692. resonance - March 29, 1998 - 8:57 PM PDT
No, I'm thinking that the only people with any real knowledge of what Star Wars was all about that took it seriously were people with stock in companies like Lockheed and Rockwell, and the defense scientists at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos who were getting obscene amounts of grant money to come up with this fairy-tale technology. And the only reason most of them were taking it seriously, IMHO, was the money it represented. Star Wars was good economic capital for the military-industrial complex (the phrase is trite but, alas, what it describes is real) and, among a certain large and miseducated section of American society, good political capital for Reagan. That doesn't mean it was a good investment for the American people. Given the returns we've had on Star Wars, I should think the opposite is plainly true.
693. Slackjaw - March 29, 1998 - 9:04 PM PDT
cllrdr:
I called you CellarDoor in politics last week. It was message 32377.
Hmmph.
694. PseudoErasmus - March 29, 1998 - 9:09 PM PDT
Cellardweller (Message #690)
What the hell are you talking about? I have never argued that Reagan defeated communism -- I've argued the exact opposite, in fact, with considerable elaboration in the Politics thread.
But you are quite simply ignorant of Soviet economic history. How do you think a peasant society was transformed into an industrial one (shoddy though it may have been) in a single generation? With negative growth rates?
695. PseudoErasmus - March 29, 1998 - 9:11 PM PDT
Cellardweller
"Seriously I'm trying, as best I can, from the standpoint of another country, and separated not only by time but clearly inadequate historical studies and contemporary journalism to understand exactly what went down in the former USSR -- to make it the former USSR."
There is nothing particularly difficult or mysterious about it. It's called "diminishing returns". The Soviet Union simply stopped growing economically after a while.
696. PamIAm - March 29, 1998 - 9:41 PM PDT
cllrdr, Message #686
Slackjaw was not the only one to call you Cellar Door - I did, in the Clinton/Media thread a couple of weeks ago, remember? That message has already been archived though.
697. resonance - March 29, 1998 - 9:59 PM PDT
Really, if the point was scaring the Sovs, we might as well have spent a million dollars to mock up some multi-billion dollar SDI project. Or, if we're going to stick to the theory that we ran the Soviet Union into the ground by forcing them to keep up with our technology (and, from what I can remember, during most of the Cold War the American people were told that we were only trying to keep up with the Soviets, and not the other way around) then perhaps we would have been better served by spending the billions on more carriers and Tomcats -- we certainly found them useful during the Cold War, and what's more, we're actually finding them useful now. Or we could have spent the money on ASW technology like Los Angeles- or Seawolf-class submarines, or Orion-class sub-hunting aircraft, or fleet-defense craft like the AEGIS vessels. Anybody who knows much about the likely path a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict would have taken understands that THE critical issue was the American ability to resupply expediently across the Atlantic via escorted naval convoy. This was why the bulk of Soviet naval spending consisted of long-range bomber, submarine, and missile development and production -- the only Soviet assets capable of disrupting the convoys. Not the surface fleet, which would have been so many sitting ducks in the Atlantic, surrounded by hostile air forces and NATO navies operating in their home waters, and at any rate lacked the benefit of carrier-based air cover -- a lethal shortcoming. The former Soviet Union had nothing to speak of in the carrier department -- their few aircraft carriers consisted of small platforms for short-range, obsolete V/STOL craft, except for the three real carriers they tried to make (only one of which, I believe, was ever finished, and was substandard).
698. resonance - March 29, 1998 - 10:01 PM PDT
Aside from power projection, the primary role of American carriers was to protect the surface fleet and the convoys from missile and bomber attacks, as was the role of the AEGIS cruisers and destroyers; aside from ELINT reconnaissance and offensive interdiction, the role of the LA and Seawolf submarine was to kill Soviet submarines before they could damage the surface fleet or the convoys, as was the role of ASW aircraft and ships. The Soviets pumped a hideous amount of money into their Navy, trying to maintain a threat to our naval supply lines. Any money spent here would surely have been as effective as pie-in-the-sky SDI satellites, and might actually be useful today as well, which for the most part SDI isn't.
And, in any case, the real issue isn't whether we should have spent money on the arms race -- I'd like to be idealistic and naive enough to believe that it wasn't necessary, but I believe that it was -- but whether we did so efficiently. I submit that we did not. JeffreySteele says that the primary cost of weapons acquisition comes from costly and cumbersome weapons-inspection protocols. I do not share his opinion, but even if I did, it would only support my point -- one can look at the costly boondoggles that have piled up at the Pentagon's doorstep to see that the inspection process isn't working very well, and if it costs a lot and doesn't work than it smells like waste to me, and it should be revamped.
699. resonance - March 29, 1998 - 10:02 PM PDT
I originally called for a touch of the Inquisition in our weapons-procurement inspection process, and I still do so. As long as the military-industrial complex is allotted a staggering amount of money each year by the government for weapons research, and furthermore needs to sell weapons in order to stay afloat whether or not the weapons are useful or practical, then I think we had best pay a great deal of attention to what we get from them. As long as that military industrial complex is accorded a privileged status by our government, and has a powerful Washington lobby which exerts a great amount of influence on military budgeting and spending, then I very much think we had best pay attention and decide for ourselves if we really need to buy all that we're buying. Pointing to an incompetent system, as JS is doing, and complaining that we already spend too much money checking out military hardware, is simply illogical, and not at all relevant to my point.
700. JoeZan - March 29, 1998 - 10:07 PM PDT
phillipdavid Message #632
...OK, so where is the peace benefit?
Both Bush and Clinton have stated that the peace dividend, though in progress, will be at least 20(?) years in fruition. This is because the immediate (apparent) reductions in man-power, base maintenance, etc, which resulted from the base closings are, believe it or not, almost off-set by the massive administrative costs related to doing just that, and consolidating what's left.
But it is also because of the huge amounts the gov't pays in military pensions, and the salaries of the hangers-on.
So, through attrition (death) and retirement of higher-paid officers and non-coms alone, we WILL save tens of billions of dollars, probably beginning within the next 5-10 years. Also, it's now almost impossible for anyone joining the services to make a career of it, unless they are in a highly specialized technical field.
So the peace dividend WILL come.
701. JoeZan - March 29, 1998 - 10:21 PM PDT
MsIt (post #607):
"...your christian spirit shines through..."
Believe me, MsIt, I have complete confidence that God forgives me this transgression. In fact, if I were you, I'd stay indoors during thunderstorms for at least the next month.
702. wonkers2 - March 30, 1998 - 5:49 AM PDT
Back to Reagan v. Gorbachev. I think Gorbachev deserves more credit because his actions were a startling break with the past while Reagan's were pretty much a continuation of policies established by Truman, Acheson, Marshall, Kennan and, in the case of disarmament, by Kennedy and successive Presidents. My intent is not to denigrate Reagan but to support greater credit for Gorbachev than is popularly given him in the Fray and the US. Moreover George Shultz deserves more of the credit that many realize for Reagan's foreign policy successes. Caspar Weinberger deserves credit for the failures.
703. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 6:01 AM PDT
Wonk
Reagan and Gorbachev both deserve great credit for breaking with established policies of their predecessors. Gorbachev realized the lunacy of economic competition in light of an arms race with the U.S. Reagan realized the lunacy of negotiating arms controls agreements with the Soviets that 1) did not control arms and 2) did not push the Soviets.
704. PseudoErasmus - March 30, 1998 - 6:28 AM PDT
Wonkers
Reagan's foreign policies were a continuation of Truman's??? How can such an intepretation be possible? Truman's policy toward the Soviets, if anything, was a faithful enactment of Kennan's vision of LIMITED containment. Reagan, on the other hand, launched a moral international crusade, a battle on every corner of the world. Can you imagine Truman (and Kennan) worrying over little irrelevant countries like Mozambique or even Nicaragua?
109109 (Message #703)
If Reagan realised the "lunacy of negotiating arms controls agreements with the Soviets that did not control arms and did not push the Soviets", it certainly must have been news to him, and to the conservatives who howled over his signing the INF treaty. Reagan, moreover, was obsessed with arms control, much more than he was ever thought to be.
705. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 6:28 AM PDT
Well, military spending digressions notwithstanding, I think the point of this conversation was to identify the imbalance in federal spending on military versus social services, particularly those of benefit to children.
What everyone seems to be ignoring is that even with a reduction of federal spending on the military, nothing suggests that this money would have been redirected toward schools, or even low income family assistance.
The election of Reagan marked the beginning of a significant transition point away from FEDERAL involvement in funding K-12 education, and even a slowdown in federal legistation regulating K-12. For that matter, federal funding of all levels of education began to slow from this point on, and on funding research that provides all kinds of indirect student support at the post-secondary level.
These changes have been supported by the public, who believe educational issues (at least) should be determined at the local or state level, and who have voted for legislators who have worked to dismantle the various categorical funding formulas attached to federal monies. That these monies have also been reduced are part and parcel of that process.
The truth is that dealing with programs to address delinquent children and weak families must come from the state or local level or they won't come at all (at least not in this political environment). And if communities refuse to increase funds for local public programs, and refuse to vote for increases in state level funding then these programs will not emerge.
706. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 6:48 AM PDT
MsIt
Until Reagan - or his administration (so as to allow for the "he was a doddering nimrod" school) -- there had been no reduction in tactical weapons, no removal of nuclear missiles without accompanying increases elsewhere. I agree. He was obsessed with arms control, but with true arms control, not an agreement whereby both sides increased production and installation.
707. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 6:55 AM PDT
SexLawyer
I'm not the one interested in arguing the merits of Reagan's military expenditures. Personally, I believe funding for social services and education would have declined under his administration regardless of his agenda on military programs.
In fact, this is the crux of my point. We have retrenched from federal involvement in programs designed to support families and children, and reduced the federal role in educational funding. It's now up to each state, and to each community, to either put up or shut up.
708. wonkers2 - March 30, 1998 - 6:57 AM PDT
Erasmus, The "international moral crusade" had been going on long before Reagan, under Democrats and Republicans for many years. Vietnam, Cuba, Latin America. Reagan extended and intensified it and carried it to ridiculous extremes. He didn't invent it. To repeat, Gorby's actions represented a much greater and more courageous policy change than did Reagan's. Isnt the issue the extent to which Reagan forced the change in USSR or how much he accelerated it?
709. wonkers2 - March 30, 1998 - 7:00 AM PDT
Of course, once the ball started rolling it rolled faster and farther than Gorbachev expected.
710. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 7:02 AM PDT
MsIt
Agreed on both interest in the military buildup debate and the social spending reductions. Now, if we could only tie in these Arkansas shootings.
711. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 7:03 AM PDT
Actually, the more subtle point I wish to make is that the problems we now have funding education and social services that benefit children is a classic case of how the local (and individual) demand for these services results in a serious under valuing of them wrt to a larger collective demand.
Because the *social benefits* to strong families and well educated children are indivisible, and get larger as you aggregate the collective up, relying on the local or state level to determine the amount of these services that maximizes the larger collective's social benefits will always result in an undersupply.
712. seepydarn - March 30, 1998 - 7:06 AM PDT
Message #409. PseudoErasmus - March 27, 1998 - 9:56 PM PST
(By the way, I've never called anyone "stupid" or "moron". Just not my kind of words.)
But you didn't mind saying "You're an idiot."
Message number 6446 responding to my 6427 in News of the Day.
Is there something more inherently euphonious about idiot?
713. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 7:10 AM PDT
MsIt
But will the undersupply be across the board? And to the extent there is an undersupply, aren't the local and state authorities the best regimes to mete out the capital? The issue for the future is not going to be "how much" because, at some point, money will make its way back, but how will it get there. Via federal program or via block grant to state and local govt.
714. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 7:16 AM PDT
Sexlawyer
It depends on whether state and local communities actually recognize and are willing to direct resources toward low income, weak families, and children. The fact that children are not voters is, IMO a serious flaw in the political arbitration process that mets out funds.
And I'm not so confident that federal funding will increase (regardless how its distributed) until we have clearly defined how important the federal role is in all this. Currently, we seem to think it not very important at all.
715. PseudoErasmus - March 30, 1998 - 7:17 AM PDT
Speedydarn (Message #712)
"Is there something more inherently euphonious about idiot?"
Yes, if you could hear the way I say it.
716. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 7:17 AM PDT
Seep
Yes, idiot is one of MY favorite words. There is a qualitative, and subtle difference between calling someone stupid (very crass) and calling someone an idiot. An idiot can be deceptively intelligent, and yet, still be an idiot.
717. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 7:19 AM PDT
classic example of simultaneous thought processes.
718. PseudoErasmus - March 30, 1998 - 7:20 AM PDT
Wonkers2 (Message #708)
"The 'international moral crusade' had been going on long before Reagan, under Democrats and Republicans for many years. Vietnam, Cuba, Latin America. Reagan extended and intensified it and carried it to ridiculous extremes. He didn't invent it."
No, he didn't. However, I wouldn't say that all previous presidents engaged in a moralistic foreign policy. In fact, I'd say only JFK and LBJ fit the mold of Reagan's ideological crusade. Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon-Kissinger were clearly more pragmatic and "geopolitical".
"Isnt the issue the extent to which Reagan forced the change in USSR or how much he accelerated it?"
Not for me. I was merely quibbling with a point of history.
719. wonkers2 - March 30, 1998 - 7:21 AM PDT
Seepy, Very good! I believe they are synonyms or close to it. I prefer cretin myself. I can take fartsome but doddery I cant accept.
720. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 7:22 AM PDT
MsIt
I agree on federal funding, but itsprior record does have some responsibility for its lack of cache. My guess is that significant future infusion will probably be by block grant. And then, the citizens are at the mercy of their local and state leaders, often set in ways but certainly easier to influence that the feds.
721. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 7:28 AM PDT
SexyL
"often set in ways but certainly easier to influence that the feds."
Ah no, not always. For instance, minorities would never have been integrated into schools (and accorded similar levels of funding) had it not been for the federal level. Discrimination in hiring practices also would never have been addressed had there not been federal mandates and involvement.
As I said before, it depends on the extent these groups have ACCESS to the political decision making process, or are represented by individuals interested in their needs.
722. wonkers2 - March 30, 1998 - 7:31 AM PDT
109, Are you and Jex billing your clients for Fray time? Maybe we should have the IC take a look at your records. On the other hand, the Fray time may be more socially productive than court time in the overall scheme of things.
723. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 7:34 AM PDT
Wonk
I'm not really an attorney. I'm Dom Deluise, and I've wedged myself between my computer and my wall (actually, no trials set until April, so I'm dogging it).
724. arkymalarky - March 30, 1998 - 7:43 AM PDT
The need for more federal involvement in financing education is evident when you look at the correlation between the poverty of a state and the level of student performance in that state. AR has had the dubious distinction of being just ahead of MS in that area. A common saying here, as y'all may already know, is "thank God for Mississippi."
Unfortunately, the poorer states also have fewer representatives and electoral votes, so there is no incentive for the federal government to see to their needs. IOW, MsIT, I agree with your rather pessimestic outlook(714). It's also a shame that low income parents generally do not vote as consistently as higher income groups.
Since, for those reasons, smaller, poorer schools have less influence on federal policies, increased federal spending doesn't mean improvement for the schools that need it most.
WRT 109's comment, the disparity of funding for schools here is amazing. The differences between schools depending on the funding they get can be extreme. Actually, it's hard to imagine that fair distribution is possible. The schools who need it most have the least political clout statewide, or federally.
725. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 7:47 AM PDT
Arky
But don't students in several states with some of the lowest education funding have some of the highest scores? I'm not yet convinced that $$$=better education (See D.C. - more per student spending than any other place in the U.S. = some of the lowest scores).
726. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 7:52 AM PDT
SexL
I've posted about this conundrum (higher dollars/lower scores) ad nauseum. I will only point you to the Dismal Science thread, and posts at least 200 back. The lastest comments of mine are more recent, I don't know the numbers, but think they are within the last 100.
727. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 7:56 AM PDT
MsIt
Could you give me the low down in fifty words? I'd be much obliged.
728. arkymalarky - March 30, 1998 - 7:59 AM PDT
109,
I don't have stats on that, but I don't believe so. Could you give an example? On the other end,(as with DC)you could probably find numerous examples. After all, many larger schools divert a lot of funds to large bureaucracies and usually put way too much into the administrative end; but when funding is too low to attract enough good teachers, provide basic facilities for research,(libraries, internet, etc), and equip classrooms with adequate materials, the students are bound to suffer, especially when they are socially and culturally isolated to begin with. Distribution will never be fair and equitable, but there ought to be a minimum level of resources if not direct monies provided to each school if it is going to exist at all(which opens another can of worms).
729. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 8:01 AM PDT
Arky
And I think you make my point. My guess is that there is a floor by which if you drop under funding wise, scores suffer. But if you are over that floor, my guess is that funding has less to do with it. And at the risk of regional warfare, I'm guessing that some folks are dumber than others on a regional basis.
730. JadeGold - March 30, 1998 - 8:02 AM PDT
Message #725 109 repeats the Noot Gingrich mantra: "Look at the DC schools..blahblahblah."
This little factoid makes nice grist for such conservative deep intellectual thinkers as Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, and their felonious ilk. However, it simply isn't true.
Noot's factoid compared per capita spending in DC schools against per capita spending in *states.* When DC per capita spending was compared against other major *cities,* DC was found to rank fourteenth in per capita spending for education.
731. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 8:04 AM PDT
Fine. 14th is pretty high. Why is everyone failing?
732. JadeGold - March 30, 1998 - 8:07 AM PDT
109;
*Everyone* is failing?
tsktsk
733. arkymalarky - March 30, 1998 - 8:14 AM PDT
On the subject of the thread, I was out on spring break last week and my students are at a workshop this morning, so I haven't gotten an indication of student reaction. Jonesboro is on the opposite side of the state. I also missed the posts on it here and haven't had time to go back and read.
I will say I agree with George Stephanopolus that evil is a human condition regardless of time and place and that may be the only explanation. Hyperanalyzing is just our way of legitimizing our morbid interest in tragedy - if we find the reason we can prevent another incident. We just never seem to find the reason. It's especially interesting to see people question Southern culture of gun use, pointing to the fact that the three recent incidents of school shootings all occured in the South.
734. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 8:18 AM PDT
All
"There is growing perception that the educational system of the United States is in decline and, because the public sector is the dominant supplier of education, criticism naturally focuses on the public school system. While it is often argued that spending has declined, public education spending (1989-90 dollars) per pupil rose 74% from 1960 to 1992, or from roughly $ 2979 to $
5196. Despite this spending increase, combined SAT ( Student Achievement Test) scores fell 5.2%, or from 948 to 899 over this same period.
Applied Economics, 5/97
Jade - Washington, D.C., spends more than $ 9,000 per pupil a year yet it has the worst student test scores in the country (note - your preoccupation with Mr. Gingrich borders on criminal. You see his hand everywhere. Are you sure you haven't bolied his rabbit?)
My point - spending is a factor, but I'm not so sure you can prove equivalency of $$$ and higher scores.
735. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 8:19 AM PDT
Jade
Eek! I meant "boiled his rabbit."
736. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 8:47 AM PDT
Sigh
Sexlawyer
Go read the posts over in Dismal Science, they address all the issues you raise.
I am NOT going to repeat several posts worth of comments here when I (and others) just went through this a while ago.
Get off your lazy butt and go look.
737. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 8:51 AM PDT
MsIt
Okay, okay (actually, I like a good scolding).
738. JadeGold - March 30, 1998 - 9:08 AM PDT
Message #734 In 1990, the U.S. spent $5,521 per pupil on public schools, more than double the $2,611 (in 1990 dollars) spent 25 years earlier. More money for schools won't do any good, critics assert; it's just pouring good money after bad.
But spending more hasn't failed. It hasn't been tried. The truth is that little new money has been invested in regular educational improvements since 1965. How has the money been used?
Special Education. Nearly 30 percent of new education money has gone for "special education" of children with disabilities.
Nutrition Programs. School breakfast and lunch programs have absorbed nearly 10 percent of increased costs. Today 35 percent of all students get free or reduced price meals, costing over $6 billion a year.
Smaller Classes. Nearly one-third of new school money has gone for smaller classes. Pupil-teacher ratios have declined by about 30 percent since 1965 and average class size is now about 24, requiring more teachers and extra classrooms.
Salary Increases. Teacher salaries have grown 21 percent--less than 1 percent a year--from an average of $27,221 in 1965 (1990 dollars) to $32,977 in 1990.
Transportation. Transportation has consumed 5 percent of increased costs. In 1965, 40 percent of public school students were bused at an average cost of $214 (1990 dollars). By 1989, 59 percent were bused, and the cost jumped to $390.
Fewer Dropouts. About 3 percent of new spending stems from keeping more students in school. In 1970, 75 percent of youths between ages 25 and 29 had completed high school. By 1990, 86 percent had done so.
In sum, special education, smaller classes, school lunches, better teacher pay, more buses, and fewer dropouts account for over 80 percent of new education money since 1965. That these produced few academic gains is no surprise. It is to the credit of the public schools and the teaching profession that real gains have occurred at all
739. tmachine - March 30, 1998 - 9:11 AM PDT
well, I think that smaller classes and better teacher salaries should be expected to have SOME impact on academic performance, surely.
740. JadeGold - March 30, 1998 - 9:23 AM PDT
tmachine;
Teacher salaries have increased at a rate of less than one percent per year. Additionally, student to teacher ratio has declined to about 24:1. Most educators maintain a ration of 15:1 or better is needed.
True, SAT scores have declined to 899 (math and verbal combined) in 1992 from 937 in 1972. Yet this favorite fact of Repugs tells a very incomplete story. Last year, 29 percent of SAT takers (students planning to go to college) were minority students, more than double the 13 percent 20 years earlier. In 1992, 43 percent of test takers ranked in the top fifth of their high school classes. In 1972, 48 percent were in the top fifth, a more elite group. Declines in average SAT scores stem mostly from expansion in the test takers' base, adding more disadvantaged students to a pool that earlier included mostly privileged students.
While average scores have gone down, minority scores have gone up. From 1976 (when the College Board began tracking group scores) to 1992, black student scores went from 686 to 737; Mexican-origin scores went from 781 to 797; and Puerto Rican scores went from 765 to 772. White scores declined, but this is due, at least in part, to the broadened social class base of white test takers. In 1976, the number of white test takers was equal to only 19 percent of the 17-year-old white population. In 1992, it was 25 percent, a less elite group.
The best way to improve average SAT scores would be to encourage only the best middle-class students to take the test. We used to do just this, which is why average scores were higher. Today we prepare more minority and lower-middle-class students to take college entrance exams. It's a sign of accomplishment, not failure.
741. spudboy - March 30, 1998 - 9:27 AM PDT
Nice posts, Jade. Thank you for the info.
742. PseudoErasmus - March 30, 1998 - 9:35 AM PDT
The myth of public school failure".
743. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 9:47 AM PDT
Actually, the Republican mantra is even more deceptive. If you look at academic achievement rather than SAT scores, there is little or NO evidence that student outcomes have declined.
For instance, the 1994 NAEP test results show that for each age group, 9, 13, and 17 year olds the trends in academic progress have either improved (as in the case of minority students) or held steady over time (doesn't mean they haven't fallen periodically, but that they have recovered as well), in science, mathematics and reading achievement.
Go here for a recent NAEP report from NCES.
If you look in detail, you'll see that, in general, we've improved the academic performance of minority children over the time line examined, for all three test grades reported.
I'd say this was an indication that our efforts to improve access to educational opportunities among minorities and low income children has been successful over the last 25 years or so.
Don't forget, that we actually now test *more* children than we did in the 60's and early 70's too. For instance, in the early 1970's we still had segretated schools in some southern states (Texas) for some populations (latino), and those students were easy to put in the non-tested category for national tests such as this.
744. CharlieL - March 30, 1998 - 9:47 AM PDT
Adjusted for inflation, teachers' salaries are not better at all. Less than 1%/year?
745. CharlieL - March 30, 1998 - 9:49 AM PDT
That's what I get for taking the time to read, but not update, before I post...
746. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 9:49 AM PDT
Oops, another simultaneous event PE.
747. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 9:57 AM PDT
Chuck
What's interesting is if you look at teacher salaries adjusted for inflation, teachers were earning less than they did in 1969 in 1975 and forward til around 1984 when they began to reach parity again (that is, their real wages were what they had been in 1969 again). If you track student achievement during this time, this is also when student achievement on NAEP (and other tests like SAT) actually experienced their largest declines. As teacher salaries have improved, so too has student performance.
The correlation between these two events cannot be linked 100% to one another, however, during the period of declining real teacher salaries, the number of students entering teaching as a profession fell drastically (well, duh! it's the supply, stupid!), and teacher attrition (teachers leaving the profession) rose significantly. Who stayed behind? All those who 1) either couldn't imagine doing anything else; 2) had a second income to the family (ie were not the main breadwinners); 3) or were unable to compete for higher paying jobs in alternative occupations (ie, were barely competent).
Consequently, the quality of the teacher labor force was falling during this time period. As salaries began to recover, so too did the supply pool of prospective teachers, and the average quality of teachers in the classroom. Student performance also began recovering (also related to a renewed focus on educational standards and excellence).
748. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 9:59 AM PDT
Having read Jade's posts, I am heartened that 1) scores are actually improving and 2) the funding issue is one of priority rather than amount. I did not know #1. I always suspected #2.
749. spudboy - March 30, 1998 - 10:20 AM PDT
Actually, 109s, I'm not so sure #2 is necessarily deducible from Jade's data, at least not to the extent you suggest. The point about special education, for instance, is not that there's something wrong with creating those programs as a priority budgetary item. The problem is that typically the funding for special education comes out of some other portion of the budget that is necessary for providing a quality education. That shouldn't be happening; if we're going to make special ed a priority (and I think we should), it shouldn't come at the expense of other priorities (like quality pay for teachers, updated infrastructure, etc.). Unfortunately, local pressures being what they are, this typically is what happens when school boards go to work. Kind of underscores MsIT's point about the problematic nature of sending everything back to the local level.
750. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 10:35 AM PDT
Spud
But if we are improving in light of greater financial constraints, and it is a given that many states are in better shape than others, doesn't directed funds for state and local communities make more sense? Vermont is tops, let's say, so they want funds for b-ball courts. Maine is AOK no. 1 in scores, but they might not have a special ed program. Mississippi blows in scores and wants to reduce classroom size. California needs facilities fast. Block granting to these states lets them make strategic decisions instead of the feds.
751. CoralReef - March 30, 1998 - 10:44 AM PDT
Well, MsIT, let me wade in over my head here and point out that the period of the late sixties to the mid-eighties was the period of the baby bust, no? So society was not focused on raising kids en masse, which led to a drop in the attention paid to curriculum and to teachers being slightly less valued by society than they had been. While it's true that both scores and salaries seem better now it's also true that society is raising a new giant crop of kids in a way unprecedented since the last wave, which coincidently occurred back in the good old days of higher standards and salaries. In other words, it is *possible* that the real correlation has to do with society's priorities at a given time, which also affects salaries and scores.
752. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 10:45 AM PDT
While the potential for block grants to provide flexibility to each state is a positive in it's favor, there are also some problems with this type of funding.
1) Block grants have been used as a rationale for REDUCING funding per student for the categories it includes. That is, the amount of funds allocated for the NUMBER of students qualifying keeps shrinking. Legislators have argued that if savings are realized by eliminating the educational bureaucracies created under categorical funding schemes, then states don't NEED as much as they used to receive. This is, quite frankly, bullshit.
2) Not all states are equal wrt to the will and desire of their own governments to live up to the intent behind the federal monies coming to them. In other words, some states are run by individuals who see the block grant as a means to fund their pet projects without having to be held accountable for how these funds are used (in the de facto sense of the word). This lack of accountability associated with block grant funding can also cause such deviant behaviors to occur at the local levels, too.
In other words, without federal overview and checks on how the money has been used, or whether the populations designated for those funds ever received improved services, all kinds of perverse incentives are set up to syphon off those funds into other areas.
753. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 10:48 AM PDT
CR
"In other words, it is *possible* that the real correlation has to do with society's priorities at a given time, which also affects salaries and scores."
You'll get no argument from me about this comment. Neither does it contradict what I said earlier, they can both have been influencing the direction of student performance during these years.
754. Jenerator - March 30, 1998 - 11:00 AM PDT
Wabbit Message #662 I'm having some difficulties being able to review all of the old posts (It's taking forever), but in response to this post, there are a few things that I have ssen over the years with regards to Satanism and crime
1. If the crime was done in satanic worship:
a. there is a complete denial of satanic involvement
b. there is a denial at first, later followed by an admittance in satanic worship
c. there is blame placed solely on satanic influence (Satan made me do it)
2. if the crime was perpetrated by highly organized Satanists:
a. they never get caught
b. often times someone with an influential position is involved
c. townsfolk know of the satanists but can never prove they exist(rumor, but no proof)
d. if they do get caught they are usually silent
Me personally, I don't think that these kids were Satan worshippers per se, but I bet that there is some cultic activity rumors in the town that existed before all of this happened, and the townspeople are trying to figure out what would cause the killings, so they naturally link it to Satan worship.
And Satan 's whole purpose *is* to kill, steal, and destroy.
755. spudboy - March 30, 1998 - 11:01 AM PDT
Well, I don't think the improvement is causally related to the constraints. Rather, I think it's occurring in spite of them in many cases. I'm thinking of the Oregon school system, where my brother works as a teacher. Because of recent statewide property-tax limitation measures, many of the schools there -- particularly in urban districts -- are becoming terribly underfunded. Recall that almost all of these grants take place on a matching-funds basis. If the starting point is that much lower, then there's less coming in to the districts from these grants.
Thanks to the all-around smaller pot, priorities, rather than being enhanced by a leaner/meaner approach, are becoming skewed by real-world pressures. He runs a middle school's computer program, which is considered important in recognition of the pragmatic application of what he's teaching, so he's somewhat insulated from funding pressures. But other, more traditional components of schools -- speech and drama departments, math clubs and so on -- are getting dropped by the wayside.
In a few cases, we're even seeing a view emerging in school systems that federal aid is to be avoided at all costs. In Idaho recently, the state superintendent (already a right-winger) came under pressure from ultra-conservatives to decline a multi-million-dollar grant from the Albertson family (founders of the grocery-store chain) because it came with matching federal funds. Fortunately for the already-education-starved kids in Idaho schools, common sense saved the day and the grant plan was approved. But it shows that the forces of "constraint" are not always so rational about the realities of providing for our schools; their ideology often supersedes common sense. While I don't think constraint is a bad idea, I don't think it's responsible for much improvement in our schools, outside of making teachers more resilient.
756. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 11:11 AM PDT
MsIt
I hear you on block grants. It may come down to which devil we prefer to deal with. I prefer the devil closest to the situation and the constituent, the state and local government. You may prefer the feds.
757. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 11:12 AM PDT
Ya, that too, Spuds.
758. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 11:20 AM PDT
SexyL
I'm not necessarily opposed to block grants or to greater state flexibility. I'm *opposed* to bad legislation and bullshit excuses to cut federal funding without being upfront about the consequences to the programs provided to students.
I can easily imagine a block grant scheme that provides enough monies to states to serve all it's designated populations *and* is embedded with enough accountability measures to ensure that those populations are indeed served.
Unfortunately, this isn't even remotely what we have been moving toward recently under this Congress. We have been moving toward REDUCED monies, given in block grant form, and elimination of ALL accountability measures. This is NOT a desireable combination, IMO.
759. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 11:24 AM PDT
MsIt
You and I probably part here as well. I'd like to see the revenues generated for return to the states go back to the states in lump sums. If the folks of Mississippi want to use it to build casinos for jobs while simultaneously keeping their kids away from a better education, then the folks of Mississippi will have to punish that governor/legislature come elections. But those same folks might not treasure education as you and I do. So in our states, we'll fight to have the funds meted out as we can convince fellow citizens to support.
760. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 11:26 AM PDT
And, of course, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier, in my Message #711.
761. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 11:32 AM PDT
MsIt
Wow! Closure. I feel like laying back and smoking a cigarette.
762. JadeGold - March 30, 1998 - 11:34 AM PDT
109;
Message #759 Unfortunately, that is extremely cynical and shortsighted thinking.
We must compete as a nation, not as a conglomeration of little fiefdoms with varying educational standards. If MS decides to take education block grants and use them for the construction of a dog track (which they have done), it hurts all the US. It hurts us as a nation not only because it dilutes our competitive strengths -- but because, eventually, we, as a nation, will end up paying to train or retrain those workers who cannot compete in a global economy.
763. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 11:37 AM PDT
Yes, JG, that was exactly my point in my Message #711.
Sigh, does no one read back posts anymore????
764. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 11:41 AM PDT
Jade
Maybe. But if Louisiana wants David Duke, shouldn't they have him? You and I can condemn and try to sway our neighbors, but if they are hell-bent on idiocy, they should entertain him for four years. Similarly, I may know better than my neighbors, but I'm not living their lives for them. We are not talking about constitutional rights here, but funding priorities. And these priorities can be molded by citizens at a greater variance and with greater input on a state and local as opposed to a federal level.
More importantly, MsIt and you and I may be wrong. The 5 years of education funding may do nothing, whereas those dog tracks may have spurred the greatest investment Jackson, MI has seen. Maybe the jobs do mean more to the folks whose lives are affected. I want those decisions on the heads of Mississipians - who will be richer at the track, smarter at the school, one or the other, or neither -- not me.
765. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 11:45 AM PDT
Sexlawyer
Watch it. I am *rarely* wrong. It is possible, but highly improbable.
766. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 11:48 AM PDT
MsIt
Hence "may".
767. JadeGold - March 30, 1998 - 12:01 PM PDT
109;
Separate issue wrt to Duke, the once and future hope of the GOP. If LA wishes to elect Duke, so be it. The Repugs are famous for electing candidates of Duke's quality.
As a nation, we have certain national priorities. For example, we have the armed services. As a nation, we don't have individual states building individual armies, navies, and air forces. There are state National Guards, but they operate under the purview of their respective armed service.
Education is likewise a national priority. This is precisely why national testing is required to ensure the competiveness of our nation in the global economy.
768. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 12:05 PM PDT
Jade
Childish hyperbole aside (wasn't Duke a Democrat first? Young racists - Dems/old ones Repugs?), let us say I -- and all the other states -- accept education as a national priority and the feds block grant funds only if expressly used for educational purposes. OK? Or do the feds still know better between class size, better buses, vocational training, salaries etc . . .?
769. CalGal - March 30, 1998 - 12:09 PM PDT
Ms,
"And that you seem to only fawn over silly girls in the fray, or when Calgal is flirting with you."
I beg your pardon.
I only flirt with Niner and Adam, and only 'cause they started it. And it looks like Niner's lost his heart to you anyway (sniff).
But my heart belongs to Elliot.
770. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 12:10 PM PDT
You note, at least, that I didn't include you in the "silly" category. And, yes, it's evident that Elliot is passionate about you.
771. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 12:13 PM PDT
If there is one thing I won't have it is you two girls fighting over me. If you must know, my heart belongs to . . . . HECATE (and Ellie, of course).
772. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 12:15 PM PDT
Pour SexL
You are doomed to stand in line then (for Elliot that is). Hecate is a fine choice, however. The name alone conjures up, well, mysteries.
773. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 12:17 PM PDT
MsIt
Well, you obviously know that my true love (Mrs. Clinton) is taken. But by year 2000, when Bill is wooing Charlene Tilton, that is when I make my move.
774. cllrdr - March 30, 1998 - 12:48 PM PDT
Meanwhile back in Jonestown -- I'm sorry, JonesBORO -- the father of one of the two brats was on "Today" this morning where Matt Lauer asked him how he "felt" about what happened, and how the brat in question "felt" et. al. ad nauseum. Dad told Matt that he really couldn't talk about anything specific on account of his lawyer's advice. As if Matt was going to ask him anything specific! It's "feelings" the media wants. That's why they're so mad at Clinton. "If he would only explain to the American people" (translation: the press) "what really happened" etc. That is to say get on the tube and cry. There is no politics -- only "emotion."
775. cllrdr - March 30, 1998 - 12:51 PM PDT
And another thing! What's with these women fighting over Elliot? "The Object of My Affection" will knock "Titanic" out of the Number 1 spot if these Fray vixens are typical of the general population.
776. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 12:55 PM PDT
Hmmmm Cllrdr
Me thinks my post was misleading then. I don't vie for his attention, I was simply commenting on Calgal's affections, followed by the ever untrustworthy Sexlawyer.
We frayvixens are an unusual bunch, however, and cannot be trusted to be an accurate gauge of the general female population. Too many difficult (fussy, picky, elitist) women here.
777. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 12:59 PM PDT
MsIt
Untrustworthy? Do I owe you money, baby?
778. CalGal - March 30, 1998 - 12:59 PM PDT
Niner--Hecate left! You're going to give your heart to someone who won't pay $20 to keep in touch?
Ms--I knew what you meant. Although I think if the line only included me and Niner, Elliot's choice would be clear. You're right, though--he *is* passionate about me. Let's just not define what sort of passion, yes?
I'm am neither fussy, picky, or elitist. Perhaps *that's* my problem.
779. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 1:01 PM PDT
SL
"But by year 2000, when Bill is wooing Charlene Tilton, that is when I make my move."
Untrustworthy, sneaky, unethical.
780. CalGal - March 30, 1998 - 1:01 PM PDT
CellarDoor,
I despise Dr. Laura; however, she made a surprising amount of sense on This Week yesterday.
The big surprise was Rob Reiner, who pointed out the probable cause of these two broken kids. My favorite--attachment disorder!
781. PsychProf - March 30, 1998 - 1:02 PM PDT
Hmmmm...MsIt called baby...not really descriptive.
782. CalGal - March 30, 1998 - 1:02 PM PDT
Ms,
"You note, at least, that I didn't include you in the 'silly' category. "
Oh. I thought you were leaving me out of the "girls" category. Silly, I figured, was a given. I'm delighted to be wrong. Thanks!
783. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 1:03 PM PDT
MsIt
You're thinking it may be Valerie Bertinelli?
784. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 1:04 PM PDT
Psych
How you mean, doctor baby?
785. PsychProf - March 30, 1998 - 1:05 PM PDT
Cal...you're right... more psychobabble...
786. Hexham67 - March 30, 1998 - 1:06 PM PDT
Cal, if that's a problem, I'd like to see more of such problems.
787. Msivorytower - March 30, 1998 - 1:06 PM PDT
Calgal
You are a *very* difficult woman. Obsessively involved in fostering the communication lines here, interjecting there, reinterpreting, etc. I wonder that you aren't exhausted by the end of your frayday.
I actually think Elliot has a longer line than either of you two, but (for discretions sake) won't elaborate (also because I don't KNOW anything, really).
And, please! Attachment disorder?!?!?! Gawd.
788. CalGal - March 30, 1998 - 1:07 PM PDT
Hexham--????
PP--psychobabble or not, I betcha it's true.
789. PsychProf - March 30, 1998 - 1:07 PM PDT
Number 9...as long as it's not BabyDoc, as in despot...
790. 109109 - March 30, 1998 - 1:09 PM PDT
Cal
I know Hecate left. We burned brightly, however short (sigh).
Oh well. I'll still stack my Gershon/Pinkett dup up against Affleck/Damon anyday.
791. PsychProf - March 30, 1998 - 1:09 PM PDT
Cal....what if they were very attached to the values of their parents...