. So that's really the goal. As it applies here...yes you want every kid, but when setting goals...you need to realistic and accept that it isn't going to happen and decide what is tangible and how to get there.

 

You've got to be kidding me. If Chan came out with the statement I bolded, what would be the criticism here? The goals that we are talking about here with the students are getting 100% of them to "grade level" vs. 92% for asians and "x" amount for caucasians and hispanics and 74% for blacks. I find that personally repugnant. It amazes me (but not surprising) that this self proclaimed conservative (me) is the one championing treating everyone the same and with respect, while the self proclaimed liberal (you) wants to keep the status quo and are satisfied with a lesser education for people of color. Liberals are the bane of black people in this country. Somehow your programs have taken proud people who rightfully fought for their equal place in this country and made them feel inferior and in need of government charity. Your party (the Dems) should be renamed the "Charlatan Party". It wasn't that many years ago that blacks had a higher percentage of legitimate children than whites. Now, 78% of black children born are "illegitimate". This has all happened since "youins" came up with your "Great Society" programs designed to influence the vote.

 

There are times that I can actually have a rational discussion with you and times I can't. I disagreed with you here but it may have seemed that I attributed more to you personally than what you deserve. You just gave me the platform to rant. Thanks.

[Taro T]

I think you analogy is a poor one. I don't think it is impossible for 100% of the students, regardless of race to get to reading or math levels for their grade. Is it unlikely? Of course. Let's say you ask every black kid to get to grade level along with the asians, is there something wrong with that? Or should you tell them that the school system is happy to leave 25% of them behind? The higher level you shoot for, the higher level you will attain. Don't get me wrong. This is not done in a vacuum. The school has to make it not only possible for them to succeed, but make them want to.

NB seems to be getting where I was going w/ my brief posts above.

 

It's unrealistic for the schools to expect 100%. (Apparently VERY unrealistic based on where their stated goals are and one could realistically say it's 'impossible' if we're not dealing with the purely theoretical.) How much buy-in would FLA get from schools by making 100% the goal? In lip service, probably some, in reality, not much. By setting 'realistic' goals, they're likely to get buy-in.

 

I'd prefer to see them setting a goal (say 95%, 98% maybe) across the board for all the subjects over a set time period (10 years?), with milestones along the way which might be targeted to different socio-economic strata. The goals should be difficult to reach but not impossible. There's no way they are going to get to 100%, Nothing wrong with 'stretch-goals' but when setting up goals, especially those that one knows will get significant pushback from, impossible goals aren't 'stretch-goals,' they're simply impossible.

 

EDIT: By 'across the board,' I mean for all the various races they are currently segregating goals for. Not 'across the board' of all subjects, though eventually getting each subject up to 95-98% student proficiency would be good as well.

 

Hey, I agree that it would be wise to maybe set it by socioeconomic status or something instead of race. But there is a "caste system" so to speak in public schools...to understand that and make goals based on that isn't bad IMO. You don't want to set the "realistic" goal for all students somewhere near the level an affluent community is already at b/c you want to be doing the best to improve those as well. And 100%...just not going to happen. You should set goals to reach IMO...not just demand "more" at all times b/c then...there is nothing but failure all the time and goals become meaningless. Not to say I don't agree that you set them high, but you set them somewhere reachable.

 

Bills want to win every game. In that sense our goal is 16-0. But in reality when stepping back we want to win 10 or 11 games and make the playoffs b/c we know where we've been and who we are. So that's really the goal. As it applies here...yes you want every kid, but when setting goals...you need to realistic and accept that it isn't going to happen and decide what is tangible and how to get there.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Taro T

[dayman]

You've got to be kidding me. If Chan came out with the statement I bolded, what would be the criticism here? The goals that we are talking about here with the students are getting 100% of them to "grade level" vs. 92% for asians and "x" amount for caucasians and hispanics and 74% for blacks. I find that personally repugnant. It amazes me (but not surprising) that this self proclaimed conservative (me) is the one championing treating everyone the same and with respect, while the self proclaimed liberal (you) wants to keep the status quo and are satisfied with a lesser education for people of color. Liberals are the bane of black people in this country. Somehow your programs have taken proud people who rightfully fought for their equal place in this country and made them feel inferior and in need of government charity. Your party (the Dems) should be renamed the "Charlatan Party". It wasn't that many years ago that blacks had a higher percentage of legitimate children than whites. Now, 78% of black children born are "illegitimate". This has all happened since "youins" came up with your "Great Society" programs designed to influence the vote.

 

There are times that I can actually have a rational discussion with you and times I can't. I disagreed with you here but it may have seemed that I attributed more to you personally than what you deserve. You just gave me the platform to rant. Thanks.

 

You ready/hear what you want to. There is no other way to put it. Stay angry my friend.

[3rdnlng]

NB seems to be getting where I was going w/ my brief posts above.

 

It's unrealistic for the schools to expect 100%. (Apparently VERY unrealistic based on where their stated goals are and one could realistically say it's 'impossible' if we're not dealing with the purely theoretical.) How much buy-in would FLA get from schools by making 100% the goal? In lip service, probably some, in reality, not much. By setting 'realistic' goals, they're likely to get buy-in.

 

I'd prefer to see them setting a goal (say 95%, 98% maybe) across the board for all the subjects over a set time period (10 years?), with milestones along the way which might be targeted to different socio-economic strata. The goals should be difficult to reach but not impossible. There's no way they are going to get to 100%, Nothing wrong with 'stretch-goals' but when setting up goals, especially those that one knows will get significant pushback from, impossible goals aren't 'stretch-goals,' they're simply impossible.

 

EDIT: By 'across the board,' I mean for all the various races they are currently segregating goals for. Not 'across the board' of all subjects, though eventually getting each subject up to 95-98% student proficiency would be good as well.

 

 

It's very simple. You tell every kid that you expect them to reach "grade level" and you keep working towards that goal. A 100% level is getting everone at "grade Level". It's not liking expecting 1400 on the SAT's. "Grade level" in these guys eyes is probably being able to read and write in 3rd grade and do multiplication. I know that there will still be a DiN and BF4E here and there and we really don't want them to be literate---saves us reading their posts.

[Taro T]

It's very simple. You tell every kid that you expect them to reach "grade level" and you keep working towards that goal. A 100% level is getting everone at "grade Level". It's not liking expecting 1400 on the SAT's. "Grade level" in these guys eyes is probably being able to read and write in 3rd grade and do multiplication. I know that there will still be a DiN and BF4E here and there and we really don't want them to be literate---saves us reading their posts.

Agree with the bolded.

 

But though they are trying to get each individual up to 'grade level,' reality is they aren't going to get everyone up to grade level and the aggregate goal shouldn't be 100%. Whatever that aggregate goal should be, should, in the LT, be for all the races.

[dayman]

Agree with the bolded.

 

But though they are trying to get each individual up to 'grade level,' reality is they aren't going to get everyone up to grade level and the aggregate goal shouldn't be 100%. Whatever that aggregate goal should be, should, in the LT, be for all the races.

 

Actually no you just beat your chest say everyone should be 100% and work real hard. You don't acknowledge real data and analyze it to find where/who is having trouble and then set realistic goals for various tactics. You just beat you chest b/c the goal is 100%. And btw, Democrats are to blame for black people woes from education gaps to illegitimacy. Hard as it is to believe given the state of the education, the solution is setting a goal of 100% and working hard. Or have you not listened to 3rd and his bravado.

 

EDIT: And btw I've acknowledged from the first post I made in here that race probably isn't the best way to analyze the data, but that is what they did. BTW "they" is Florida and there is only 1 party in the state legislature/running government there. And it ain't Dems

Edited October 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

Agree with the bolded.

 

But though they are trying to get each individual up to 'grade level,' reality is they aren't going to get everyone up to grade level and the aggregate goal shouldn't be 100%. Whatever that aggregate goal should be, should, in the LT, be for all the races.

 

WTF's the problem with setting that goal and working towards it? Not meeting the goal means you and the kids might try harder the next time. I'm not looking for a "feel good" story where everyone passes with a "wink". I think we may only disagree on terminology and expecting excellence is not a bad thing, even when you are happy for the bottom tier to only attain what used to be average.

[dayman]

WTF's the problem with setting that goal and working towards it? Not meeting the goal means you and the kids might try harder the next time. I'm not looking for a "feel good" story where everyone passes with a "wink". I think we may only disagree on terminology and expecting excellence is not a bad thing, even when you are happy for the bottom tier to only attain what used to be average.

 

Ok set the goal: By 2018 EVERY KID WILL BE GREAT.

 

Now that's the goal what tangible plan can we adopt to meet it? Hmmm...oh wait there isn't one b/c that's not a real goal it's something stupid we all wish was true. Guess we can't plan for it specifically...but we can try hard!

 

Goal: Every kid by 2018!

 

Tactics: Try real hard!

 

...this isn't how plan to improve education man. You look at honest data, make plans to address the data, and set attainable goals w/ timeframes.

Edited October 15, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

eugenics anyone?

 

No.

[3rdnlng]

Ok set the goal: By 2018 EVERY KID WILL BE GREAT.

 

Now that's the goal what tangible plan can we adopt to meet it? Hmmm...oh wait there isn't one b/c that's not a real goal it's something stupid we all wish was true. Guess we can't plan for it specifically...but we can try hard!

 

Goal: Every kid by 2018!

 

Tactics: Try real hard!

 

...this isn't how plan to improve education man. You look at honest data, make plans to address the data, and set attainable goals w/ timeframes.

 

You're either drunk or an idiot. Doesn't matter. I'm for excellence and you champion mediocrity. Maybe that's the difference between you guys that pass out subsistence for a vote, while we vote for individually provided subsistence.

[dayman]

You're either drunk or an idiot. Doesn't matter. I'm for excellence and you champion mediocrity. Maybe that's the difference between you guys that pass out subsistence for a vote, while we vote for individually provided subsistence.

 

B/c declaring "every child shall be up to the grade" is being "for excellence" and also b/c this discussion is even remotely partisan.

[3rdnlng]

B/c declaring "every child shall be up to the grade" is being "for excellence" and also b/c this discussion is even remotely partisan.

 

Again, I expected a response from you that was on topic. I believe that you give everyone the opportunity and the hope. This is not political except by chance. I'm not saying that they'll all make it, but I'm for giving that opportunity to all races and credes. I'm sorry for you that you are not of that thinking. What a shame---a leftist, ACLU kind of guy that has an inherent prejudice against minorities.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Again, I expected a response from you that was on topic. I believe that you give everyone the opportunity and the hope. This is not political except by chance. I'm not saying that they'll all make it, but I'm for giving that opportunity to all races and credes. I'm sorry for you that you are not of that thinking. What a shame---a leftist, ACLU kind of guy that has an inherent prejudice against minorities.

You are muddying the waters here by taking two seperate and distinct arguments and projecting them onto TheNewBills, when he has not done so himself.

 

The argument that setting goals of less than 100% proficiency is a reasonable thing to do, and the argument that proficiency standards should vary based on race are very different.

[Jauronimo]

I think you analogy is a poor one. I don't think it is impossible for 100% of the students, regardless of race to get to reading or math levels for their grade. Is it unlikely? Of course. Let's say you ask every black kid to get to grade level along with the asians, is there something wrong with that? Or should you tell them that the school system is happy to leave 25% of them behind? The higher level you shoot for, the higher level you will attain. Don't get me wrong. This is not done in a vacuum. The school has to make it not only possible for them to succeed, but make them want to.

Its highly possible. If I'm interpreting the data correctly, just kick out everyone but the Asians and you'll be pretty damn close.

[3rdnlng]

You are muddying the waters here by taking two seperate and distinct arguments and projecting them onto TheNewBills, when he has not done so himself.

 

The argument that setting goals of less than 100% proficiency is a reasonable thing to do, and the argument that proficiency standards should vary based on race are very different.

 

Then I take it you would agree that they shouldn't settle for different goals based on race?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Then I take it you would agree that they shouldn't settle for different goals based on race?

100% agree.

[3rdnlng]

100% agree.

 

Then the only point to be discussed here is how high the bar should be set. My position is that the goal should be that every child meets "at grade" standards. If I'm a teacher or administrator then that's the standard that I set.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

Then the only point to be discussed here is how high the bar should be set. My position is that the goal should be that every child meets "at grade" standards. If I'm a teacher or administrator then that's the standard that I set.

Is that realistic and attainable in a clearly defined time period?

[3rdnlng]

Is that realistic and attainable in a clearly defined time period?

 

Yes, it is realistic to strive for that. I'm a firm believer that the higher the goals are set, the closer you will come to achieve them. Remember, we are not dealing with an absolute here. "Grade level" is not something that is cast in stone for all time. I'm of the opinion that the grade level can be reached and eventually made more difficult with the right approach. That will never happen if the school is willing to readily accept lesser standards.

[Chef Jim]

Yes, it is realistic to strive for that. I'm a firm believer that the higher the goals are set, the closer you will come to achieve them. Remember, we are not dealing with an absolute here. "Grade level" is not something that is cast in stone for all time. I'm of the opinion that the grade level can be reached and eventually made more difficult with the right approach. That will never happen if the school is willing to readily accept lesser standards.

 

I worked for a corporate dining company for a few years. Their motto was "Only Perfect Will Do." Dumbest motto in the history of corporations. My motto was (behind their back of course) was strive for perfection.